Integrating Analogy into Scientific Modeling for Students’ Active Learning in Chemistry Education

Abstract

Although active learning places more responsibility and emphasizes the learners themselves, as compared to the traditional learning approach, teaching guidance is still essential in the active learning environment. In most chemistry classes, students are provided with limited opportunities to explore the atomic structures at the sub-microscopic level or participate in learning activities. To address these issues, an effective teaching approach enabling students’ active learning called “Analogy integrated Scientific Modeling” (AiSM) has been proposed with the aim of facilitating students’ learning of abstract chemistry concepts. This chapter introduces how AiSM approach is integrated into chemistry class and promotes students to understand the atomic structure. The chapter starts with a theoretical background, which consists of analogy in teaching the atomic structure, the scientific modeling, and the AiSM approach. Subsequently, two lesson exemplars illustrate how the analogy and the scientific modeling can get integrated into a chemistry class. Last, the initial results of a pilot study are discussed to demonstrate the effects and benefits of the AiSM approach on promoting students’ active learning in chemistry classes.

1. Introduction

One of the primary purposes of science education is to improve students’ conceptual understanding of science. Eliminating student misconceptions is always the priority of science educators and researchers. The scientifically inaccurate understanding of conceptions referring to misconceptions has become an obstacle to students’ learning process [1, 2]. Moreover, it is widely perceived that the students taught by a typical, teacher-centered approach are unable to integrate their knowledge and thinking critically or creatively, resulting in their lower learning achievement and common misconceptions [3, 4, 5]. Consequently, the traditional approach, according to which the teacher acts as an information provider and the students as passive recipients, appears to be antiquated. Recently, the active learning approaches, which enable students to participate in their classes actively, have begun to gain traction to assist students in becoming meaningful learners [3, 6]. Being involved in the active learning process, the students can effectively develop their new understanding and make connections with the previously gained knowledge, which will assist them in gaining further understanding of certain issues [7, 8]. This is accomplished through active learning, which requires higher-order thinking skills and engages students in the learning activities [9]. Therefore, it is meaningful to facilitate students to develop an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the scientific concepts through active learning.

Some chemical concepts, in particular, are regarded as abstract and difficult to comprehend, which may lead to misunderstandings. One of these chemistry concepts is the “atomic structure.” Many studies have shown that students found atomic concepts challenging to grasp, especially for the concept of atomic structure, and tend to develop alternative ideas instead [10]. It is mainly because the atom is a type of matter in the sub-microscopic world whose structure cannot be observed directly. Furthermore, students have few opportunities to investigate the atomic structures at the sub-microscopic level, and also the strategies which could assist them in learning the properties of atomic models are few and far between [10, 11]. Thus, building an active learning environment will be valuable for the students to explore these abstract concepts and enhance their scientific understanding by eliminating common misconceptions.

Scientific models and modeling are significantly and pedagogically beneficial in chemistry learning [12, 13, 14, 15]. Scientific models are usually used to represent a scientific phenomenon employing different forms, such as analogies [16]. Scientific modeling is crucial in scientific inquiry for generating and evaluating hypotheses and describing natural phenomena. It also plays a crucial role in developing new scientific knowledge [17]. Scientific modeling has been largely neglected in the traditional school curriculum, being reduced to either an explanatory tool for strengthening lectures [18] or simulations, in which students have very little authority for developing their models [4]. Teaching with analogies is an approach, in which teachers help students conduct analogies for understanding the specific content by recognizing the analogy’s coherence with the target concept. However, according to some observations, an analogy was sometimes inappropriately designed and implemented, thus failing to generate the intended outcome [19, 20]. Due to these reasons, a new pedagogical and instructional design framework, namely the “Analogy integrated Scientific Modeling” (AiSM), has been promoted as a more comprehensive way of integrating analogies into the scientific modeling process in chemistry classes.

This chapter focuses on introducing and discussing the theoretical background of the AiSM approach. And a pilot study is presented to verify the effects of AiSM on students’ conceptual understanding of the atomic structure in chemistry classes. The study will inform the design and development of effective teaching approaches for promoting active learning in science education.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Using analogies to teach atomic structure

According to the outlook on the chemistry education adopted by Sarantopoulos and Tsaparlis [21], an analogy could be defined as a system of relations between the parts of two particular domains, namely the analog and the target (i.e., the familiar domain being the analog, and the unfamiliar one being the target). In chemistry education, using analogies may help students understand the new concepts by building upon their familiar experiences or prior knowledge. For example, one commonly used analogy is “the atom being like a tiny solar system.” In this case, the spatial and dynamic features of the sun and the surrounding planets are analogous to those of the atomic nucleus and the electrons. To unfold this relationship, an atom is composed of a nucleus and electrons, which travel outside the nucleus rapidly. This is identified as a target concept in the learning process. In the analogy of the solar system, the sun is being compared to the nucleus, while the electrons are being compared to the planets. This analogy helps students understand the relationship between the atomic components and their respective locations.

