Perspectives In Learning

Volume 19 Number 1 Article 6

7-9-2021

Analogy co-construction as a learning strategy in life-span development classes

Joseph A. Mayo Gordon State College, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://csuepress.columbusstate.edu/pil

Part of the Psychology Commons, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons

Recommended Citation Mayo, J. A. (2021). Analogy co-construction as a learning strategy in life-span development classes. Perspectives In Learning, 19 (1). Retrieved from https://csuepress.columbusstate.edu/pil/vol19/iss1/6

This Research is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at CSU ePress. It has been accepted for inclusion in Perspectives In Learning by an authorized editor of CSU ePress. MAYO

Analogy Co-Construction as a Learning Strategy in Life-Span Development Classes

Joseph A. Mayo Gordon State College

Abstract

Analogies are commonplace heuristic tools in classrooms across all educational levels and content areas. In the present investigation, analogy-enhanced learning was examined in relation to conceptual applications of major developmental theories in undergraduate life-span development classes. To this end, systematic comparisons were undertaken between a learning condition in which individual students created their own analogies and a learning condition involving analogy co- construction as generated by small groups of students working cooperatively. On all quantitative and qualitative measures, results favored group co-construction of analogies over self-generated analogy creation. Findings are discussed in terms of social-constructivist and transformative-learning principles.

As famed Greek philosopher Literature Review Aristotle wrote centuries ago, analogies imply an intuitive understanding of the Analogies have a long history as similarities in dissimilar ideas (Else, 1957). explanatory tools in making classroom Applied to teaching and learning, analogies learning more active and applied. In fact, allow students to compare topics with which early reports in the teaching literature show they are already familiar to new topics so that that educators have relied on analogies in the they can gain a better understanding of this classroom for more than half a century new information. In this sense, analogies (Heese, 1966; Oppenheimer, 1956). By serve a conduit function in facilitating prefacing their explanations with analogous transfer of learning between old and new expressions, such as “Likewise,” “Similarly,” understandings (Reddy, 1993). Throughout and “Just as,” teachers have incorporated this cognitive-bridging process, learners are analogies into their teaching repertoire able to come to terms with both similarity and (Glynn, Law, & Doster, 1998). dissimilarity relationships between conceptualizations that are being compared. Across all educational levels and Like a camera, for example, the human eye content areas, teachers have used analogies to can discriminate shades of color, judge size, present both tangible principles and abstract register depth perception, and see movement. models and to bridge the gap between novel Unlike the camera, however, the human eye information and knowledge already can capture a three-dimensional image, has entrenched in long-term memory (see blind spots, and does have a set focal length Vendetti, Matlen, Richland, & Bunge, 2015). in relation to its lens (Amit, 2009). Most of the research on the pedagogical impact of analogical reasoning involves analogies created by teachers and textbook authors to introduce new concepts to their

56 MAYO

students (Mayo, 2001). In science education, analogies, which can permit a deeper and the literature offers examples of teacher- more personalized understanding of the generated analogies that relate successfully to connections between source and target when students’ life experiences. For instance, students possess sufficient entry-level Pinto (1998) used relative size of balls from understanding of the underlying principle different sports to model variation of atomic shared by both (Mayo, 2001). sizes. Though considerably less extensive than the literature in the natural and physical Analogies can facilitate transitions sciences, reports within the social and between progressively sophisticated mental behavioral sciences also describe the use of constructs once students have a clear sense of analogies for conceptualizing abstract what they already know (Kaufman, Patel, & theories and models. As an illustration, Magder, 1996). However, students whose Wegner (1995) proposed a computer network background knowledge is incomplete or model of human transactive memory that inaccurate cannot be counted on to create compares the formation of computer appropriate analogies on their own. In the networks to the manner in which individual absence of well-defined prior knowledge of human memory systems are linked into group the subject matter, Wong (1993b) measured memory systems. the capacity of undergraduate students to advance their conceptual understanding of Providing students with opportunities scientific phenomena through the process of to make comparisons between newly and individually creating, applying, and previously learned concepts supports the modifying their own analogies. He viewed processes involved in analogical reasoning the new inferences and insights gained by (Richland & Simms, 2015). When presented these students as generative, “where with more than one concept, students who conceptual growth emerges from continual engage in analogical comparison have been refinement and synthesis of fragmented, shown to discover the principles that are incomplete knowledge” (Wong, 1993b, pp. common to both ideas (Genter, 2010; 1259-1260). In a related experiment, Wong Holyoak, 2012) and to transfer these shared (1993a) also assessed conceptual change in relationships from unfamiliar examples undergraduates who not only developed, but (Orton, Anggoro, & Jee, 2012). Analogical also evaluated and modified a series of self- comparisons can be used not only to uncover generated analogies for explaining scientific similarities between concepts, but also to phenomena. Once again, he observed reveal differences between them (Mayo, “nontrivial changes in explanation … [that] 2019; Sagi, Gentner, & Lovett, 2012). In ranged from the emergence of new classroom practice, however, teacher- explanations to the raising of important generated analogies sometimes fall short in questions about the nature of the phenomena” identifying similarity and difference (Wong, 1993a, p. 367). Taken together, relationships between familiar (source) and Wong’s (1993a, 1993b) investigations unfamiliar (target) concepts. In addition to demonstrate that individually conceived, the fact that students may not comprehend the generative analogies foster evolving, source concept properly, they may be unable dynamic representations throughout the to compare features of the source and target process of understanding concepts. successfully (Mayo, 2010). As a possible remedy to these problems, students may be In order to foster analogy-enhanced asked to generate and apply their own learning in the field of developmental

