Does "Target is like Source" click intuitively?
Do the key parts of the target have clear counterparts in the source? (Processes can map to objects and vice versa — focus on functional roles.)
Would a learner gain real understanding from this analogy? Consider whether the source is simpler and more familiar than the target — a good analogy provides an easier entry point.
Coh 3: Central mass with orbiting bodies — instantly mirrors nucleus-electron layout.
Map 3: Nearly every key component finds a natural counterpart — the central body, orbiting objects, governing force, and orbital structure all align.
Exp 3: Learner grasps spatial layout, governing forces, and relative scale.
Coh 2: Conveys emptiness/scale but overall atomic structure isn't immediate.
Map 2: The small-object-in-vast-space maps to one aspect, but several key parts (orbiting particles, shells, forces) lack counterparts.
Exp 2: Teaches one property (emptiness) well but misses the dynamic multi-part relationship.
Coh 1: Solid uniform block — misrepresents internal structure entirely.
Map 1: No components correspond to the key parts of an atom.
Exp 1: Could mislead learners into thinking atoms are solid. Zero insight.
Ranking: 1st Solar System · 2nd Marble in a Stadium · 3rd Lego Brick
Coh 3: Two interlocking sides wound together — immediately resonates with double helix.
Map 3: The source's interlocking teeth, twin strips, and open/close mechanism all find natural counterparts in DNA's structure and replication process.
Exp 3: Learner visualizes strand separation and rejoining, grasping structure and function.
Coh 3: Spiral shape maps onto helix — clicks at first glance.
Map 2: Repeating step-like units suggest base pairs, but a single railing and no separation mechanism leave key parts without counterparts.
Exp 2: Captures shape well but doesn't convey encoding or replication. Partial learning.
Coh 2: "Stores instructions" connects loosely.
Map 1: A flat book has no structural parallel for the helix, paired bases, or strand separation.
Exp 1: "DNA is instructions" is too vague to build real understanding.
Ranking: 1st Twisted Zipper · 2nd Spiral Staircase · 3rd Recipe Book
Coh 3: One of science's most natural analogies — "flow" maps seamlessly.
Map 3: The moving substance, channel properties, driving force, and flow rate all find clear counterparts in the electrical domain.
Exp 3: Restricting the channel increases resistance, increasing the driving force increases flow. Powerful predictive tool.
Coh 2: Cars moving captures flow, but autonomous agents behave differently from field-driven particles.
Map 2: Moving objects in a channel works, but the driving force and the nature of resistance lack convincing counterparts.
Exp 2: Basic "things in a channel" sense but could mislead on mechanism.
Coh 2: Lightning is electricity — related but a dramatic instance, not a separate concept.
Map 1: A sudden discharge has no counterpart for steady current, resistance, or voltage.
Exp 1: Reinforces "electricity is scary" rather than circuit understanding.
Ranking: 1st Water in Pipes · 2nd Highway Traffic · 3rd Lightning Bolt