Most analogies relate to the empirical phenomena, among others, the key functional relations involving causes and their consequences [22]. The analogy presents a new explanation for the occurrence of various phenomena by transferring knowledge about the causal relations, which then enables the further transfer of knowledge when applied to the new situations [22, 23]. According to the principles of constructivism, students could learn new, complex, or even abstract concepts by incorporating the new information into the pre-existing knowledge by use of analogies. This should help students to develop a conceptual understanding and, in turn, reduce their cognitive load. Since one of the challenges of learning about the atomic structure is that the atom is sub-microscopic matter and cannot be observed directly, teachers and educators usually develop analogies to illustrate and visualize the key features of atomic concepts using the reference to the real-world scenarios [23, 24, 25]. This teaching method entails drawing on students’ prior knowledge and experience to facilitate their understanding. In the secondary education curriculum, the atomic concepts usually include the atomic and quantum theories, the atomic structure, the periodic table, and the chemical bond (in the curriculum of some countries). Table 1 presents some examples of analogies used in the teaching practices.

Target concept	Analogies	Relationship between the targeted concept and the analogies
Dalton atomic theory	Round symbol	A combination of symbols used to represent the simple compounds.
Tomson atomic model	Pudding model or Raisin cake model	Electrons are evenly distributed among the atoms.
Rutherford atomic Model	Nuclear model or Solar system model”	An atom consists of a positively charged nucleus situated in the center, where the electrons are moving around in a high-speed motion.
Bohr atomic model	Quantum atom model	The electrons move in a high-speed motion around the nucleus, in a certain orbit.
Atomic structure; Electrons Neutrons Nuclei Electronic arrangement	Solar system	The nucleus and the planet are analogous to the sun and the electron, respectively.
Atomic orbital and electronic configuration; Electronic cloud Energy layer level Energy level Electronic transition Ground state Excited state	Bookshelf Stairs	The height of the bookshelf is analogous to the energy level. The change of potential energy in climbing stairs is analogous to the change of electron energy.
Periodic table; Structure of the periodic table Regularity of elements with the same period and same main group Nuclides and isotopes	Teacher and students in the classroom	Teachers are analogous to nuclei, attractive to students (analogous to electrons), most attractive to students in the front row, and least attractive to students in the last row.
Chemical bond; Electronic formula Covalent compound Ionic compound	Magnets	The interaction between the north and south poles of the magnet is similar to the interaction between the positive and negative charges.

Table 1.

Using the analogies to teach the unit of atomic structure.

However, a closer look at these analogies reveals that they may have their limitations as teaching tools. Each analogy has certain elements that the teacher intends for the students to focus on and use to understand the new concepts. However, some elements of the analogy are inappropriate for the target concepts. For example, everything external to the solar system is driven by its central star, whereas everything external to the atom is driven by the outermost orbitals and their electrons. If the students do not distinguish the difference between the analogy and the target concepts, they may develop new misunderstandings regarding these concepts. Therefore, it is suggested students use only appropriate portions of the analogy during the teaching process [21]. It is also necessary to highlight the relationship between the target and the analogy with a proper scientific explanation [22].

Recently, Gray and Holyoak summarized five principles of an analogical approach based on the research in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience [22]. These five principles include [1] capitalizing on the prior knowledge, [2] highlighting the shared structure, [3] explaining the connections between the semantic information and the mathematical operations, [4] considering the cognitive load, and [5] encouraging the generation of inferences. This approach was proposed to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems encountered in the analogy instruction [26]. Moreover, it provided a framework for better guiding the application of an analogy in the classroom settings, to foster greater conceptual understanding and transfer.

