Instructional Science 17:129-144 (1988) 129

© Kluwer Academic Pnblisherg, Dordrecht - Printed in the Netherlands

A n a l o g i c a l instruction within the information processing

paradigm: effective means to facilitate learning

D O N A L D A. STEPICH & TIMOTHY J. N E W B Y

Educational Computing and Instructional Design, Purdue University, WLafayette, Indiana 47907,
USA,

Abstract. Research on the structure of memory has led to evidence that relating unfamiliar informa-
tion to that which is familiar facilitates the new materiaPs acquisition and retention; moreover, such
associations can be efficiently achieved through the use of analogies. The present paper discusses the
current information processing conceptualization of memory, the processes of learning by analogy,
and the overall desired outcomes of their use to acquire and retain new information. Additionally,
instructional implications of how, when, and why to use analogies are discussed.

Introduction

Analogies are common instructional tools (Curtis and Reigeluth, 1984; Davidson,
1976) used to teach a variety of subjects such as reading (Axelrod, 1979), vocabu-
lary (Ignoffo, 1980), electricity (Iona, 1982), composition (Ledger, 1977), and
computer use (Rumelhart and Norman, 1981). Recently they have been included
within several instructional theories (e.g., Keller, 1983; Reigeluth and Stein,
1983). The present paper is an attempt to add to this knowledge by considering
the function of analogies as learning aids within an information-processing
paradigm.
The general task in any learning situation is to help the learners add to their
existing knowledge, to move from the known to the unknown. Instruction, in
large part, involves the search for the most effective, efficient, and appealing way
for this to be accomplished (Reigeluth, 1983). A theory of instruction is a set of
interrelated statements which explain and predict how information should be pre-
sented to optimize learning (Snelbecker, 1974). Such efforts synthesize what is
known about human learning with various methods of presentation in order to
describe the interaction between teaching and learning and ultimately prescribe
the optimal methods of instruction. Resnick (1983) has cited three essential com-
ponents. First, an instructional theory should describe the processes through
which people acquire new information. Second, it should specify the desired out-
comes. And third, it should include principles of intervention, or what the instruc-
tor is to do and how that interacts with the individual's learning processes to
produce new learning.
130

This paper will focus on these three components to demonstrate how analogies
facilitate the acquisition of new knowledge. First, the information-processing par-
adigm with the incorporated process of learning by analogy will be outlined and
described. Second, the learners' desired outcomes will be explored, based upon
the benefits and limitations of specific types of analogies. Finally, following the
review of several empirical studies, a set of prescriptive guidelines related to the
construction and use of analogies in instruction will be discussed.
To begin, a basic understanding of an analogy is necessary. It is an explicit,
non-literal comparison between two things in which their structural, functional,
and/or causal similarities, and often their differences, are described (Gentner,
1982; Green, 1971; Curtis and Reigeluth, 1984).
An analogy follows a certain form: X is like ¥ in that... For example, a tur-
bine is like a water wheel in that both are turned to generate electricity. (Table 1
gives further examples of analogies).
The cornerstone of an analogy is the connector "is like" (Rumelhart and
Norman, 1981). Other words may be used to connect or bridge the analogy's
components (may be compared to; resembles; works like; etc.), but the essential
idea remains "is like." In an analogy, information to be learned "is like" some
other information in certain, specified ways. In the above example, turbine with
its functional attributes is the information to be learned and is likened to a more
familiar object, water wheel. The analogy sets up the "is like" relationship by
specifying how a turbine and water wheel are similar. By describing these similar-
ities the analogy allows the learner to draw a parallel between the information to
be learned, turbine, and some other information which may be simpler or more
familiar, water wheel.

Table 1. Examples of analogies

1. A triangle is like a square. Both are enclosed geometric

figures.The difference is that a
triangle has three sides while a
square has four.

2. A zero can be compared to a bookmark. It has no value except as a

placeholder.

3. Justice is like a scale. Both involve weighing and

balancing two sides.

