Wolter Kaper

A Three-Phase Design for Productive Use of Analogy in the Teaching of Entropy

Gentner has described analogy as a mapping of terms from a base (better known) domain to a target domain. She asserts that use of analogy can lead to new conclusions in the target domain. This ‘structure mapping’ theory, though useful, does not yet describe the process of analogical reasoning. We will argue that an analogy can be used productively in a process that has two phases: first, constructing the analogy using existing knowledge of base and target domains, and second, extrapolating the analogy within the target domain. In the first phase object mapping is motivated by the recognition of mappable relations. In the second phase, the productive use of the analogy can involve creation of both new terms and relations, as a result of mapping existing terms and relations from the base domain. If analogies are to be understood critically, then a third phase might be the testing of new relations against learners’ experience. This three-phase process description of analogy has been tried out in a teaching experiment that aimed at an understanding of entropy, by an analogy to falling water. We conclude that this three-phase description is useful.

On the Methodology of ‘Phenomenography’ As A Science Education Research Tool

The contributors to this symposium have performed phenomenographic research in different projects. Their epistemology as well as their philosophy of science did more or less differ. It was the scope of this symposium to discuss whether this can be an obstacle or may lead to fruitful debates. After brief descriptions on the methodology of the research performed, 3 questions were discussed: (a) Is it appropriate to“borrow” and use phenomenography methods in non-phenomenological research contexts? (b) Is it justifiable to substitute the term ‘experience’ used in phenomenography by ‘understanding’, or ‘conception’? (c) How can we secure validity of phenomenographic research?