by Ashley Chen

Instruction should aim to facilitate permanent changes in comprehension that support retention and allow for prior knowledge to be applied to novel problems. Past research demonstrates that analogy, described as “a mapping of knowledge from one domain (the source) onto another (the target),” can enhance conceptual understanding and transfer of important educational information (Dagher, 1995). Analogies may also support metacognitive monitoring, a prerequisite of self-regulated learning that encapsulates individuals’ abilities to appropriately allocate cognitive resources depending on their learning progress and outcomes (Ariel et al., 2009; Barenberg & Dutke, 2019). In this article, I discuss four principles of analogy-based learning and teaching in the classroom that are crucial for students’ success in analogical reasoning (see also Gray & Holyoak, 2021).

Considerations and Guidelines for Using Analogy in the Classroom

The benefits of analogy have been mostly studied in the context of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) domains, where causal relationships and structure are key components of scientific representations of concepts (Ahn, 1998; Iding, 1997; Thagard, 1992). When using analogies during teaching, educators must be cognizant of presentation style, level of instructional support, prior knowledge and reasoning abilities, and opportunities for generation. These four principles are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are meant to guide educators towards a shared instructional goal—to support conceptual understanding and performance.

1. Emphasize Causal Structure of Analogy

For individuals to benefit from analogy, they must make causal connections between related concepts. Analogical reasoning follows three constraints (Holyoak & Thagard, 1989): (1) semantic similarity between analogs is preferred—for ease of retrieval, mappings between similar elements can facilitate transfer of relevant components, (2) structural consistency allows for one-to-one mapping, and (3) focusing on goal-relevant causal relations supports inference. Using cues to draw attention to relational similarities between analogs can foster expert-like processing with greater focus on structural over surface features (Richland & McDonough, 2010).

Elaborate analogies that incorporate visual components are thought to be effective at emphasizing shared structure between analogs. Illustrations may be better than verbal representations since they discard unnecessary details and make abstract concepts more concrete, which can help students process new information (Novick & Hurley, 2001; Winn, 1989). When using illustrations to supplement analogy-based text, students should be able to organize presented information into coherent mental models by making connections between verbal textual information and relevant pictorial features in the illustration (Mayer et al., 1995).

2. Provide Sufficient Support and Scaffolding

Individuals may need additional instructional guidance when learning by analogy, especially if they perceive analogies as unfamiliar or novel learning devices. While analogy can promote inferential thinking among young and older adults, even preschool-aged children can apply analogies during learning (Brown et al., 1986). A study by Holyoak et al. (1984) looked at preschool, fifth grade, and sixth grade students’ abilities to apply simple analogies to perform a goal-directed problem-solving task. Similar to adults, the middle school students failed to notice that the source and target texts were analogous unless a hint was provided (Gick & Holyoak, 1983). Preschool students’ performance was more variable, but generally, they were able to use analogies to solve presented problems if the mappings were simple and elements had clear perceptual and functional similarities. Therefore, educators may need to make the relationships between analogs more explicit depending on learners’ cognitive development.

Providing multiple examples that fit a common analogical schema can facilitate learning. For instance, individuals who were given two source analogs performed significantly better on far transfer problems than those who were only given one source analog (Jacobson et al., 2020). Presenting multiple analogs did not appear to increase cognitive load or confusion; instead, it helped participants draw upon more prior knowledge and reason about shared structural and surface level features. Further evidence from Catrambone and Holyoak (1989) found that asking learners to summarize and compare three source analogs enabled them to apply a known solution to a novel problem after a long delay. As students become familiar with analogs, spontaneous analogical transfer may become more frequent, creating a positive feedback loop by which the ease of transfer increases (Gentner et al., 2003).

3. Understand the Impact of Prior Knowledge and Abilities

Learning outcomes may depend on individuals’ prior knowledge of the source domain. In fact, prior knowledge has been shown to support pattern identification, a core component of analogical reasoning (Chase & Simon, 1973; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2009). Braasch and Goldman (2010) examined how participants with varying knowledge of air pressure (source domain) and low knowledge of wind flow patterns (target domain) performed in writing an essay on a weather phenomenon, following the reading of an analogy-based or control text. The study found that participants with higher source domain knowledge and who read the analogy-based text were less likely to make incorrect statements in their essays than those with less source domain knowledge or those who read the control text. It was reasoned that participants with greater source familiarity processed new content more effectively and represented causal mechanisms in the target domain more accurately. Having sufficient understanding of the source domain is therefore essential when using analogies.

Teaching with analogy can benefit individuals with poor spatial visualization skills, who often struggle generating mental models of spatial relations and therefore tend to be at a disadvantage when learning about scientific phenomena (Hegarty, 2010). For instance, individuals with low spatial abilities were observed to have lower comprehension scores, longer study times, and heavier reliance on diagrams when constructing mental models of pulley systems from provided text and diagrams (Hegarty & Just, 1993). Thus, educators should consider tailoring analogy-based activities to match individuals’ prior knowledge and abilities, making learning more meaningful and easier for diverse ability levels (Glynn, 2007).