4. A fish's gills are like a human's lungs. Both are used for breathing.
 131

Learning by analogy

The current conceptualization of human learning and memory as an information

processing system offers a useful context in which to consider how analogies
work to facilitate the acquisition of new knowledge.
This view of learning has evolved over the last twenty years from an emphasis
on the stimulus antecedent of the learning event itself to a focus on: (a) the infor-
mation, knowledge structures, and cognitive processes brought to the learning sit-
uation by the learner and (b) how those affect the acquisition of new knowledge
(Merrill, Kelety and Wilson, 1981). Central to this conceptualization is prior
knowledge, which is organized and stored in the learner's memory and serves as a
framework or "assimilative context" (Mayer, 1980) for the acquisition of new
knowledge (Ausubel, 1960; Ausubel, Novak and Hanesian, 1978; Glass and
Holyoak, 1986). In this way prior knowledge is said to "mediate" new knowledge
acquisition.
Central to this "mediational" view of learning is the tenet that all knowledge is
stored in human memory in terms of interacting cognitive structures. These struc-
tures have been variously labelled schemata (Bartlett, 1932; Mandler, 1985;
Rumelhart and Ortony, 1977; Thorndyke and Hayes-Roth, 1979), knowledge
modules (Norman, 1978), propositions (Anderson, 1980), frames (Minsky, 1975),
and scripts (Abbot, Black and Smith, 1985; Schank and Ableson, 1977).
A schema, as the present paper will affirm, is a knowledge structure which
represents a generic concept in memory (Rumelhart, 1980) and which includes in
its presentation the inter-relationships existing among the various aspects of the
concept (Thorndyke and Hayes-Roth, 1979). These inter-relationships are induced
from particular experiences and represent the regularly occurring features
abstracted from a set of similar experiences (Bartlett, 1932; Mandler, 1985;
Thorndyke and Hayes-Roth, 1979). Schemata exist for all manner of concepts
including objects, situations, events, and sequences of actions and events
(Rumelhart and Ortony, 1977). Moreover, every schema provides a framework
within which subsequent related information is organized and understood
(Norman, 1978; Norman, Gentner and Stevens, 1976).
The acquisition of new knowledge occurs via the active discovery and/or the
development of schematic relationships among pieces of information and the inte-
gration of the new information into existing schematic structures (see, for exam-
ple, Mayer, 1979, 1980; Reigeluth, Merrill, Wilson and Spiller, 1980; Wittrock,
1979). Likewise, this acquisition process may be hindered when new information
is not readily related or subsumed under existing structures. It is at this point that
analogies, with their ability to relate new information to the familiar structures of
previously learned information, prove beneficial.
132

Encoding of new information

Using an analogy will help demonstrate the role analogies play in the encoding
and retrieval of information. According to Rumelhart (1977), human memory is
like a library in several important ways. The purpose of both is the storage of
large amounts of information. In memory, as in a library, information is prepared
for storage when it is taken in, integrated within a known organizational scheme,
and systematically organized and stored to facilitate easy access and use.
Encoding into memory works in a similar manner. New information is received
through the senses and considered in light of existing knowledge. This involves
exploring the schematic networks existing in the learner's memory and finding
the locations into which the new information best fits. New information is, thus,
placed within an existing organizational framework, analogous to the library's
Dewey Decimal System. In this way new information is entered into memory in
close proximity to other information from the same or related content areas.
Using an analogy facilitates effective encoding by providing a means of using
existing knowledge to manipulate information. Learning by analogy is the process
of selecting a schema already known to the learner, and using it as a guide to
create a schema for the information to be learned (Gick and Holyoak, 1983;
Norman, 1978; Norman et al., 1976; Rumelhart and Norman, 1981).
An analogy accomplishes this by, first, focusing on one or more salient char-
acteristics of the item to be learned and finding something already familiar to the
learner having the same or similar structural, functional or causal characteristics.
It then establishes an "is like" relationship between the two things by describing
their resemblance or similarities (Rumelhart and Norman, 1981), and forming a
mediating link between the new information and existing knowledge. In this way
the analogy focuses the learner's attention on those aspects of the new informa-
tion considered most relevant for comprehension, and synthesizes them into a sin-
gle integrated representation which is then stored in memory. This newly created
representation (or schema) modeled on an existing schema, provides a framework
in which the particular details of the information can be incorporated. This
schema, as a single, integrated representation of the information, can also be more
easily stored in the learner's memory than can the collection of its parts (Newby
and Stepich, 1987). Seen in this way, an analogy is not a schema for the new
information. Rather, it is a means of generating a schema for the new information,
using an existing schema as a cognitive template.
As an example, consider the following analogy: A turbine is like a water wheel
in that both are turned to produce electricity. This analogy begins by focusing
the learner's attention on the function of turbines as producers of electricity and
linking them, based on their functional similarity, with the more familiar term,
water wheels. The existing schema for water wheels provides a guide for the for-
mation of a schema for turbines. The newly created schema then provides a
 133

framework within which further new information can be understood. As informa-

tion is obtained, for example, about exactly how a turbine generates electricity,
this information can be integrated into the new "turbine" schema, which was
modeled on the schema for water wheels.

