How does the use of analogical mapping as a scaffold for science learners' argumentation support their learning and talking about science?

Abstract

Analogical mapping is evaluated as a scaffold for smal-lgroup argumentation and learning. In this study, groups of four students are invited ot analogically map simple machines while creating an argument about which two are most analogically similar. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of video and transcripts show dense argumentation with mutual understanding among students numerous claims. Fifteen out of egihteen claims were normative, suggesting student learning was directed toward functional fetaures of simple machines.