Analogies In Textbooks Research Articles

2007 개정 중학교 과학 교과서의 화학 영역에 사용된 비유의 분석

본 연구에서는 2007 개정 교육과정에 따른 중학교 과학 교과서의 화학 영역에 사용된 비유를 수집하여 빈도를 분석하고 유형에 따라 분류하였다. 분석한 27권의 교과서에 사용된 비유는 총 235개로서, 교과서 10쪽마다 평균 1개의 비유가 사용되었다. 비유 사용 빈도는 교과서의 종류나 단원의 내용에 따라 차이가 있었다. 유형별로 비유를 분석한 결과, 기능적 속성을 공유한 비유, 언어와 그림으로 모두 제시된 비유, 추상적인 목표물을 구체적인 비유물에 대응시킨 비유, 부연 비유, 일상 비유, 학생 중심의 비유와 체계성이 낮은 비유가 많았으며, 반대로 교과서 본문에 비유라는 단어를 사용하거나 비유물의 제한점을 언급하는 경우는 적었다. 제7차 교육과정의 중학교 과학 교과서와 비교했을 때, 비유의 사용 빈도는 증가하였고, 표현 방식, 대응 정도, 작위성 측면에서 긍정적인 변화가 있었다. 그러나 나머지 유형 기준에서는 차이가 없었다. In this study, the analogies in the chemistry domain of middle school science textbooks developed under the 2007 revised National Curriculum were analyzed. A total of 235 analogies were found in 27 middle school science textbooks analysed, which means that one analogy per 10 pages was used on average. The number of analogies found in each textbook considerably varied depending on both publishing company and chemistry domain. Functional analogies, verbal and pictorial analogies, analogies with abstract target and concrete analog, enriched analogies, everyday contexts analogies, student-centered analogies, and analogies with low systematicity were frequently used. On presenting the analogies in the textbooks, the term analogy and description about the limitations of the analogies were rarely mentioned. In comparison with the analogies in the science textbooks developed under the 7th National Curriculum, the frequency of analogies per page was increased. There were positive changes in the aspects of representation, extent of mapping and artificiality. No differences, however, were found in the patterns of the other aspects.

Analogies in chemistry textbooks

Abstract This study combines a critical analysis of analogies found in eight chemistry textbooks used by Australian senior high school students with the views of the textbook authors about analogies in chemistry textbooks and teaching. Sixty‐two analogies were identified which described abstract chemical concepts such as atomic structure and collision theory. A range of styles, including pictorial analogies, were identified and the analogies were found to have variant amounts of analogical mapping and analogue explanation. Analogical limitations were rarely identified. Authors contended that they were cautious about including analogies in textbooks as analogies require a flexibility not available when they are set in print. It was argued that analogy was best applied as a strategy for teachers in response to them perceiving that students had misunderstood an original explanation.