Retrieval of stored information

Retrieval refers to the process by which information is obtained from memory and
made available for use. Klatzky (1984) outlines four steps in the retrieval process:
(a) generating a retrieval cue, (b) searching through the contents of memory, (c)
matching the information found in memory against the initial cue, and (d) gener-
ating a response. Retrieval in a library involves using the established encoding
system to locate a relevant book or books. The first step is to use the cues pro-
vided by the library's card catalog to locate the place on the library shelves where
the book is stored. When it is located, a decision is made as to whether the book
matches the initial need. If the book provides the desired information, it is taken
from the shelf and used.
Retrieval from memory also involves using the established encoding system in
locating relevant information (Rumelhart, 1977), matching it against the need, and
using it. In most cases, literal cues provided by the environment are used to locate
the relevant schema, or schemata, in the learner's memory. When a schema is
found it is matched against the initial information need and, if it matches, used.
However, it should be pointed out that during a library search a cue leads to a spe-
cific source, but that source may not constitute all relevant information. To gain
access to additional materials one frequently examines the contents of those items
within the same general categorization and which are within close proximity. This
is done in order to bring together all of the needed information.
Aside from direct retrieval, acquiring information from memory often requires
a similar reconstructive process. This involves rebuilding a complete information
network from the distilled knowledge that was originally encoded into memory
(Anderson, 1980; Mandler, 1985; Rumelhart, 1977). Reconstruction begins with a
small bit of information, such as a schema or part of a schema. Then, using gen-
eral knowledge along with specific information (Ortony, 1975), details, examples,
and inferences are gradually added until a network of interconnected ideas and
information has been reconstructed. Once begun, the process is self-generating.
As specific details are recalled they trigger the recollection of additional informa-
tion. As schemata are recalled they trigger the recall of related schemata. This
process continues until the desired level of knowledge has been recalled.
In memory, as in a library, a key to finding and using stored information is the
effectiveness of the retrieval cue (Rumelhart, 1977). A book should be easily
found in the library's card catalog, and the card catalog should clearly specify
134

where the book is stored. It is similarly important to have an efficient way to

locate relevant information within the network of related schemata stored in the
learner's memory.
Using an analogy facilitates efficient retrieval of information from memory by
providing an effective retrieval cue. It can be used to initiate the reconstructive
process of recall by providing a memorable image, along with other associated
pieces of information. Recalling the analogy leads to recalling the "is like" rela-
tionship existing between the new information and a schema stored in memory.
This triggers the recall of further aspects of the new information and so on until
the desired amount of detail has been recalled.
For example, information about turbines can be retrieved using the turbines
are like water wheels analogy encoded into memory. Recalling the representa-
tional image, "water wheel", leads to recalling the "is like" relationship between
water wheels and turbines. Using the analogy then leads to recalling how water
wheels and turbines are alike. This, in turn, triggers the recall of various aspects
of the schema for turbines, which continues until sufficient information about tur-
bines has been retrieved.

Types of analogy

As stated, one's ability to encode and retrieve new information can be greatly
increased by relating it to that which is already familiar. The goals, therefore, of
using analogies include, first, providing a means whereby a familiar information
schema can be compared, related and used to structure newly encoded informa-
tion and second, to serve as a cue for enhancing the reconstructive process and
overall retrieval.
Given varying contents of learning, these goals may be accomplished by: (a)
using separate individual analogies to help structure each concept within the con-
tent, and/or (b) using a comprehensive analogy which models the entire content
by encompassing several related conceptual analogies.

Conceptual analogies

Rumelhart and Norman (1981) demonstrated the use of conceptual analogies as

they taught students about the workings of a computer. They noticed that their
students' errors in using the text editor followed patterns which could be related
to a limited knowledge of how the computer worked. In order to facilitate leaming
they presented a set of analogies, each of which compared one of the computer's
major operations to something familiar to the students. For example, the com-
puter's ability to intermix formatting and editing instructions along with text
information was likened to a secretary taking dictation; the computer's verbatim
 135

recording of every input, regardless of its importance, was likened to a tape recor-
der; and so on. In this context, the individual analogies serve to associate already
familiar schematic representations with the new concepts by illuminating their
similarities. Using the familiar representation as a model, the creation of a frame-
work or schema for the new concept was facilitated. Further, once analogies for
the major concepts were acquired, additional information which related to one of
the specific concepts could be compared and quickly assimilated within its appro-
priate framework. For example, additional instructions on how to switch func-
tions, from inputting text to editing functions, could be taught by integrating them
within the already existing "secretary" analogy. Changing functions requires
notifying the secretary in some way to stop taking dictation and begin noting the
editorial format or vice versa. The same is true for the computer.
Once encoded, the retrieval of the concept is also assisted by the use of the ana-
logical "is like" bridge. Given a cue to recall specific conceptual information, the
associated analogy is retrieved and used to bridge the comparable familiar schema
structure with the needed critical attributes of the new information (Newby and
Stepich, 1987). For example, given a task to explain how the computer retains
input, one recalls the associated "tape recorder" analogy with its accompanying
functional critical attribute of verbatim recording.
The limitations of using conceptual analogies focus on the variety of separate
entities that must be learned. Recall of items learned within separate frameworks
requires separate retrieval cues, thus producing possible confusion errors (Newby,
Cook and Merrill, 1988). Additionally, the inter-concept relationships are neither
focused upon nor readily apparent. For example, the relationship between the
computer's verbatim memory "like a tape recorder" and its ability to intermix
editing and formatting instructions "like a secretary" are not part of the encoded
schema structure, thus leaving those connections to be drawn by the learner or
additional instruction.

Comprehensive analogies

In some situations, several specific conceptual analogies may be related and com-
bined into a working comprehensive analogy of the content area (e.g., Collins and
Stevens, 1983; Rumelhart and Norman, 1981). This means that a single global
analogy, which represents most, if not all, of the relevant content concepts, may
be constructed. This process involves the integration of known information into
an organized representation or model of the content and has several benefits for
the learner. First, it allows learners to add new information into the already famil-
iar representation of the whole. New material need not be learned as isolated bits
of information, but as integrated parts within an existing organization. This should
enhance overall encoding and memory recall (Fleming, 1987). Second, it provides
136

a means for the relationships within the content to be described. That is, one not
only learns the specific conceptual information but also how it fits together and is
related to other concepts within the content.
Third, a comprehensive analogy removes the parameters of the known infor-
mation. This means it allows one to predict outcomes in novel situations based on
what is already known. "Expertise" is developed as one becomes increasingly
able to incorporate within an existing comprehensive model new information rele-
vant to the topic and to apply it in an increasing range of novel situations
(Rumelhart and Norman, 1981; Schmitt and Newby, 1986).
The following comprehensive analogy will help demonstrate these advantages.
In biology, the human circulatory system can be likened to a parcel delivery sys-
tem, such as the United Parcel Service (U.P.S.). This comprehensive analogy con-
sists of several specific conceptual analogies brought together within one
organized representation. It contains, for example, the following conceptual anal-
ogies: (a) Red blood cells work like trucks, carrying needed materials from a cen-
tral distribution point for delivery throughout the body; (b) Arteries and veins are
like roads, acting as access routes through which the various points of delivery are
reached; and (c) The heart is like the warehouse or the central point in which vehi-
cles are loaded and dispatched, and to which empty vehicles are returned to be
reloaded.
The goal of using this analogy is to facilitate the development of a working
model of the unfamiliar human circulatory system by comparing it to the familiar
U.P.S. Use of the analogical representation allows for the easy assimilation of
new information. With the analogy in place, for example, information about capil-
laries can be efficiently added. If arteries and veins are like roads, they may be
compared to the major roads between cities and towns. Capillaries, then, are like
the streets going to individual homes within those cities and towns. Information
about capillaries is, thus, simply an extension of the information about arteries
and veins already established by the analogy.
The comprehensive analogy also assists in the identification of the relation-
ships between the separate items and concepts within the content. From the
present example, the relationship between the roads, trucks, and U.P.S. warehouse
can also be shown to similarly apply to the relationship between the functions of
the arteries and veins and those of the blood cells and the heart (Genmer, 1983).
Finally, using the analogy allows learners to generalize their new knowledge
to novel situations, rather than rely solely on rote memorization. Faced with the
question, "How do red blood cells help maintain good health?" learners can recall
the analogy comparing red blood cells to trucks. The function of trucks is
recalled, leading to recall of the function of red blood cells as carriers of essential
nutrients, such as oxygen, throughout the body. The learner is now in the position
to make the logical assumption that the red blood cells function as necessary
transportation devices for the essential nutrients. This can be made without the
formal memorization of that principle.
 137

For both conceptual and comprehensive analogies, specific limitations on their

effectiveness do occur. For example, Simons (1983) points out that additional
time is required for the learner to be presented the analogy itself and then to com-
pare its attributes with those of the new information. Although analogies were
found to be more efficient within his research, their effectiveness was limited
based on the allowance of adequate time. Rumelhart and Norman (1981) indicate
that time is also a factor for those developing the instruction. The difficulty and
time involved in selecting and developing analogies, especially those of the com-
prehensive variety, often limit their use. Finally, because analogies are not exact
definitions or examples of the new information, they have the potential to lead to
misunderstandings, lack of precision, or at least an overemphasis or distortion of
specific points over others of equal importance (Miller, 1976).