2.2 Mental models and GEM scientific Modeling

2.2.1 Mental models

According to Johnson-Laird [27], learners construct internal cognitive representations, or mental models, during their interaction with the environment, artifacts, technology, or communities. A mental model can be defined as a form of organizing knowledge employing representing objects, states of affairs, sequences of events, ways of the world, or the social and psychological actions of daily life [28]. There is growing recognition that mental models are the reasoning tools for both scientists and students in science [29]. The mental models help us make predictions and develop causal explanations between variables [30]. For instance, when students were asked which model was more appropriate for describing the structure of an atom, they chose the Rutherford model and the Bohr model, which could both be considered mental models. This example shows that a mental model is not always a scientific one - it can be analogical, partial, or fragmentary [31], but it can be changed and revised through the learning process.

2.2.2 GEM scientific models

One of the objectives of science education is to make students think about the natural world as a scientist [32]. Therefore, a teaching approach based on the scientific modeling was proposed and developed with the aim of urging the students to build, contest, and ultimately change their knowledge of how the world works, as scientific modeling is one of the main approaches adopted by scientists to investigate and explain the natural world. This approach requires selecting and identifying the relevant aspects of a given, real-world situation and subsequently developing different types of models for different goals to better understand, manipulate, or predict a particular phenomenon [33, 34].

Several scientific modeling-based strategies reported in the literature have involved students in the interactive modeling processes [35, 36, 37, 38, 39]. This chapter adopted the GEM (Generate, Evaluate, and Modify) approach [28], designed to develop students’ scientific understanding of chemistry through scientific modeling. At the beginning of the GEM modeling process, with due consideration given to the students’ pre-existing knowledge, the teacher provides background knowledge or a set of information and asks students to generate the relations between variables in the mentioned context. In the evaluation process, the teacher provides some additional evidence or new information to the students, who would then evaluate and explain the reasons for the relations, which developed in the generation process. Finally, based on the evaluation results, the teacher encourages the students to modify the relations between the variables or solve the new cases, if necessary. The GEM approach is applicable to numerous empirical studies [28, 40], in which students’ mental models are represented by some external forms, such as drawings, concept maps, computer simulations, or animations. Furthermore, these studies suggest that students’ prolonged participation in the GEM cycle could help them achieve the goals of the critical learning process in chemistry.

2.3 AiSM approach for promoting active learning

Some recent work has focused on the role of analogies in building and revising mental models [28, 41, 42]. AiSM is a teaching approach for promoting students’ active learning through the integration of analogy into GEM scientific modeling. In AiSM pedagogical approach, the analogies could result in the mental models being manipulated and transformed as a part of the GEM process. The analogy, treated as an external representation of a mental model, can provide explanatory power for making sense of the familiar (analogy) and the unfamiliar (transfer target). The analogy can be represented in various forms, such as texts, pictures, videos, verbal examples, and computer simulations [28].

In this section, the interaction between the analogies, the mental models, and the modeling is further clarified. Figure 1 shows the mechanism of AiSMT. In the process of developing mental models, students have to evaluate and integrate the new information into their existing metacognitive framework. When the analogies are used at the beginning of the teaching process, they may help students generate an imperfect preliminary model (M1), which is later “evaluated (M2) and modified (M3)”. An analogy may also be used at critical points in the subsequent modeling process (GEM) to provide the missing aspects for the target concepts or the scientific phenomena.

Figure 1.

A theoretical framework for integrating analogy into the GEM scientific modeling.

Regarding the scientific modeling process, the literature has shown that scientific modeling can be enacted through different processes [42]. These include other modeling processes, such as model construction, model use, model revision, model comparison, and model validation analysis [43], all of which are interactive and do not require the presence of all the other processes in each cycle/iteration [42]. However, the empirical studies reported that novice modelers encountered numerous challenges when taking over a modeling task or other related activities [42, 44]. Figure 1 presents a relatively simple way of including the three modeling processes: a linear teaching sequence following the GEM or an interactive or cyclical process.

Selecting a pattern for the scientific modeling is determined by the complexity of the modeling task or the target concept. It is important to stress that the modeling, including at least three of these processes, could ensure a meaningful construction of the students’ mental models [44]. Thus, active learning may happen when using an internal mental model of a construction process stands in contrast to the direct transmission process. Active learning requires learning by mentally developing or processing information, using construction and criticism rather than listening, and is reflected in an integrated knowledge schema. Teachers could judge whether the students’ mental models are scientific through an external representation, such as the analogy, and thus help students construct knowledge by providing them with new information. The theoretical framework proposed in this study is hopefully applicable to the lower educational level or less complex modeling tasks, as well as the novice teachers without modeling experience.

