Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Test of the Confirming Abduction Model: How Do Students Confirm Their Hypotheses During the Process of Scientific Hypothesis-Generation?

  • Published : 2007.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to test the validity of the confirming abduction model (CAM). CAM is a process model which explains how reasoners confirm their hypothetical explicans. To test this model, 154 8th grade students were sampled from one middle school in Korea. Three types of vapor condensation hypothesis confirming tests were developed and administered to the subjects. The results of this study revealed that student confidence increased when hypothetical explicans were borrowed into experienced phenomena from questioning phenomena. These results validated CAM. According to CAM, the process. of confirming hypothetical explican is as follows: representing a questioning phenomenon, representing an experienced phenomenon that is similar to the questioning phenomenon, representing the hypothetical explican of the questioning phenomenon, comparing the questioning phenomenon with the experienced phenomenon, and borrowing the hypothetical explican as the hypothetical explican of the experienced phenomenon from the hypothetical explican of the questioning phenomenon. This study also discussed the implications of these findings for teaching and learning in science education.

Keywords

References

  1. Adsit, D. J., & London, M. (1997). Effects of hypothesis generation on hypothesis testing in rule -discovery tasks. The Journal of General Psychology, 124(1), 19-34 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309709595505
  2. Atkins, P. W. (1989). General chemistry. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company
  3. Bonfantini, M. A, & Proni, G. (1988). To guess or not to guess? In U. Eco & T. A Sebeok (Eds.), The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce, pp. 119 -134. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press
  4. Darden, L. (1991). Theory change in science: Strategies from mendelian genetics. New York: Oxford University Press
  5. Darian, S. (1995). Hypotheses in introductory science texts. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 33(2), 83-109 https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1995.33.2.83
  6. Enger, E. D., & Ross, F. C. (2003). Concepts in biology, 10th ed. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Compaines, Inc
  7. Fischer, H. R. (2001). Abductive reasoning as a way of worldmaking. Foundation of Science, 6, 361 -383
  8. Garst, J., Kerr, N. L., Harris, S. E., & Sheppard, L. A. (2002). Satisficing in hypothesis generation. The American Journal of Psychology, 115(4), 475-480 https://doi.org/10.2307/1423524
  9. Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
  10. Jeong, J. (2004). Development of the triple abduction model and its application to scientific hypothesis generation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Cheongwon, Chungbuk: Korea National University of Education
  11. Jeong, J., & Kwon, Y. (2001). Roles of abductive reasoning and prior knowledge in high school students' generating biological hypotheses. A paper presented at the 2001 NABT National Convention, Montreal, CA, November 10
  12. Kimball, J. W. (1994). Biology, 6th ed. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers
  13. Klahr, D., & Simon, H. A. (1999). Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (5), 524-543 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.524
  14. Kwon, Y., Yang, I., & Chung, W. (2000). An explorative analysis of hypothesis-generation by pre -service science teachers. Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 20, 29-42
  15. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Companyl
  16. Lawson, A. E. (2000). How do humans acquire knowledge? and what does that imply about the nature of knowledge? Science & Education, 9, 577-598 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008756715517
  17. Magnani, L. (1997). Basic science reasoning and clinical reasoning interwined: Epistemological analysis and consequences for medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2, 115-130 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009736414434
  18. McPherson, G. R. (2001). Teaching & learning the scientific method. The American Biology Teacher, 63(4), 242-245 https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2001)063[0242:TLTSM]2.0.CO;2
  19. Moore, R., & Vodopich, D. S. (1998). Botany, 2rd ed. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill, Inc
  20. Petty, M. E. (2001). A case study of the abductive reasoning processes or pre-service elementary education students in a role playing setting concerning a mock senate hearing on global climate change. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
  21. Popper, K. (1968). The logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers
  22. Slabaugh, W. H., & Parsons, T. D. (1976). General chemistry, 3rd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
  23. Uno, G., Storey, R., & Moore, R. (2001). Principles of botany. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Compaines, Inc