Science concept achievement using rich, best-practice analogies

This study tested the use of instructional analogies in college science courses that compare the student achievement of learners taught using instructional analogies to those receiving conventional instruction. Academic achievement levels (GPA) of students prior to the science course were taken into account in order to determine if high or low achievers benefit the most from the use of analogies in instruction. Participants in the study were from a small medical college campus in a Midwest city that were enrolled in the science courses as required by their program of study. A treatment group and control group were given pretests at the beginning of the science course to assess their baseline knowledge of the science concepts to be taught in the course. The instructor taught the treatment group using well-formed analogies in addition to those normally provided by the course textbook, while teaching the control group using conventional instruction. Posttests were administered to both groups at the end of the course. The researcher used a two-way analysis of covariance which had two main effects: (a) significant differences based on control and experimental group membership and (b) based on learning ability group membership. Results showed that the use of analogies does not significantly raise posttest science scores. The data also show that there is no significant difference in science achievement between high and low academic ability learners and that there is no significant difference in science achievement across high and low ability learners in the treatment and control groups.