View in EDS

Constructing Analogies: Developing Critical Thinking through a Collaborative Task

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Constructing Analogies: Developing Critical Thinking through a Collaborative Task
Language: English
Authors: Constantine Kapetanakis, Samantha Conflitti, Sarah Abdo, L. Kate Wright (ORCID 0000-0001-7379-0224), Dina L. Newman (ORCID 0000-0002-2983-1102)
Source: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education. 2024 52(5):569-579.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2024
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: 1757477
2149957
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Critical Thinking, Logical Thinking, Skill Development, Thinking Skills, Knowledge Level, College Students, Biology, College Science, Science Instruction, Scientific Concepts, Genetics, Difficulty Level, Cooperative Learning, Teaching Methods
DOI: 10.1002/bmb.21843
ISSN: 1470-8175
1539-3429
Abstract: Analogies are used to make abstract topics meaningful and more easily comprehensible to learners. Incorporating simple analogies into STEM classrooms is a fairly common practice, but the analogies are typically generated and explained by the instructor for the learners. We hypothesize that challenging learners to create complex, extended analogies themselves can promote integration of content knowledge and development of critical thinking skills, which are essential for deep learning, but are challenging to teach. In this qualitative study, college biology students (n = 30) were asked to construct a complex analogy about the flow of genetic information using a familiar item. One week later, participants constructed a second analogy about the same topic, but this time using a more challenging item. Twenty participants worked on the challenging analogy in pairs, while the other 10 worked alone. Analysis of the 50 interviews resulted in a novel-scoring scheme, which measured both content knowledge (understanding of biology terms) and critical thinking (alignment of relationships between elements of the analogy). Most participants improved slightly due to practice, but they improved dramatically when working with a partner. The biggest gains were seen in critical thinking, not content knowledge. Having students construct complex, sophisticated analogies in pairs is a high-impact practice that can help students develop their critical thinking skills, which are crucial in academic and professional settings. The discussion between partners likely requires students to justify their explanations and critique their partner's explanations, which are characteristics of critical thinking.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1448604
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1448604
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Constructing Analogies: Developing Critical Thinking through a Collaborative Task
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Constantine+Kapetanakis%22">Constantine Kapetanakis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Samantha+Conflitti%22">Samantha Conflitti</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sarah+Abdo%22">Sarah Abdo</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22L%2E+Kate+Wright%22">L. Kate Wright</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7379-0224">0000-0001-7379-0224</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dina+L%2E+Newman%22">Dina L. Newman</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2983-1102">0000-0002-2983-1102</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Biochemistry+and+Molecular+Biology+Education%22"><i>Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 52(5):569-579.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 1757477<br />2149957
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Critical+Thinking%22">Critical Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Logical+Thinking%22">Logical Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thinking+Skills%22">Thinking Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biology%22">Biology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Science%22">College Science</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+Concepts%22">Scientific Concepts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Genetics%22">Genetics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Difficulty+Level%22">Difficulty Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/bmb.21843
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1470-8175<br />1539-3429
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Analogies are used to make abstract topics meaningful and more easily comprehensible to learners. Incorporating simple analogies into STEM classrooms is a fairly common practice, but the analogies are typically generated and explained by the instructor for the learners. We hypothesize that challenging learners to create complex, extended analogies themselves can promote integration of content knowledge and development of critical thinking skills, which are essential for deep learning, but are challenging to teach. In this qualitative study, college biology students (n = 30) were asked to construct a complex analogy about the flow of genetic information using a familiar item. One week later, participants constructed a second analogy about the same topic, but this time using a more challenging item. Twenty participants worked on the challenging analogy in pairs, while the other 10 worked alone. Analysis of the 50 interviews resulted in a novel-scoring scheme, which measured both content knowledge (understanding of biology terms) and critical thinking (alignment of relationships between elements of the analogy). Most participants improved slightly due to practice, but they improved dramatically when working with a partner. The biggest gains were seen in critical thinking, not content knowledge. Having students construct complex, sophisticated analogies in pairs is a high-impact practice that can help students develop their critical thinking skills, which are crucial in academic and professional settings. The discussion between partners likely requires students to justify their explanations and critique their partner's explanations, which are characteristics of critical thinking.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1448604
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1448604
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/bmb.21843
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 569
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Critical Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Logical Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Thinking Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Biology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Science
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific Concepts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Genetics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Difficulty Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Constructing Analogies: Developing Critical Thinking through a Collaborative Task
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Constantine Kapetanakis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Samantha Conflitti
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sarah Abdo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: L. Kate Wright
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dina L. Newman
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1470-8175
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1539-3429
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1