57 MAYO

psychology, analogies have been used to to illustrate each theory as a means of depict the nature of human development. In a comparing teacher-generated analogy widely adopted text for teaching life-span learning to a control condition in which development, Santrock (1999) discussed the students wrote 200-word synopses pertaining prevalence of three competing to the major features of each theory. To developmental analogies: (1) a staircase; (2) demonstrate one of these teacher-generated a seedling in a greenhouse; and (3) a strand analogies, “The core of personality of ivy in a forest. The staircase analogy development is like a dark and murky cavern (Case, 1992) symbolizes the component full of sinister shadows” was used to portray processes evident in the stage theories Freud’s (1940/1970) perspective that proposed by Sigmund Freud (1940/1970), personality development is governed chiefly Erik Erikson (1968), Jean Piaget by the unconscious. The teacher- (1926/1959), and others. From these stage experimenter intended the dark and sinister perspectives, human development is implications to characterize Freud’s largely represented as a discontinuous process of pessimistic view of human nature that qualitative change that takes place over underscores the controlling influence of alternating developmental peaks and lower-level instincts. Students were asked to plateaus. In contrast, the seedling-in-the- relate each teacher-generated analogy to one greenhouse analogy (Kagan, 1992) embodies or more developmental theories that it best John B. Watson’s (1930/1967) and B. F. fit, offering a well-conceived written Skinner’s (1953) behavioral viewpoint in rationale for each of their choices. which developmental changes are learned as individuals are acted upon by their In the second study of this two-part environments. Lastly, the strand-of-ivy-in-a- report (Mayo, 2001), systematic comparisons forest analogy (Kagan, 1992) invokes Urie were undertaken between learning conditions Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory based on teacher- versus student-generated that stresses the importance of sociocultural analogies. As a parallel student-composed and contextual factors in human comparison to the teacher-experimenter’s development. In accordance with this previous Freudian analogy, one student wrote approach, the ever-widening systems that that “Freud’s view of the structures and support individual development occur at functions of human personality is similar to interconnected environmental levels that the multilayered earth of an inactive volcanic proceed from familial and community mountain.” In this analogy, the student structures (microsystem) to overarching compared the layering of volcanic rock to the patterns of broader cultural variables positioning of the unconscious deeply (macrosystem). beneath the surface of the conscious mind. Just as an inactive volcano may erupt after a Present Study’s Background and Purpose period of dormancy, the same occurs in the human subconscious when repressed In a prior two-experiment report, the traumatic issues rise to the forefront of the effect of analogical reasoning was examined conscious mind. in teaching undergraduates the conceptual applications of leading developmental Overall findings from these theories in the context of life-span aforementioned experiments (Mayo, 2001) development classes (Mayo, 2001). In the showed that students experiencing analogy- first experiment, analogies were formulated enhanced learning (either teacher- or self-