4. Provide Practice with Analogies via Generation

Many U.S. mathematics educators use analogy-based learning, but not in ways that promote active reasoning. Notably, in the 1999 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), analysis of eighth-grade math lessons showed that educators mostly generated the source, target, and mapping components of analogies, while students were tasked with simpler, less reasoning-intensive steps (Richland et al., 2004). The lack of student involvement in forming their own analogical mappings may limit learning opportunities, especially since the act of retrieval itself can strengthen memory (Bjork, 1994).

Generally, memory performance is better when individuals are asked to retrieve versus restudy information. As a form of generative learning, testing involves selecting and integrating to-be-learned information with retrieved prior knowledge, enhancing encoding of target information and increasing likelihood of later recall (Rowland, 2014). Similarly, in analogical problem solving, generating solutions to novel problems using source domain knowledge can promote active learning. A study by Vendetti et al. (2014) found that generating but not evaluating solutions induced a relational mind-set that promoted transfer performance on an unrelated picture-mapping task. Producing inferences during analogical reasoning may hence encourage students to focus more on relational information compared to when passively reading solutions.

Conclusion

In daily life, we tend to spontaneously use analogies, such as when explaining complex concepts, presenting new ideas, or solving problems. Beyond facilitating communication, analogy has been shown to be a valuable pedagogical device that can enhance transfer and self-regulated learning in the classroom. Based on prior research on analogical reasoning, I proposed four instructional guidelines for using analogy in teaching: (1) emphasize causal structure of analogy to make relations explicit, (2) provide sufficient support during reasoning, (3) tailor analogy activities based on prior knowledge and abilities, and (4) introduce opportunities for students to generate their own inferences. 

While most research on analogy and relational reasoning has focused on STEM education, analogy may also support learning in a variety of instructional contexts, ranging from math and science classes to informal museum learning activities (Gentner et al., 2016; Richland et al., 2007). Future research should investigate the extent to which analogy can strengthen conceptual understanding in non-science domains, such as history or literature, and how individual differences in prior knowledge and exposure to analogical reasoning affect learning outcomes. In conclusion, when appropriately designed and presented, analogies can significantly improve students’ conceptual understanding and transfer performance.

References

Ahn, W. K. (1998). Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts?: The role of causal status in determining feature centrality. Cognition, 69(2), 135-178.

Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: when agendas override item-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 432-447.

Barenberg, J., & Dutke, S. (2019). Testing and metacognition: retrieval practise effects on metacognitive monitoring in learning from text. Memory, 27(3), 269-279.

Bjork, R.A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe and A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing (pp.185-205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Braasch, J. L., & Goldman, S. R. (2010). The role of prior knowledge in learning from analogies in science texts. Discourse Processes, 47(6), 447-479.

Brown, A. L., Kane, M. J., & Echols, C. H. (1986). Young children’s mental models determine analogical transfer across problems with a common goal structure. Cognitive Development, 1(2), 103-121.

Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1147-1156.

Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55-81.

Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 259-270.

Gentner, D., Levine, S. C., Ping, R., Isaia, A., Dhillon, S., Bradley, C., & Honke, G. (2016). Rapid learning in a children’s museum via analogical comparison. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 224-240.

Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393-408.

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1-38.

Glynn, S. (2007). The teaching-with-analogies model. Science and Children, 44(8), 52-55.

Gray, M. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2021). Teaching by analogy: From theory to practice. Mind, Brain, and Education, 15(3), 250-263.

Hegarty, M. (2010). Components of spatial intelligence. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 52, pp. 265-297). Academic Press.

Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(6), 717-742.

Holyoak, K. J., Junn, E. N., & Billman, D. O. (1984). Development of analogical problem-solving skill. Child Development, 55(6), 2042-2055.

Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13(3), 295-355.

Iding, M. K. (1997). How analogies foster learning from science texts. Instructional Science, 25, 233-253.

Jacobson, M. J., Goldwater, M., Markauskaite, L., Lai, P. K., Kapur, M., Roberts, G., & Hilton, C. (2020). Schema abstraction with productive failure and analogical comparison: Learning designs for far across domain transfer. Learning and Instruction, 65, 101222.

Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 31-43.

Novick, L. R., & Hurley, S. M. (2001). To matrix, network, or hierarchy: That is the question. Cognitive Psychology, 42(2), 158-216.

Richland, L. E., Holyoak, K. J., & Stigler, J. W. (2004). Analogy use in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 37-60.

Richland, L. E., & McDonough, I. M. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 28-43.

Richland, L. E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K. J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Science, 316(5828), 1128-1129.

Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. R., & Durkin, K. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge when comparing examples: Influences on conceptual and procedural knowledge of equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 836-852.

Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432-1463.

Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 537-544.

Vendetti, M. S., Wu, A., & Holyoak, K. J. (2014). Far-out thinking: Generating solutions to distant analogies promotes relational thinking. Psychological Science, 25(4), 928-933.

Winn, W. (1989). The Design and Use of Instructional Graphics. In Advances in Psychology (Vol. 58, pp. 125-144). North-Holland.