3. The application of AiSMT and AT into chemistry learning and teaching: Lesson design and Pilot study

3.1 Lesson design

Based on the above literature review, this section presents two lesson exemplars centered around analogy-based teaching (AT) and analogy-integrated scientific modeling teaching (AiSMT), both based on a case of the atomic structure taught in the local Taiwan chemistry curriculum. The learning objectives are (1) the scientific knowledge (learning about the history of atom discovery and understanding the concepts of the atomic structure, the spectrum, the atomic orbital, the electronic configuration, the periodic table, and the chemical bond formation following the lessons) and (2) the scientific abilities (for 10th graders, students should have the ability to “build models based upon the scientific problems or by means of a group discussion and can use, for instance, “analogous or abstract” representations to describe a systematic scientific phenomenon, and then understand the limitations of the model (p. 32)” [45]. Both lesson exemplars had some common features, e.g., both teaching exemplars were based on constructivism, they employed analogical examples (see Table 1), and taught the same scientific concepts supported by digital technologies (e.g., PhET).

Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate the process of the AT and AiSMT respectively. The main differences between these two exemplars are (1) AiSMT engaging students in the scientific modeling process (GEM) of atomic structure by using the analogies with promoting multiple interactions between the students and the teacher. Therefore, the development of students’ mental models occurred during the process of collaborative construction between the students and the teachers. Regarding the AT, it is more straightforward, as it involved students compiling the information provided by the teacher to select the proper analogies, which they later used to construct the mental models. (2) The other difference is that the AT asked students to consider the relationship between the analogies and one single target concept (atomic structure), whereas the AiSMT encouraged students not just to think about a single target concept, but also to make a connection and a comparison between the other related target concepts (energy level, electron leap). (3) After the actual teaching for the whole unit of the atomic structure was implemented, it has been found that the AT took less teaching time than the AiSMT (7.5 h vs. 8.25 h).

Figure 2.

The flow of the analogy-based teaching (AT).

Figure 3.

The flow of the analogy-integrated, scientific modeling teaching (AiSMT).

3.2 Pilot study

A quasi-experimental design was implemented to compare the effects of the two instructional approaches, mainly the AT and the AiSMT, on the high school students regarding their understanding of the atomic structure, as presented in the Taiwanese chemistry curriculum. Two groups of participants, the AT group (n = 69), and the AiSMT group, (n = 68), with an average age of 15.6, were selected and engaged in a three-week teaching intervention. The two teachers, a female teacher (T1) with eight years of teaching experience in chemistry taught the AT group, and a male teacher (T2) with six years of teaching experience in chemistry taught the AiSMT group. Both teachers did not engage in any specific modeling-based teaching training. However, they had prior knowledge and experience of modeling-based teaching acquired during their teaching career.

To examine the effects of two instructional approaches on students’ conceptual understanding and compare the learning differences between the two instructional approaches, a pre, post, and delayed post-test design has been conducted. Meanwhile, to collect the data about teachers’ respective perspectives on the differently designed teaching approaches as well as their views on the students’ learning techniques, the teachers both observed each other’s classes during the experiment, and they were invited to participate in the semi-structured interviews after teaching (30 minutes per teacher).

A detailed description of the research design and the results can be found in the work of Xue et al. in 2022 [46]. In this book chapter, the key findings were briefly presented. The quantitative analysis of the pre-and post-test results has shown that, generally, both instructional approaches could significantly facilitate students’ content understanding in the field of atomic structure with a large effect size. This finding revealed the value of both instructional approaches in facilitating students’ active learning. By comparing the results at the post-test stage, it has been found that there was no significant difference in the content understanding between the two groups. However, the delayed post-test results provided evidence for the significantly lower effectiveness of the integrated modeling in terms of facilitating the content knowledge retention, as compared with the effect of the AT. The MAI group remembered and recalled the atomic concepts thoroughly and did better in the delayed post-test. This finding may result in the increased value of incorporating scientific modeling, which could further assist in the retention of scientific knowledge.

