Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

An Investigation on Models of Making-hypothesis Process by Analysis of Formulating Hypotheses on Repetition Hypothesis Activities in Middle School Students

  • Kim, Young-Shin (University of Missouri-Columbia) ;
  • Germann, Paul J. (University of Missouri-Columbia)
  • Published : 2004.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The scientific inquiry enterprise consists of formulating hypotheses, testing hypotheses, evaluating evidence, and revising hypothesis. Scientific inquiry in the science classrooms requires students' background experience and knowledge with the phenomenon in order to ask appropriate questions, identify and define variables operationally, formulate hypotheses, and design clear and complete experiment. The ability to test hypotheses has been postulated to play a central role in cognitive processes. The purpose of this study was to analyze what the change of the quantity and quality of the hypothesis, the rejecting or accepting of the hypothesis, and the use results in the repetitional hypothesis activity experiments. To examine the problems, this study analyzed 5 classes which were designed and administered to 16 students of the 7th grade. The results of this study showed that students preferred the engineering method to scientific method and the quality of a second hypothesis got low. The quality of the hypothesis came to be higher through a repetitional hypothesis and the number of hypothesis was reduced. The results of the experiments did not play central roles in revising hypotheses and accepting or rejecting hypothesis.

Keywords

References

  1. Adsit, D. J., & London, M. (1997). Effects of hypothesis generation on hypothesis testing in rule discovery tasks. Journal of Gener al Psychology, 124(1), 19-35 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309709595505
  2. Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 313-337 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031002313
  3. Cortez, R., & Niaz, M. (1999). Adolescents' understanding of observation, prediction, and hypothesis in everyday and educational contexts. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160(2), 125-141 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221329909595387
  4. Dochy, F. J. R. V. (1992). Assessment of prior knowledge as a determinant for future learning London: Jessica Kingsley Publications
  5. Dunbar, K. & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery processes. In D. Klahr, & Kv. Kotovsky (Eds.). Complex information processing: the impact of Herbert Simon. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  6. Educational Policies Commission (1966). Education and the spirit of science. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association of the United States
  7. Fisher. S. D., Gettys, C. E., Manning, C., Mehle. T., & Baca. S. (1983). Consistency checking in hypothesis generation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31. 233-254 https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90123-X
  8. Germann, P. J ., Haskins, S. & Auls, S. (1996a). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5). 475-499 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199605)33:5<475::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-O
  9. Germann, P. J., Odom, A. L., Aram, R., & Burke, G. (1996b). Student performance on asking questions. identifying variables, and formulating hypotheses. School Science & Mathematics. 96(4).192-201 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10224.x
  10. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspect of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201-217 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052002201
  11. Kim, Y. Kwon, Y. Yang, I., & Chung, W. (2003). Exploring Reasoning Patterns of Students' Scientific Thinking, Inquiry Activities in Textbook, and Examination Items in Korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(4). 309-318
  12. Klahr, D.(2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge. Masscahusetts: The MIT Press
  13. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K.(1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12. 1-48 https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90007-9
  14. Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993), Heuristic for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25. 114-146
  15. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. (1987). Confirmation, disconfrrmation and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review. 94, 211-228 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211
  16. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review. 96. 674-689 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.674
  17. Kuhn, D., & Phelps, E. (1982). The development of problem-solving strategies. In H. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 17, pp 1-44). New York: Academic
  18. Kuhn, D., Arosel, E. & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Jovanovich
  19. Kwon, Y. (1997). Linking prefrontal lobe functions with reasoning and concepual change. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Tempe, AZ: Arzonaa State University
  20. Kwon, J., Jeong, J., Kang, M., & Kim, Y. (2003) A grounded theory on the process of generation hypothesis-knowledge about seientific episodes. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(5), 458-469
  21. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
  22. Lawson, A. E., McElrath, C. B., Burton, M. S., James. B. D., Doyle, R. P., Woodward, S., L., Kellerman, L., & Synder, J. D. (1991). Hypothetico-deductive reasoning skill and concept acquisition: Testing a constructivist hypothesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 465-478
  23. Mehle, T., Gettys, C., Manning, C., Baca, S., & Fisher, S. (1981). The availability explannation of excessive plausibility estimate. Acta Psychologica, 49, 467-471
  24. Moshman, D., & Thompson, P. A. (1981), Hypothesis testingin students: Sequences, stages, and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 341-352 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660180409
  25. Moshman, D. (1979). Development of formal hypothesis testing ability. Developmental Psychology, 15, 104-112 https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.15.2.104
  26. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards - A guide for teaching and learning. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
  27. Park, J. (2002), An analysis of the processes of conceptual change through the successive refmement and articulation of student' s conceptual framework Focused on the theoretical discussions. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 22(2), 357-377
  28. Penner, D. E., & Klahr, D. (1996). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain-general discovery strategies: A study with sinking objects. Child Development, 67, 2709-2727 https://doi.org/10.2307/1131748
  29. Quinn, M. E., & George, K. D. (1975). Teaching hypothesis formation. Science Education, 59(3), 289-298 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730590303
  30. Robinson, L. B., Hastie, R. (1985). Revision of beliefs when a hypothesis in eliminated from consideration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 443-456 https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.11.4.443
  31. Ruffman, T., Pemer, J., Olson, D. R., & Doherty, M. (1993). Reflecting on scientific thinking: Children' s understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation. Child Development, 64, 1617-1636 https://doi.org/10.2307/1131459
  32. Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31-57 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(90)90048-D
  33. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859-882 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280910
  34. Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child development, 51, 1-10 https://doi.org/10.2307/1129583
  35. van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1991), Supporting hypothesis generation by Iearners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instructional Science, 20, 389-404
  36. Sodian, B., Szitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children' s differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753-766 https://doi.org/10.2307/1131175
  37. Teigen, K. H. (1983). Studies in subjective probability III: The unimportance of alternatives. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 24, 97-105 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1983.tb00481.x
  38. Wason, P. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140 https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216008416717
  39. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20. 273-281 https://doi.org/10.1080/14640746808400161
  40. Yang, I., Kwon, Y., Kim. Y., Jang, M., Jeong, J., & Park, K. (2002). Effects of students' prior knowledge on seientific reasoning in density. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 22(2), 314-335