Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2006.26.4.546

Rule-Inferring Strategies for Abductive Reasoning in the Process of Solving an Earth-Environmental Problem  

Oh, Phil-Seok (Ewha Womans University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.26, no.4, 2006 , pp. 546-558 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify heuristically how abduction was used in a context of solving an earth-environmental problem. Thirty two groups of participants with different institutional backgrounds, i,e., inservice earth science teachers, preservice science teachers, and high school students, solved an open-ended earth-environmental problem and produced group texts in which their ways of solving the problem were written, The inferential processes in the texts were rearranged according to the syllogistic form of abduction and then analyzed iteratively so as to find thinking strategies used in the abductive reasoning. The result showed that abduction was employed in the process of solving the earth-environmental problem and that several thinking strategies were used for inferring rules from which abductive conclusions were drawn. The strategies found included data reconstruction, chained abduction, adapting novel information, model construction and manipulation, causal combination, elimination, case-based analogy, and existential strategy. It was suggested that abductive problems could be used to enhance students' thinking abilities and their understanding of the nature of earth science and earth-environmental problems.
Keywords
abduction; abductive reasoning; earth science; problem solving; thinking strategy;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Kim, C.-J. (2002). Inference frequently used in earth science. Journal of the Korean Earth Sciecne Society, 23(2), 188-193
2 Mannoia, V. J. (1980). What is science? An introduction to the structure and methodology of science. Lanham, MD: University of Press of America
3 Solomon, M. (1992). Scientific rationality and human reasoning. Philosophy of Science, 59, 439-455   ScienceOn
4 김찬종 (1998). 초등 과학 우수 학생의 일상적 맥락의 과학 문제 해결 과정: 서답형 문항에 대한 응답 분석. 한국초등과학교육학회지, 17(1), 75-87
5 Baker, V. R. (2(H)). Conversing with the Earth: The geological approach to understanding. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), Earth matters: The earth sciences, philosophy, and the claims of community, (pp. 2-10). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
6 Elgelhardt, W. von., & Zimmermann, J. (1982). Theory of earth science (translated by L. Fischer). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
7 Baker, V. R. (1996). Hypothese and geomorphological reasoning. In B. L. Rhoads & C. E. Thorn (Eds.), The scientific nature of geomorphology, (pp. 57-85). New York, NY: John Wiely & Sons
8 Johnson, T. R, & Krems, J. F. (2001). Use of current explanations in multicausal abductive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 25, 903-939   ScienceOn
9 Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science: Process of discovery and explanation. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers
10 Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
11 Shelley, C. (1996). Visual abductive reasoning in archaeology. Philosophy of Science, 63, 278-301   ScienceOn
12 National Research Council (19%). National Science Education Standards. Washington, EC: National Academy Press
13 Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, N.I: Princeton University Press
14 Eco, U. (1983). Horns, hooves, insteps: Some hypotheses on three types of abduction. In U. Eco & T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce, (pp. 198-220). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press
15 Leak, D. B. (1995). Abduction, experience, and goals: A model of everyday abductive explanation. The Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 7, 407-428   ScienceOn
16 Schumm, S. A. (1991). To interpret the Earth: Ten ways to be wrong. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
17 오필석, 김찬종 (2005). 지구과학의 한 탐구 방법으로서 귀추법에 대한 이론적 고찰. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(6), 610-623
18 오필석 (2005). 지구과학적으로 탐구하기: 지구과학 수업에서의 귀추적 탐구. 함께하는 지구과학교육, 4(1), 52-60
19 권용주, 심해숙, 정진수, 박국태 (2003). 수증기 응결에 관한 초등학생들의 가설 생성에서 귀추의 역할과 과정. 한국지구과학회지, 24(4), 250-257
20 Giere, R. N. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press
21 박종원 (2001). 학생의 과학적 설명 가설의 생성 과정 분석: 대학생의 반응 분석을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 21(3), 209-621
22 Rhoads, B. L, & Thorn, C. E. (1996). Observation in geomorphology. In B. L. Rhoads & C. E. Thorn (Eds.), The scientific nature of geomorphology, (pp. 21-56). New York, NY: John Wiely & Sons
23 Gilbert, G. K. (1896). The origin of hypotheses: Illustrated by the discussion of a topographical problem. Science, New Series, 3(53), 1-13
24 Schurz, G. (2002). Model of abduction: From an interrogative viewpoint. In G. Schurz & M. Werning. (Eds.), Philosophical prepublication series of the chair of theoretical philosophy at the University of Duseldorf. Available from http://thphil.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/index.php/filemanager/download/68/ModelsAbducReasoning.pdf
25 Kim, C.-J. (2003). Preparing teachers for systems science methodology. In V. J. Mayer (Ed.), Implementing global science literacy, (pp. 255-266). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University
26 Kim, J., & Cunningham, D. J. (2003). A syllogism for formulating hypotheses. Semiotica, 144, 303-317
27 Duschl, R. A., & Smith, M. J. (2001). Earth science. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities, (pp. 269-290). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science
28 Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003). Geology as an historical science: Its perception within science and the educational system. Science & Education, 12, 197-211
29 Gilbert, S. W., & Ireton, S. W. (2003). Understanding models in earth and space science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press
30 The Watercourse and Council for Environmental Education (1995). Project WET: Curriculum & Activity Guide. Bozeman, MT: Author
31 Harre, R. (1972). The philosophies of science. (민찬홍, 이병욱 (역) (1985). 과학철학. 서울: 서광사). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
32 Harrowitz, N. (1983). The body of the detective model: Charles S. Peirce and Edgar Allan Poe. In U. Eco & T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce, (pp. 179-197). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press
33 Kruijff, G.-J. M. (2005). Peirce's late theory of abduction: A comprehensive account. Semiotica, 153, 431-454
34 Bonfantini, M A., & Proni, G. (1983). To guess or not to guess? In U. Eco & T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce, (pp. 119-134). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press