Both teachers agreed that the two instructional approaches were applicable and effective. They also shared their thoughts on each other’s approaches. T1, commenting on the AT, concluded that it was important to emphasize the analogy’s correspondence with the target concept in teaching, while not neglecting the analogy’s limits. She highlighted her positive attitude towards this innovative teaching method when she observed the AiSMT class. She found most students to be engaged in the conversation as well as the activities between the teachers and their peers. This has encouraged them to promote cognitive processing and activated their learning interest as a result. However, she also expressed some concerns. Firstly, she was concerned about the timing of the class, worrying that there would not always be enough teaching time to incorporate the modeling activities. Secondly, due to the fact that the modeling-based teaching entails a lot of questions and interactions, it may be stressful for some students and hard for some low-achievers, who have never engaged with any modeling or scientific inquiry. Thirdly, the application of modeling-based teaching requires a high level of competence, such as carefully developed instructional design, and providing relevant supporting resources, such as computer simulations and background information, which may be a challenging task for some novel teachers. T2, who implemented the modeling-based teaching, said that adapting the GEM approach is beneficial for the students who need to constantly reflect upon, analyze, and revise their mental models. In terms of the teacher’s role, he said, the following: “I need to have a deep and comprehensive understanding of the scientific concepts which I taught. In addition, I should keep in mind related concepts students may have some misunderstandings about, in order to eliminate them by means of the modeling process”. What was worth noting is his remark on the modeling activities, which apparently did not take up the entire class time but were rather directed at the selection of the suitable teaching elements or concepts. He ended up by summarizing the three criteria for selecting concepts to be used in the modeling-based teaching: target concepts, which have constituent aspects or variables; the possibility of integrating them with the students’ life experiences; and the history of the used development and/or evolution being a scientific one.

4. Discussion, conclusions, and implications

This study presented a literature review that discussed the related theory and principle of using analogy and scientific modeling in teaching the atomic structure. A new pedagogical approach, AiSM, has been promoted with the aim of integrating the analogy into the scientific modeling process (GEM) in chemistry education. Two lesson exemplars were designed to show the uses of the AT and the AiSM in active learning. The empirical study has shown that the two teaching approaches proved to be effective in promoting students’ content understanding. Both teaching approaches had an equal effect in enhancing students’ understanding. These results are aligned with the studies, which reported the positive effects of analogy and scientific modeling and the equally positive effect on students’ learning improvement [21, 36, 47]. However, the result, which has not been previously described is the students who engaged in modeling outperformed the non-modeling group [40, 48].

The new finding was found that modeling-based teaching could maintain longer memory and a better understanding of the content being taught among the students. Hofstadter’s interpretation of the cognitive processes explains the reason behind the effectiveness of enhancing retention of content understanding by the use of modeling [49]. According to Hofstadter, cognition is mediated by continual processes until a long-term memory node is accessed. Once this is done, cognition gets transferred to a short-memory node where it is unpacked to some degree. This allows for the new structures to be perceived, and the ensuing high-level perceptual act activates the further nodes, which, in turn, are being accessed, transferred, unpacked, etc. (p. 517). Modeling-based instruction is very much in line with the cognitive processes described above. Following the GEM approach implemented in this study, students were leveraged with prior knowledge and experience to develop models of the target concept. They were subsequently evaluated and revised the initial model in accordance with the newly provided information. The modified model was applied to the new contexts and situations, so it could be further improved upon. These constant processes of reflection and improvement could mediate the development of the mental models, which in turn could enhance their fitness and correspondence to the outside world [50].

From the data collected in the interview, the two chemistry teachers who participated in this study recognized the value of analogy and scientific modeling in the development of students’ mental models. The dilemmas and challenges of implementing the modeling-based teaching, such as being difficult to control and time-demanding, were found to be consistent with the earlier research [47]. However, the teachers’ reflections on the integrated modeling are another worthwhile aspect of this study. The previous research presented the complexity of modeling-based teaching and the strategies for promoting competence using it [28, 51]. This study resulted in the implications of the integrated modeling being learned from the evidence of teachers’ empirical application. It could be concluded by listing the four positive aspects of applying modeling-based teaching in the formal school curriculum. These would include selecting the targeted scientific concepts or phenomena along with variables, elements, or factors, combing them with learners’ life experiences, and finally choosing concepts with the history of scientific evolution and reasoning.

This study adds to the ongoing conversation on the use of analogy and scientific modeling in chemistry education and contributes empirical evidence in order to justify the use of analogies and modeling as a means of improving the content understanding among students. It is advised that integrating the analogies into the scientific modeling can be achieved in the future classes, provided that the combination of the more science-specific content would be used. Moreover, the appropriate and cautious design for use of the analogy and modeling should be considered by the teachers. Future research could focus on the teachers’ professional development of lesson design for analogy-based scientific modeling in science education.