Using analogies to learn defined, abstract concepts

The 769 participants in this research study were divided into three groups: the Control, Self-Generated Analogies (SGA), and Supplied Analogies (SA) Groups. The Control Group received a list of definitions for terminology used to describe hazardous chemicals, along with instructions to learn the terms in preparation for a quiz on the information provided. The SGA Group received a list of definitions on which certain terms were cued, along with an introduction to the use of analogies; the participants were encouraged to generate their own analogies to use as a learning tool for the terms. The SA Group received an introduction and a list of definitions that included analogies for each term. Both the SGA and the SA Groups were instructed to learn the terms by using the information provided, in preparation for a quiz. Performance was measured by a 47-question quiz composed of 36 recall and 11 application questions. Four dependent variable values were measured: (1) the overall score, which measured the total number of both recall and applications questions answered correctly; (2) correctly answered recall questions; (3) correctly answered application questions; and (4) answered correctly cued questions. The SGA Group was cued on certain terms that readily lent themselves to analogy generation. All participants were measured on the same questions relating to terms that had been cued on the SGA treatment. The SGA and SA Groups were asked additional questions regarding the use of analogies during the quiz and their knowledge of analogies prior to the research. The SGA Group was asked to list the analogies they generated for five of the technical terms; the SA Group was asked to match the same five terms with the correct supplied analogies. The responses to these five questions resulted in five additional dependent variables for the SGA and SA Groups. Five research hypotheses were posed: the effect of supplied analogies compared with self-generated analogies and no analogies; effect of an introduction to analogies (given to both the SGA and SA Groups) compared with no analogies (Control Group); performance on cued questions; the effect of the use of analogies during the quiz and/or knowledge of analogies prior to the research (singly and interactively); and predicted interactions of the dependent variables with three moderator variables. The overall results of this research indicate that use of analogies does improve performance, although the written introduction to analogies and the cues to prompt generation of analogies did not produce the expected results. Four of the research hypotheses were not supported by the results of this research; one was supported. The support for hypothesis 4, which involved the actual use of analogies on the quiz and prior knowledge of analogies, is very promising for instructional applications. The analysis revealed that the use of analogies on the quiz, prior knowledge of analogies, or a combination of both factors resulted in improved performance. That is, performance in recalling definitions of the hazardous chemical terms and applying definitions was improved when participants in the study used analogies or were familiar with analogies before the research and presumably used them while studying for the 47-question quiz. (Abstract shortened by UMI.