Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2011.31.1.128

A Study on the Processes of Elaborating Hypotheses in Abductive Inquiry of Preservice Elementary School Teachers  

Oh, Phil-Seok (Gyeongin National University of Education)
Oh, Sung-Jin (Dongducheon High School)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.31, no.1, 2011 , pp. 128-142 More about this Journal
Abstract
The goal of this study was to investigate how hypotheses were elaborated after their initial appearances in the context of scientific problem solving. Data were collected from a class in which preservice elementary school teachers in groups carried out abductive inquiry of earth science. The analysis revealed two major processes of hypothesis elaboration: theory-driven and evidence-driven. The theory-driven process was in turn distinguished into two kinds of subprocesses: one is in pursuit of internal coherence and the other external coherence. The evidencedriven elaboration also had two subprocesses, which were triggered by direct evidence and indirect or analogical evidence, respectively. In addition, hypotheses were more often than not modified by a wrong theory or evidence whether it was driven by a theory or evidence. Implications for science education and related research were discussed.
Keywords
abductive inquiry; hypothesis elaboration; elementary teachers; preservice teachers;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Crawford, B. A. (2000). Enhancing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 오필석(2008). 지구과학자와 대학생들의 가설 형성 과정 비교: 태풍의 이상 경로에 대한 사례를 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(6), 649-663.
4 Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science: Process of discovery and explanation. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
5 Thayer, H. S. (1953). Newton's philosophy of nature: Selections from his writing. New York: Hafner Press.
6 Walton, D. (2004). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
7 Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students'use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Roth, W.-M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709-736.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Oh, P. S. (2010). How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some strategies found in abductive inquiry activities of earth science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 541-560.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Nickles, T. (1980). Scientific discovery: Cases studies. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
12 Oh, P. S. (in press). Characteristics of abductive inquiry in earth science: An undergraduate case study. Science Education.
13 Leach, J. (1999). Students'understanding of the co-ordination of theory and evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 789-806.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16 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.
17 Frodeman, R. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science. GSA Bulletin, 107(8), 960-968.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Blachowicz, J. (1989). Discovery and ampliative inference. Philosophy of Science, 56(3), 438-462.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 권용주, 정진수, 강민정, 김영신(2003). 과학적 가설 지식 생성 과정에 대한 바탕 이론. 한국과학교육학회지, 23(5), 458-469.
20 Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21 Oh, P. S. (2008). Adopting the abductive inquiry model (AIM) into undergraduate earth science laboratories. In I. V. Eriksson (Ed.), Science education in the 21st century (pp. 263-277). New York: Nova.
22 Engelhardt, W. von, & Zimmermann, J. (1988). Theory of earth science (translated by L. Fisher). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23 Levin, H. L., & Smith, M. S. (2008). Laboratory studies in earth history (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
24 Laudan, L. (1981). Science and hypothesis: Historical essays on scientific methodology. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
25 Kleinhans, M., Buskes, C. J. J., & de Regt, H. W. (2005). Terra Incognita: Explanation and reduction in earth science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 19(3), 289-317.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Kordig, C. R. (1978). Discovery and justification. Philosophy of Science, 45, 110-117.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Giere, R. N., Bickle, J., & Mauldin, R. F. (2006). Understanding scientific reasoning (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
28 Haig, B. D. (2005). An abductive theory of scientific method. Psychological Methods 10(4), 371-388.   DOI
29 Darden, L. (1992). Strategies in anomaly resolution. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp 251-273). Minneapolis, MN: University Minnesota Press.
30 Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31 Clement, J. J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
32 박종원(2000). 학생의 과학적 설명 가설의 생성과정 분석: 과학적 가설의 정의와 특성을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 20(4), 667-679.
33 오필석, 김찬종(2005). 지구과학의 한 탐구 방법으로서 귀추법에 대한 이론적 고찰. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(5), 610-623.
34 Baker, V. R. (1996). Hypotheses and geomorphological reasoning. In B. L. Rhoads & C. E. Thorn (Ed.), The scientific nature of geomorphology (pp. 57-85). New York: Wiley.
35 Baker, V. R. (2000). Conversing with the earth: The geological approach to understanding. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), Earth matters: The earth sciences, philosophy, and the claims of the community (pp. 2-10). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.