58 MAYO

generated in nature) were better able to apply Methods these developmental theories when compared to learning without analogical components. Participants Also, students in the teacher-generated- analogy learning condition were Participants were 113 college academically outperformed by students who freshmen and sophomores (i.e., 74 females individually generated and recorded their and 39 males) completing one of four own analogies in a cumulative record of sections of an introductory course in life-span similarities and differences between source development. Their ages ranged from 17 to and target concepts. The dependent measure 46 years (M = 24.83). Approximately 93% of associated with these findings derived from participants were nursing or other allied- students’ scores on comparable, 50-item, health majors. The remaining participants multiple-choice tests administered in were spread among psychology, sociology, respective learning conditions, each and teacher education majors. emphasizing conceptual-application questions that represented major Design developmental theories. An independent two-group quasi- Based on the results of the previous experimental design was used to compare investigation (Mayo, 2001), it is known that participants’ academic performance in two conceptual understanding is encouraged learning conditions. In the self-generated through analogy-enhanced learning, analogy (SGA) condition, individual students particularly when students work individually formulated their own analogies. In the to generate their own analogies. This report analogy co-construction (ACC) condition, was the first to draw systematic comparisons students worked together in small groups to between teacher- and student-generated co-create their analogies. Over two analogies as part of the same study. The consecutive semesters, intact classes were research literature has been subsequently assigned randomly to either the SGA (n = 55) absent of other empirical investigations with or ACC (n = 58) condition. There were no an emphasis on comparing varying appreciable differences between conditions conditions of analogy-enhanced learning. based on age, gender, college GPA, and SAT The present study was intended to help fill and/or ACT performance. this gap in the literature. More specifically, the focus of the current experiment was to Procedures explore the pedagogical efficacy of group- based analogy co-construction in terms of At the start of the semester, all conceptual applications of major participants received preliminary lecture- developmental theories. It was predicted that based instruction on conceptual foundations students who experienced analogy co- of the following seven, prominent construction would demonstrate greater developmental theories: ethological, mastery of these developmental theories than contextual, psychodynamic, learning, students who work on their own to construct cognitive, humanistic, and sociocultural. The self-generated analogies. experimenter served as the instructor in both learning conditions. Moreover, all investigation-related assignments were completed in class with an equal amount of

59 MAYO

time allotted to assignment completion 2001), questions were selected from test- between conditions. Except for differing bank items to minimize the possibility of exposures to analogy-enhanced learning, experimenter effects during exam creation. In every effort was taken to keep course content the dual interest of test security and alternate- and other pertinent learning variables form test reliability, appropriate care was constant between conditions. exercised in matching questions on content and level of difficulty in the process of In the SGA condition, individual selecting items for random inclusion on two students created and recorded their own different-but-equivalent exam versions (one analogies and accompanying justifications to for each condition). The results of an represent each of the seven developmental independent-groups t-test showed that theories previously discussed. In contrast, students in the ACC condition (M = 85.79; students in the ACC condition worked in SD = 7.97) significantly outperformed instructor-preassigned groups of three or four students in the SGA condition (M = 82.33; individuals to formulate and record analogies SD = 9.46), t(111) = 2.11, p < .05. and associated justifications to portray these same developmental theories. Once assigned A brief questionnaire was used to to their corresponding groups, students were assess students’ perceptions of completing asked to select individuals to serve in flexible corresponding assignments in the SGA and and rotating capacities of facilitator, recorder, ACC learning conditions. Within this survey and other defined roles. As opposed to the instrument, each of the following five items SGA learning condition in which each was linked to a five-point Likert-type scale student worked individually and was graded with anchors at 1 (not helpful) and 5 (very accordingly, all students working together helpful): (1) stimulating engagement in within a given group in the ACC condition learning; (2) facilitating understanding of were assigned the same grade for completing course content; (3) increasing motivation to the required assignment. In both learning learn; (4) promoting intellectual challenge; conditions, the submission date for and (5) fostering interest in the subject corresponding written assignments took matter. Across all measures, students in the place during the week prior to a follow-up ACC condition rated more positively the exam that counted as 10% of the final-grade experience of completing their analogy- average. In each instance, respective written based learning assignment. Students’ assignments also constituted 10% of the final numerical ratings are shown in Table 1. grade. Viewed as a whole, the present Results and Discussion findings concerning analogy co-construction are consistent with the basic tenet of social The dependent measure was similar constructivism that casts learners as social to the measure that was used in the preceding beings who create knowledge in dialogue report (Mayo, 2001). As an objective with others (Perkins, 1999). Building on the measure of learning gains in each condition, fundamental underpinnings of social an exam was administered that consisted of constructivist theory, Bruner (1996) used the 50 scenario-based, conceptually applied, term community of learners to describe a multiple-choice questions tied to the targeted classroom milieu where students work developmental theories. Using procedures together to encourage learning. This stance that were followed in the prior report (Mayo, favors the pedagogical efficacy of classroom

