Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

presented indicating that spontaneously generated analogies can play a significant role in expert problem solving. Since not all analogies are valid, it is important for the subject to have a way to evaluate their validity. Three methods for evaluating analogical validity are identified using observations from thinking aloud problem solving protocols as well as examples from Newton and Galileo. In particular, this paper focuses on an evaluation strategy called bridging that has been observed in solutions to both science and mathematics problems. In constructing a bridge, the subject finds an intermediate case that is seen as "in between" the analogous case and the problem situation because it shares important features of both. Many of the bridges observed appeared to be novel inventions created by the subject. These empirical studies have led to the construction of a more detailed theory for how analogies can be used effectively in instruction. Some of the strategies observed in experts appear to have high potential for helping science students overcome persistent misconceptions in the classroom.