Intervention principles

Empirical research

Studies investigating analogical instruction have focused on a number of key

issues. First and foremost, is the effect of analogies in facilitating encoding and
retrieval. These effects have been generalized across several domains of learning.
For example, in an early study, educational psychology undergraduates learned
unfamiliar abstract concepts (e.g. Buddhist concepts of God, immortality, salva-
tion, etc.) better when the information was preceded by analogous familiar topics
(e.g., Christian concepts of God, etc.) (Ausubel and Fitzgerald, 1961). More
recently Schustack and Anderson (1979) attributed improvements in memory for
verbal information (i.e., facts on fictional and nonfictional characters) to the elab-
orated encoding supplied by their analogies. In addition, textual analogies of a
procedural task were found to be as effective as training with literal picture
sequences (Hayes and Henk, 1986). Attitudes toward a new subject (Merrill,
Wilcox and Rollins, 1981), as well as long term memory (Hayes and Henk, 1986),
have been shown to be positively effected by the inclusion of analogies.
Not all conclusions have positively favored the use of analogies. For example,
Dowell (1968), and Drugge and Kass (1978) have concluded the effects of analo-
gies are minimal. Gabel and Sherwood (1980) indicate that this may be due in
part to the differential developmental levels of the students. Their data indicated
analogies appeared to be less effective for the more capable students.
Specific factors that contribute to the effectiveness of analogies have also
received focus. For example, from the perspective of the audience, the analogy
must have meaning (Miller and Isard, 1963) and be comprehendible (Burns,
1985). Further, during instruction, the users must be consistently reminded of
when and how the analogy applies. Gabel and Samuels (1986) and Gick and
138

Holyoak (1980) showed that directly indicating the relation between the analogy
and the unfamiliar concept was necessary to enhance learning. In both cases, a
significant number of their subjects did not transfer the analogical information to
the new concept without first receiving specific instructions to do so.
Further, the construction of the analogy itself appears to be critical. To maxi-
mize effectiveness, its similarities with the unfamiliar content must be made
explicit and shown directly to the learner (Hayes and Tierney, 1982; Mathison,
1985). Additionally, Gick and Holyoak (1983) demonstrated that the presentation
of a second analogy was often required to produce a sufficient problem schema.
Finally, studies have focused on the sequencing of instruction and the place-
ment of the analogy. For instance, Cox and Griggs (1982) enhanced learning by
presenting the analogy prior to the new material; moreover, Schustack and
Anderson (1979) facilitated content recall by including the analogy during the ini-
tial study of the new material and again prior to a test over the materials.

Prescriptive guidelines

Effective analogies, like effective instruction in general, are neither random nor
arbitrary. As described in this paper, analogies are used to facilitate the acquisi-
tion of new knowledge. They will accomplish this most effectively and efficiently
when they are a part of a systematic instructional design. The following prescrip-
tions, based on the cited research, consider the use of an analogy as a planned
technique to facilitate learning. Three basic steps are involved in the systematic
construction and use of an analogy in instruction: decision, construction, and
presentation.

Decision
Several things must be considered prior to formulating a particular analogy and
inserting it into a specific piece of instruction.

1. What do the learners already know?

Learner analysis is a common feature of instructional design models (e.g.,
Kaufman and Thiagarajan, 1987). Conducting a learner analysis involves, in part,
assessing the level of knowledge the specific learners have already acquired. This
has two benefits for the use of analogies.
First, a learner analysis will help determine whether an analogy will be of ben-
efit within the instruction to be given. Although they can be used with any content
or group of learners, analogies are most useful when the information to be learned
is not readily understood by the learners (Pascarella, 1978; Tobias, 1987). When
the learners readily comprehend the content, analogies may become superfluous
and not warrant the additional study time (Simons, 1984). For example, likening
 139

turbines to water wheels should be useful for those students encountering turbines,
electricity, and related subject matter for the first time. Their basic schematic
structure is limited, thus the analogical guide should be used to develop such
structures. However, for the student who has already developed many related
schematic structures, acquiring knowledge about turbines may be more efficiently
accomplished by incorporating it directly within those that already exist (Hayes
and Henk, 1986).
Second, for the analogy to be useful it must have meaning for the learner
(Miller and Isard, 1963). Analyzing the learner's current knowledge will provide
information about the experiences and knowledges from which the analogies can
be drawn. In order to do this, the instructor must be familiar with the learners'
existing knowledge.

2. What is the nature of the specific learning task involved in the instruction?
The analysis of the task is also a common feature of instructional design models
(e.g., Dick and Carey, 1985). The purpose of a task analysis is to classify the
learning task and break it down into its component concepts and information
(Gagne and Briggs, 1979; Merrill, 1983). As shown, analogies have been found
useful in several broadly defined learning tasks - storing information, predicting
future outcomes and events, demonstrating relationships among the various
aspects of a content area, and creative thinking. These tasks fall into different
domains of learning (Gagne, 1985). Storing information is a verbal information
task; prediction and demonstrating relationships are rule using tasks; and creativ-
ity is a problem solving task. It is hypothesized that these different tasks call for
different types of analogies. Storing information, for example, calls for a compre-
hensive analogy. The task of integrating information is made easier by having a
single, all-encompassing framework that can be used for incorporating present
information and adding future information. On the other hand, creative thinking is
best done via a conceptual analogy. The ease with which a conceptual analogy
can be formulated, presented, and modified, in contrast to a more cumbersome
comprehensive analogy, facilitates the creative process (Gordon, 1961, 1973).

Construction
Several basic steps are involved in the construction of an analogy (Newby and
Stepich, 1987). The first is to identify one or more attributes of the new informa-
tion that are particularly salient for its understanding. The analogy must focus on
these attributes. For example, constructing an analogy for the concept "turbine"
begins by identifying the generation of electricity by turning as especially relevant
to understanding the concept.
The second step is to find something from the learner's prior experience having
the same or similar attributes. Comparing the new information to something
140

familiar to the learner helps bridge the gap between what the learner already
knows and the information to be learned. Caution should be exercised at this point
since a perfect match between the familiar item and the item to be learned will not
occur. This may lead to an overemphasis of those attributes exemplified within
the analogy and a subsequent neglect of other important attributes not readily
brought out by the analogy. Once the schematic framework has been developed,
the other relevant points need to be associated within additional instruction.
The final step is to describe thoroughly and clearly the resemblance or similari-
ties between the two things compared in the analogy. This "is like" relationship is
the primary means through which the analogy exerts its instructional power
(Rumelhart and Norman, 1981) and it should be explicitly and directly shown to
the learner (Hayes and Tierney, 1982). It establishes the link between the new
information and some existing knowledge, and it provides the basis for the recol-
lection of what is known about the new information. As shown by Gick and
Holyoak (1980), the learners must be shown and reminded of this relationship.

Presentation
Three decisions are involved in presenting an analogy: (a) what presentation for-
mat to use; (b) where to place the analogy in the instructional sequence; and (c)
how much time to allow for the presentation and its comparison with the new
information.
An analogy can be presented in a verbal, pictorial, or combination verbal-
pictorial format (Curtis and Reigeluth, 1984). For example, an analogy for "tur-
bine" can be presented verbally, "a turbine is like a water wheel;" pictorially,
using a picture of a turbine together with a picture of a water wheel; or in a com-
bination format. The combination format may provide the most powerful presen-
tation because each form of the analogy will reinforce the other (Newby and
Stepich, 1987).
In placing an analogy in the sequence of instructional activities it is important
to remember that analogies operate during the encoding of new information, help-
ing the learner interpret the new information and transform it into a memorable
image. To be available as new information is taken in and encoded, an analogy
should be presented early in the instructional sequence, along with the initial
presentation of the new information (Cox and Griggs, 1982). To maximize its
effectiveness, the learners must be reminded of the analogy and when it should be
used (Gick and Holyoak, 1980).
Finally, as shown by Simons (1983), for analogies to be effective, learners
must have time to receive the presentation, (i.e., to read or hear) and time to com-
pare the "is like" attributes. The instructional format therefore, must be designed
to allow for this following the introduction of the analogy.
 141