60 MAYO

Table 1 as a means of co-discovering knowledge, a collective and learner-driven process Students’ Numerical Ratings of Analogy- emerged that promoted deep and long-lasting Based Assignments in the Self-Generated learning and knowledge acquisition (Willox Analogy (SGA) and Analogy Co- et al., 2010). construction (ACC) Learning Conditions SGA ACC Current findings indicated that

(n = 55) (n = 58) cognitive advancement unfolds through Questionnaire interactions among students involving their M SD M SD Item arrival at shared understandings. These Stimulating findings, in turn, relate to co-regulated engagement in 3.41 0.68 4.52 0.77 coordination (Raeff & Mascolo, 1996) as a learning social constructivist conception that helps to Facilitating explain how learners progress together understanding through joint activity. In the words of 3.89 0.82 4.74 0.53 of course Mascolo et al. (1997), “Co-regulated content coordination occurs at the intersection of Increasing personal and social processes ... [where] motivation to 3.24 1.04 4.16 0.91 individuals transform jointly produced learn meanings in terms of their existing skills and Promoting meanings” (p. 21). intellectual 3.55 0.46 4.43 0.63 challenge On a theoretical level, the present results Fostering on analogy co-construction coincide with interest in the 3.68 0.85 4.31 0.49 transformative learning paradigms subject matter (Mezirow, 1991; O’Sullivan, Morrell, & O’Connor, 2002) that point to the efficacy of environments designed for students to create active knowledge co-creation. Considering shared knowledge as a means of “socially the findings of the current investigation, these shaping, modifying, and broadening the learning models can be broadened in practice perspectives of individual learners” (Clark, to include a formally structured process of 1998, p. 93). In such classroom settings, group interaction among students that knowledge construction may result more culminates in shared understandings. from social processes occurring among Because arriving at an optimal number of individuals than from personal processes students to assign to classroom work groups occurring within individuals (Mascolo, is crucial to the success of any cooperative Craig-Bray, & Neimeyer, 1997). The learning assignment (Mayo, 2013), future classroom workings of a community of research might focus on systematically undergraduate learners were observed in the varying the number of students assigned to present investigation. Relying on anecdotal analogy co-construction groups [e.g., two classroom evidence (i.e., students’ critical versus three or four as used in the present reflections) with a graduate student audience, investigation versus five or more as comparable results also were found. More employed by Willox et al. (2010)] to specifically, when a group of six graduate determine whether comparative performance students in the interdisciplinary field of differences might emerge. capacity development co-created metaphor

61 MAYO

References Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Analogical and relational reasoning. In K. J. Amit, N. (2009). Difference between eye Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), and camera. Received from The Oxford handbook of thinking http://www.differencebetween.net/sc and reasoning (pp. 234-259). New ience/difference-between-eye-and- York, NY: Oxford University Press. camera/ Kagan, J. (1992). Yesterday’s premises, Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of tomorrow’s promises. human development: Experiments by Developmental Psychology, 28, 990- nature and design. Cambridge, MA: 997. Harvard University Press. Kaufman, D. R., Patel, V. L., & Magder, S. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of A. (1996). The explanatory role of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard spontaneously generated analogies in University Press. reasoning about physiological Case, R. (Ed.). (1992). The mind’s staircase: concepts. International Journal of Stages in the development of human Science Education, 18, 369-386. intelligence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Mascolo, M. F., Craig-Bray, L., & Clark, C. M. (1998). Hello learners: Living Neimeyer, R. A. (1997). The social constructivism. Teaching construction of meaning and action Education, 10, 89-110. in development and psychotherapy: Else, G. F. (Trans.) (1957). Aristotle’s An epigenetic systems perspective. poetics: The argument. Cambridge, In G. J. Neimeyer & R. A. Neimeyer MA: Harvard University Press. (Eds.), Advances in Personal Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and Construct Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 3- society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. 38). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press. W. Norton. Mayo, J. A. (2001). Using analogies to teach Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and conceptual applications of crisis. New York, NY: Norton. developmental theories. Journal of Freud, S. (1970). An outline of Constructivist Psychology, 14, 187- psychoanalysis (J. Strachey, Ed. and 213. Trans.). New York, NY: Norton. Mayo, J. A. (2010). Constructing (Original work published 1940) undergraduate psychology curricula: Genter, D. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: Promoting authentic learning and Analogical processes and symbol assessment in the teaching of systems. Cognitive Science, 34, 752- psychology. Washington, DC: 775. American Psychological Glynn, S. M., Law, M., & Doster, E. C. Association. (1998). Making text meaningful: The Mayo, J. A. (2013). Socially constructed role of analogies. In C. R. Hynd knowledge: Using cooperative (Ed.), Learning from text across learning in assessment instruction. conceptual domains (pp. 193-208). Journal of Pedagogy and the Human Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sciences, 3, 50-60. Hesse, M. B. (1966). Models and analogies Mayo, J. A. (2019). Analogy-enhanced in science. Notre Dame, IN: pedagogy: Class activities to engage University of Notre Dame Press. students in learning. In D. Domizi (Ed.), Engaged student learning:

62 MAYO

Essays on best practices in the Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. University System of Georgia (Vol. 164-201). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 1). Received from University Press. http://www.usg.edu/facultydevelopm Richland, L. E., & Simms, N. (2015). ent/ Analogy, higher-order thinking, and Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative education. WIREs: Cognitive dimensions of adult learning. San Science, 6, 177-192. Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sagi, E., Genter, D., & Lovett, A. (2012). Oppenheimer, R. (1956). Analogy in What difference reveals about science. American Psychologist, 11, similarity. Cognitive Science, 36, 127-135. 1019-1050. O’Sullivan, E., Morrell, A., & O’Connor, M. Santrock, J. W. (1999). Life-span (Eds.). (2002). Expanding the development (7th ed.). Boston, MA: boundaries of transformative McGraw-Hill. learning: Essays on theory and Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human praxis. Toronto, ON: Palgrave behavior. New York, NY: MacMillan. Macmillan. Orton, J. M., Anggoro, F. K., & Jee, B. D. Vendetti, M. S., Matlen, B. J., Richland, L. (2012). Mutual alignment E., & Bunge, S. A. (2015). comparison facilitates abstraction Analogical reasoning in the and transfer of a complex scientific classroom: Insights from cognitive concept. Educational Studies, 38, science. Mind, Brain, and Education, 473-477. 9, 100-106. Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of Watson, J. B. (1967). Behaviorism (rev. ed.). constructivism. Educational Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Leadership, 57, 6-11. Press. (Original work published Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought 1930) of the child (3rd ed.). (M. Gabain and Wegner, D. M. (1995). A computer network R. Gabain, Trans.). London, UK: model of human transactive memory. Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Original Social Cognition, 13, 319-339. work published 1926) Willox, A. C., Harper, S. L., Bridger, D., Pinto, G. (1998). Using balls from different Morton, S., Orbach, A., & Sarapura, sports to model variations of atomic S. (2010). Co-creating metaphor in sizes. Journal of Chemical the classroom for deeper learning: Education, 75, 725-726. Graduate student reflections. Raeff, C., & Mascolo, M. F. (1996, June). International Journal of Teaching Co-regulated coordination: and Learning in Higher Education, Representational activities at the 22, 71-79. intersection of individual, social and Wong, E. D. (1993a). Self-generated cultural processes. Paper presented analogies as a tool for constructing at the 26th annual symposium of the and evaluating explanations of Jean Piaget Society, Philadelphia, scientific phenomena. Journal of PA. Research in Science Teaching, 30, Reddy, M. J. (1993). The conduit metaphor: 367-380. A case of frame conflict in our language Wong, E. D. (1993b). Understanding the about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), generative capacity of analogies as a

63 MAYO

tool for explanation. Journal of research on constructivist pedagogical Research in Science Teaching, 30, innovations in books, book chapters, and 1259-1272. peer-reviewed journals. He also has ______presented regularly at regional, national, and international teaching conferences. In JOSEPH A. MAYO, who is a professor of recognition of his ongoing contributions, he psychology at Gordon State College in received the 2019 Scholarship of Teaching Barnesville, Georgia, earned his doctorate in and Learning Award across all University educational psychology. Throughout a 36- System of Georgia institutions. year career in academe, he has published his

64