- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Use of hands-on classroom experiments as physical analogies in student discussion

Oriel Marshall*,†

Jesper Bruun

Katrien Kolenberg

Anja C. Andersen

Peter Van Petegem

  • Department of Training and Education Sciences and Department of Physics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium and Department of Science Education and Department of Astronomy and Space Physics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010149 – Published 25 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/x2zt-6v8x

Abstract

Models are commonly used in astronomy education to help students understand and discuss difficult or abstract concepts. From a physics education research perspective, metaphors and analogies are often used to support reasoning about abstract phenomena. This study investigates how students draw on classroom experiments as physical analogies (a multimodal instance of conceptual metaphor) when reasoning about exoplanetary atmospheres. We conducted two lessons: one about cloud formation on Earth and exoplanets and another about lightning on Earth and exoplanets, both including a hands-on experiment related to the topic. The students were then split into peer-led focus groups and tasked with discussing the experiment and its relation to weather in planetary atmospheres. We audio-recorded these group discussions and extracted relevant excerpts. We analyzed these excerpts sequentially using thematic analysis, network analysis, and conceptual blend analysis. We identified four input spaces used by students (relevant physics, the experiment, Earth conditions, and exoplanet conditions) and three ways in which students use analogies (mapping between domains, identifying limitations, and extending the analogy). Across these analyses, we found that students integrate these input spaces to construct blend spaces that mediate their reasoning about processes and concepts in Earth and exoplanetary weather phenomena. We also discuss implications for future research and teaching.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (49)