Summary

This paper has outlined a conceptualization of analogies as instructional tools,

helping learners acquire new information by using what they already know.The
information processing paradigm was used as a context for understanding how
analogies facilitate learning. The learned capabilities resulting from learning by
analogy were discussed. Finally, a set of prescriptions for the construction and use
of analogies in instruction was presented. In brief, the information processing par-
adigm suggests that learning is an active process based on the continuous manipu-
lation of information in terms of cognitive structures, called schemata in this
paper. Two basic processes are involved: encoding of new information and
retrieval of information from memory.
Analogies facilitate the comprehension of new information by using some part
of the learner's existing knowledge as a "cognitive template" to help generate a
schema for the new information. In this way analogies transform new information
into a form that is easily encoded and stored in memory. Analogies also facilitate
the retrieval of information from memory by providing a memorable cue for the
reconstructive process of recalling stored information.
Two levels of complexity were suggested in this paper. Conceptual analogies
relate a single new piece of information to a single piece of familiar information.
It was suggested that conceptual analogies have the advantages of being quickly
and easily produced and presented. They do not, however, demonstrate the inter-
relationships which may exist among information related to a given topic. These
relationships can be shown by using comprehensive analogies, which are global
analogies made up of conceptual analogies representing most, if not all, of the
concepts relevant to the subject. Comprehensive analogies are more difficult to
produce, but have the advantage of providing a single, more inclusive framework
with which the new information can be compared.

References

Abbot, V., Black, J.B. and Smith, E.E. (1985). The representation of scripts in memory. Journal of
Memory and Language, 24, 179-199.
Anderson, J.R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco: W.N. Freeman and
Company.
Ausubel, D.P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful ver-
bal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51,267-272.
Ausubel, D.P. and Fitzgerald, D. (1961). The role of discfiminability in meaningful verbal learning
and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52,266-274.
Ausubel, D.P., Novak J.D. and Hanesian N. (1978). Educational psychology: a cognitive view (2nd
ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Axelrod, J. (1979). Word analogies: an overlooked reading aid. Reading Horizons, 19, 232-234.
Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. New York: The
MacMillian Company.
142

Bums, J.C. (1985). Effects of teacher use of concrete analogies on achievement of high school biology
students with varying levels of prior knowledge and cognitive ability. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 45A, 2825.
Collins, A. and Stevens, P.C, (1983). A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching. In C,A. Reigeluth (Ed.)
Instructional--design theories and models: an overview of their current status. (pp. 247-278).
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Curtis, R.V. and Reigeluth, C.M. (1984). The use of analogies in written text. Instructional Science,
13, 99-117.
Cox, J.R. and Griggs, R.A. (1982). The effects of experience on performance in Wason's selection
task. Memory and Cognition, 10, 496-502.
Davidson, R.E. (1976). The role of metaphor and analogy in learning. In J.R. Levin and V.L. Allen
(Eds.), Cognitive learning in children: theories and strategies. New York: Academic Press.
Dick, W. and Carey, L. (1985). The systematic design of instruction. Glenview, IL.: Scott, Foresman
and Company.
Dowell, R.I. (1968). The relations between the use of analogies and their effect on student achieve-
ment in teaching a selected concept in high school biology. Dissertation Abstracts International,
29(10), 3519-A.
Drugge, N.L. and Kass, H. (1978). The effect of selected analogies on understanding of scientific
explanations. Abstracts of Presented Papers, NARST, 1978. Cleveland: ERIC Clearinghouse for
Sciences, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, The Ohio State University. (ERIC
Reproduction Science No. ED 152 537)
Fleming, M.L. (1987). Display and communication. In R.M. Gagne fed.), Instructional technology:
foundations. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gabel, D.L. and Samuel, K.V. (1986). High school students' ability to solve molarity problems and
their analog counterparts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 165-176.
Gabel, D.L. and Sherwood, R.D. (1980). Effect of using analogies on chemistry achievement accord-
ing to Piagetian level. Science Education, 64, 709-716.
Gagne, R.M. (1985). Conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gagne, R.M. and Briggs, L. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Gentner, D. (1982). Are scientific analogies metaphors? In D.S. Maill (Ed.), Metaphor: problems and
perspectives (pp. 106-132). Atlantic Highlands, N.L: Humanities Press, Inc.
Genmer, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Sc&nce, 7,
155-170.
Gick, M.L. and Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 305-
355.
Gick, M.L. and Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive
Psychology, 15, 1-38.
Glass, A.L. and Holyoak, K.J. (1986). Cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
Gordon, W.J.J, (1961). Synetics: the development of creative capacity. New York: Harper and Row.
Gordon, W.J.J. (1973). The metaphorical way of learning and knowing. (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA:
Porpoise Books.
Green, T. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.
Hayes, D.A. and Henk, W,A. (1986). Understanding and remembering complex prose augmented by
analogic and pictorial illustration. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 63-78.
Hayes, D.A. and Tiemey, R.J. (1982). Developing readers' knowledge through analogy. Reading
Research Quarterly, 17, 256-280.
Ignoffo, M.F. (1980). The thread of thought: analogies as a vocabulary method. Journal of Reading,
23, 519-521.
Iona, M. (1982). Teaching electricity. Science and Children, 19, 22-23.
Kaufman, R. and Thiagarajan, S. (1987). Identifying and specifying requirements for instruction. In
R.M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional technology:foundations (pp. 113-140). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
 143

