Analogical Scaffolding

When I was in Ranger School I learned about several words I never knew existed. Cellulitis? Rubber Neck? (see HERE). Never knew these were words until Rangers School. And I guess for the most part, my life would have been fine had I never known about em.

Not so with the words I learned lately. 

First there is Connectivism. I've written about this one before (see HERE). I love connectivism. The idea of blending networks into something more useful. It was a task I was a part of at my old organization, before I embraced the non-profit world. What I find interesting is that we were doing it, but we didn't call it "connectivism." We were on the path of calling it "connected worker" but it's a forward looking concept I hope I can touch on more. 

But Analogical Scaffolding is a new one for me. I had the opporutnity to look into this over the past few months. We are building a course that uses analogies to help people understand more the complexities of work refineries by linking it to something they already understand. This is called  . . . apparently . . . analogical scaffolding. 

Makes sense. Scaffolding understanding through analogy. 

What good are analogies?

First this from Celik et al "Treagust, Harrison, and Venville (1998) summarized the importance of analogies, which are powerful learning techniques, in science teaching:

• Provides a clear understanding of the concepts from different perspectives.

• Enables learners to gain real-world experience.

• Helps to teach the concepts clearly from a different perspective.

• Summarizes topics in an easily-understandable form.

• Motivates learners by attracting their interests.

• Provides difficult information for learners and teachers to see their mistakes easily.

• Facilitates access to information, concept development, and problem solving.

• Makes unknowns compatible with logic by improving creativity."

Then this from Keri and Elbararny, "More than 70% of the students indicated that these analogies were useful in understanding the anatomical structures and physiological functions. Over 60% of students applied these analogies while studying. Eighty-eight percent of students found that analogies were engaging and made the lecture more enjoyable. We conclude that well-structured and purposeful analogies have positive impact on students’ learning of science courses during undergraduate nursing studies."

So, now that we will have our own training that includes a ton of analogies, I'm looking for ways to study it. How can we determine if analogical scaffolding is any good? What is the comparison? Is it just qualitative? 

I would hate not to take advantage of this opportunity. 

 

Çeli̇k, H., Kirindi, T., & Ayçi̇çek Kotaman, Y. (2020). The effect of the computer-based analogy used in science teaching on learning outcomes. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.14

Keri, Z., & Elbatarny, H. (2021). The power of analogy-based learning in science. HAPS Educator, 25(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.21692/haps.2021.003