Effective implementation of the analogy

The lesson planned for the implementation of the analogy was underpinned by the principles underpinning the TWA model in order to ensure the meaningful learning of simple circuit concepts (Glynn, 2008). The TWA model was therefore used as an analytical frame for the instructional implementation of the string analogy by T1.

Based on the lesson scheme planned in Cycle Two of the research, the teacher was expected to follow the agreed upon example of the lesson guide using the TWA model and to teach the lesson as presented in Table 6.1 where all the visible, macroscopic features of the string analogy were used to illustrate the invisible, microscopic features of the electric current. Moreover, the teacher was also expected to explain where the analogy breaks down; in other words; which areas of the electric current cannot be portrayed by the analogy (Glynn, 2007; 2008).

The abridged lesson was not successfully implemented as discussed collaboratively by us during the planning stage (including me as the researcher and the unqualified teacher). During the presentation of the lesson, the teacher failed to make “a systematic comparison, verbally or visually, between the features of the analogue and target” (Glynn, 2008, p. 114). The teacher was effectively unable to map the features of the base or analog concept and the target concept in her teaching sequence.

Table 6.1: A conceptual representation of an analogy with its parts reflecting the string-electric circuit analogy (adapted from Glynn, 2008, p. 114)

String Analogy Electric Circuit Target

Base Concept Concept

Feature 1 Loop of the string Closed circuit

Feature 2 Moving dots Flow of charges

Feature 3 Hold string firmly Resistor (bulb) Feature 4 Two people holding string firmly Resistors in series Feature 5 Counting moving dots Ammeter

Feature 6 Teacher who controls movement Battery giving the push of string

The use of the string analogy did manage to engage some of the learners in the learning activities. Academic engagement was identified as one of the problematic areas in the first cycle of the study. The familiarity of the materials used to teach with the string analogy created a friendly and relaxed atmosphere as illustrated by the teacher‟s comment when she entered the classroom with the skipping rope:

“I heard you when I was coming in. [You think] that you gonna play umshinxi..”(isiXhosa name of a skipping rope game).

When the same learners were invited to come forward and participate in the demonstration, they were eager. Unfortunately, this level of engagement only extended to the group of learners who participated in the demonstration of the string analogy. The level of classroom engagement for the rest of the learners was quite disappointing. When the teacher asked questions to the class, the non-participating learners did not participate and left the answering to the learners who formed part of the string-analogy. The learners, who volunteered to play the various parts of the string, were more actively engaged by providing verbal answers to questions asked by the teacher as compared to the learners who were watching the demonstration.

Most questions were met with complete silence as the teacher tried to verify whether they followed the lesson. The learners‟ non-participation may perhaps be due to the use of English where they may have felt threatened as they had to answer in English, whereas the lesson presentation was mostly in isiXhosa.

What clearly emerged from the analogy demonstration was that the learners were struggling a lot with expressing themselves in English because those who managed to answer did so in the vernacular. It was evident then that English as language of learning and teaching was a big problem. The non-responsiveness of the learners may have been one of the reasons why the teacher reverted to a direct teaching strategy by telling the learners about the analogy in isiXhosa, but in the process failed to connect the elements of the string analogy to the target concepts of electricity.

Another perturbing question remains; did the learners (who were seated) see the relevance of the analogy to learning or did they view it as a game? As highlighted earlier in Chapter Two; teachers should guard against being carried away with the narrative (in the analogy) rather than anchoring conceptual structures and scientific reasoning (Glynn, 2008; Palmer, 2005). In this instance the learners may have focussed too much on the game instead of the link between the analogy and the abstract concepts they are targeting since the teacher talked a lot and explained more about the game rather than the connection between the analogy base concepts and the targeted, abstract concepts. Perhaps learners were still struggling to articulate their thoughts since they were still trying to comprehend the relationship between the analogy and the actual concepts of the DC electric circuit since the teacher did not manage fully to link the concepts.

6.3 Learners

The second version of the pre-test (appendix E) was administered as a post-test to the learners with the aim of determining any change in their conceptual understanding due to the use of the string analogy in the classroom. I conducted individual semi-structured interviews with six learners after they had completed the post-test to assess whether their ideas had changed after the implementation of the

selected analogy. Also, I wanted to find out if the selected analogy was viewed as familiar and made conceptual understanding in simple DC electric circuits easier to understand.