Keller, J.M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructional design
theories and models: an overview of their current status (pp. 393-434). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Eflbaum Associates.
Klatzky, R.L, (1984). Memory and awareness: an information processing perspective. New York:
W.N. Freeman and Company.
Ledger, M. (1977). Analogy: a lesson in composition. Exercise Exchange, 21, 8-12.
Mandler, G. (1985). Cognitive psychology: an essay in cognitive science. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Mathison, C.S. (1985). Effects of one and two analog conditions on learners' ability to recognize and
use prior knowledge to solve a new problem. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(10), 2974-
A.
Mayer, R.E. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning? Review of Educational
Research, 49, 371-383.
Mayer, R,E. (1980). Elaboration techniques that increase the meaningfulness of technical text: an
experimental test of the learning strategy hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 770--
784.
Merrill, M.D. (1983). Component display theory. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories
and models: an overview of their current status. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Merrill, M.D., Kelety, J.C. and Wilson, B. (1981). Elaboration theory and cognitive psychology.
Instructional Science, 10, 217-235.
Merrill, P.F., Wilcox, W. and Rollins, R. (1981). The effects of metaphors in teaching intangible con-
cepts. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research
Association, Los Angeles.
Miller, R.M. (1976). The dubious case for metaphors in educational writing. Educational Theory, 26,
174-181.
Miller, G.A. and Isard, S. Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Behavior, 2.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P.N. Winston (Ed.). The psychology
of computer vision (pp. 211-277). New York: McGraw Hill.
Newby, T.J., Cook, J.A. and Merrill, P.F. (1988). Visual mediational instruction: reducing interference
within visual and aural multiple-discrimination tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1),
40-45.
Newby, T.J. and Stepich, D.A. (1987). Learning abstract concepts: the use of analogies as a medi-
ational strategy. Journal oflnstructional Development, •0(2), 20-26.
Norman, D.A. (1978). Notes toward a theory of complex learning. In A.M. Lesgold, J.W. Pellegrino,
S.D. Fokkema and R. Glaser (Eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction (pp, 39-48). New York:
Plenum Press.
Norman, D.A., Gentner, D.R. and Stevens, A.L. (1976). Comments on learning schemata and memory
representation. In D. Klahr (Ed.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 177-196). Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbanm Associates.
Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53.
Pascarella, E.T. (1978). Interactive effects of prior mathematics preparation and level of instruction
support in college calculus. American Educational Research Journal, 15,275-285.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1983). Meaningfulness and instruction: relating what is being lcamed to what a stu-
dent knows. Instructional Science, 12,197-218.
Reigeluth, C.M. and Merrill, M.D., Wilson, B.G. and Spiller, R.T. (1980). The elaboration theory of
instruction: a model for sequencing and synthesizing instruction. Instructional Science, 9, 195-
219.
Reigeluth, C.M. and Stein, F.S. 1983). The Elaboration theory of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: an overview of their current status (pp. 335-382).
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Resnick, L.B. (1983). Toward a cognitive theory of instruction. In S.C. Paris and H.W. Stevenson
(Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 5-38). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbatlrn
Associates.
144

Rurnelhart, D.E. (1977). Introduction to human information processing. New York: John WHey and
Sons.
Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce and
W.F, Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-50). Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rumelhart, D.E. and Norman, D.A. (1981). Analogical processes in learning. In J.A. Anderson (Ed.),
Cognitive skills and the& acqu&itlon (pp. 335-359). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Rumelhart, D.E. and Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R.C.
Anderson, R.J. Spiro and W.F. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp.
99-135). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schank, R.C. and Ableson, R.P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmitt, M.C. and Newby, T.J. (1986). Metacognition: relevance to instructional design. Journal of
Instructional Development, 9, 29-33.
Schnstack, M.W. and Anderson, J.R. (1979). Effects of analogy to prior knowledge on memory for
new information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 565-583.
Simons, P.R.J. (1983). How we should control time on task - or should we? Instructional Sc&nce, 11,
357-372.
Simons, P.R.J. (1984). Instructions with analogies. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 76, 513-527.
Snelbecker, G.E. (1974). Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational design. New
York: McGraw-Hill Company.
Thomdyke, P.W. and Hayes-Roth, B. (1979). The use of schemata in the acquisition and transfer of
knowledge. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 82-106.
Tobias, S. (1987). Learner characteristics. In R.M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional technology:foundations.
ttillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wittrock, M.C. (1979). The cognitive movement in instruction. Educational Researcher, 8, 5-11.