  1. R. Duit, H. Fischer, and D. F. Treagust, Multiple representations in Physics education, in Models and Modeling in Science Education (2017), 10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5.
  2. R. K. Coll, B. France, and I. Taylor, The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 183 (2005).
  3. Y. Devecioglu-Kaymakci, Embedding analogical reasoning into 5E learning model: A study of the solar system, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 12, 881 (2016).
  4. M. Pössel, Teaching cosmology with special relativity: Piecewise inertial frames as a model for cosmic expansion, Eur. J. Phys. 40, 025602 (2019).
  5. M. Kersting and R. Steier, Understanding curved spacetime, Sci. Educ. 27, 593 (2018).
  6. R. H. Price, Spatial curvature, spacetime curvature, and gravity, Am. J. Phys. 84, 588 (2016).
  7. M. Pössel, Interpretations of cosmic expansion: Anchoring conceptions and misconceptions, Phys. Educ. 55, 065006 (2020).
  8. O. Marshall, R. Tojeiro, and A.-M. Weijmans, Demonstrating cosmological and Doppler redshift in the classroom, in Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Space Educational Activities (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 2022), 10.5821/conference-9788419184405.098.
  9. M. Braam, P. I. Palmer, L. Decin, R. J. Ridgway, M. Zamyatina, N. J. Mayne, D. E. Sergeev, and N. Luke Abraham, Lightning-induced chemistry on tidally-locked earth-like exoplanets, Mon. Not. R Astron. Soc. 517, 2383 (2022).
  10. S. Kiefer, N. Bach-Møller, D. Samra, D. A. Lewis, A. D. Schneider, F. Amadio, H. Lecoq-Molinos, L. Carone, L. Decin, U. G. Jørgensen, and C. Helling, Under the magnifying glass: A combined 3D model applied to cloudy warm saturn-type exoplanets around M dwarfs, Astron. Astrophys. 692, A222 (2024).
  11. C. Helling, Exoplanet clouds, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 47, 583 (2019).
  12. R. W. Bybee, J. A. Taylor, A. Gardner, P. Van Scotter, J. C. Powell, A. Westbrook, and N. Landes, The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications, 2006, http://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/ b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%20D.pdf.
  13. N. Gericke, P. Högström, and J. Wallin, A systematic review of research on laboratory work in secondary school, Stud. Sci. Educ. 59, 245 (2023).
  14. D. Drane, M. Micari, and G. Light, Students as teachers: Effectiveness of a peer-led STEM learning programme over 10 years, Educ. Res. Eval. 20, 210 (2014).
  15. N. Djohari and R. Higham, Peer-led focus groups as ‘dialogic spaces’ for exploring young people’s evolving values, Cambridge J. Educ. 50, 657 (2020).
  16. G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2003).
  17. N. S. Podolefsky and N. D. Finkelstein, Analogical scaffolding and the learning of abstract ideas in physics: An example from electromagnetic waves, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010109 (2007).
  18. M. Pössel, Relatively complicated? Using models to teach general relativity at different levels, arXiv:1812.11589.
  19. P. Aubusson, Can analogy help in science education research?, in Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education (Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2006), pp. 165–175.
  20. F. Jeppsson, J. Haglund, T. G. Amin, and H. Strömdahl, Exploring the use of conceptual metaphors in solving problems on entropy, J. Learn. Sci. 22, 70 (2013).
  21. J. Clement, Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 1241 (1993).
  22. S. Vosniadou and W. F. Brewer, Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood, Cognit. Psychol. 24, 535 (1992).
  23. G. Fauconnier and M. Turner, The Way We Think —Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (Basic Books, New York, 2002).
  24. E. Gire and E. Price, Arrows as anchors: An analysis of the material features of electric field vector arrows, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020112 (2014).
  25. S. Van den Eynde, B. P. Schermerhorn, J. Deprez, M. Goedhart, J. R. Thompson, and M. De Cock, Dynamic conceptual blending analysis to model student reasoning processes while integrating mathematics and physics: A case study in the context of the heat equation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010114 (2020).
  26. T. O. B. Odden, How conceptual blends support sensemaking: A case study from introductory physics, Sci. Educ. 105, 989 (2021).
  27. N. L. Leech and A. J. Onwuegbuzie, A typology of mixed methods research designs, Qual. Quant. 43, 265 (2009).
  28. J. Bruun, Networks as integrated in research methodologies in PER,presented at PER Conf. 2016, Sacramento, CA, 10.1119/perc.2016.plenary.002
  29. O. Marshall, Clouds on other planets, in Proceedings of AstroEdu 2505 (2025).10.14586/astroedu/2505
  30. O. Marshall, Lightning on other planets, in Proceedings of AstroEdu 2025 (2025).10.14586/astroedu/2508
  31. CHAMELEON, CHAMELEON–virtual laboratories for exoplanets and planet-forming disks (2020).
  32. N. Bach-Møller, C. Helling, U. G. Jørgensen, and M. B. Enghoff, Aggregation and charging of mineral cloud particles under high-energy irradiation, Astrophys. J. 962, 87 (2024).
  33. T. Balduin, Dust grain in charging protoplanetary disks and the potential emergence of lightning, Ph.D. thesis, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2024.
  34. Y. S. Lincoln, E. G. Guba, and J. J. Pilotta, Naturalistic inquiry, Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 9, 438 (1985).
  35. J. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed. (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2014).
  36. J. Bruun, M. Lindahl, and C. Linder, Network analysis and qualitative discourse analysis of a classroom group discussion, Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 42, 317 (2019).
  37. M. Pedaste, M. Mäeots, L. A. Siiman, T. de Jong, S. A. van Riesen, E. T. Kamp, C. C. Manoli, Z. C. Zacharia, and E. Tsourlidaki, Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle, Educ. Res. Rev. 14, 47 (2015).
  38. V. Braun and V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77 (2006).
  39. A.-L. Barabási, M. Martino, and M. Pósfai, Network science, 2012.
  40. M. Bastian, S. Heymann, and M. Jacomy, Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks, in Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (2009).
  41. E. Brewe, J. Bruun, and I. G. Bearden, Using module analysis for multiple choice responses: A new method applied to Force Concept Inventory data, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020131 (2016).
  42. D. Gentner, Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy, Cogn. Sci. 7, 155 (1983).
  43. R. J. Spiro, P. J. Feltovich, R. L. Coulson, and D. K. Anderson, Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1989).
  44. D. Gentner, Mental Models, edited by D.Gentner and A. L.Stevens (Psychology Press, New York, 2014).
  45. B. Gregorcic and J. Haglund, Conceptual blending as an interpretive lens for student engagement with technology: Exploring celestial motion on an interactive whiteboard, Res. Sci. Educ. 51, 235 (2021).
  46. J. Haglund, Collaborative and self-generated analogies in science education, Stud. Sci. Educ. 49, 35 (2013).
  47. J. Haglund, F. Jeppsson, and J. Andersson, Young children’s analogical reasoning in science domains, Sci. Educ. 96, 725 (2012).
  48. J. Osborne, Practical work in science: Misunderstood and badly used?, School Sci. Rev. 96, 16 (2015), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1120280.
  49. D. Lombardi, T. F. Shipley, J. M. Bailey, P. S. Bretones, E. E. Prather, C. J. Ballen, J. K. Knight, M. K. Smith, R. L. Stowe, M. M. Cooper, M. Prince, K. Atit, D. H. Uttal, N. D. LaDue, P. M. McNeal, K. Ryker, K. St. John, K. J. van der Hoeven Kraft, and J. L. Docktor, The curious construct of active learning, Psychol. Sci. Publ. Interest 22, 8 (2021).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010149– Published 25 June, 2026
  • Received 6 May 2025
  • Accepted 4 May 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation