Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.21796/jse.2019.43.1.79

Confusion in the Meaning of Induction, Deduction, Hypothetical Deductive Method, and Abduction in Science Instruction Textbooks  

Cheong, Yong Wook (Gyeongsang National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Science Education / v.43, no.1, 2019 , pp. 79-93 More about this Journal
Abstract
There have been great concerns on induction, deduction, abduction, and hypothetical deductive method as scientific method and logic behind the method. However, as seen from the similar logic structure of abduction and hypothetical deductive method logic, distinction of those four terms could be unclear. This study investigates statements of science instruction textbooks concerning those terms to analyze their meaning as scientific method or in the context of inquiry. For this purpose, related statements are extracted from seven textbooks to investigate the definitions and examples of those terms and relation among these terms by focusing on coherence of usage of the terms and the possibility of clear distinction among the terms. We find that those terms do not have coherent meanings in the textbooks and many statements make it hard to distinguish the meanings of the terms. Finally the origin of the confusion and educational implication is discussed.
Keywords
scientific inquiry; induction; deduction; abduction; hypothetical deductive method;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 8  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Cho, H. Y., Kim, H. K., Yoon, H., & Lee, K. Y. (2014). Theories of science education. Paju: Kyoyookbook.
2 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI
3 Giere, R., Bickle, J., & Mauldin, R. F. (2006). Understanding scientific reasoning. Belmont, Calif(et al.): Thomson Wadsworth
4 Giere, R. (2010). An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese, 172, 269-281.   DOI
5 Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16, 141-166.   DOI
6 Hanson, N. R. (1965). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. CUP Archive.
7 Hempel, C. G. (1961). Aspects of scientific explanation, New York, NY: The Free Press.
8 Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers' guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
9 Hur, M. (1984). Development of science inquiry evaluation list. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 4(2), 57-63.
10 Joung, Y. J., & Song, J. W. (2006). Exploring the implications of peirce's abduction in science education by theoretical investigation. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 26(6), 703-722.
11 Kang, N. H., & Lee, E. K. (2013). Argument and argumentation: A review of literature for clarification of translated words. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 33(6), 1119-1138.   DOI
12 Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13 Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy(Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation(pp. 99-117; 288-291). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
14 Kim, Y. M., Park, Y. B., Park, H. J., Shin, D., Jeong, J. S., & Song, S. (2014). World of Science Education. Seoul: Bookshill.
15 Kim, Y. S., Kwon, Y. J., Kim, Y. J., Kim, H, Seo, H., Son, Y., Jeong, E. Y., Jeong, J. S., & Cha, H. (2012). Theory of life science education. Paju: Freeacademy.
16 Kim, H. K., & Song, J. W. (2004). The exploration of open scientific inquiry model emphasizing students' argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(6), 1216-1234.
17 Kim, H., & Park, E. J. (2008). Logic for critical thinking. Seoul: Acanet.
18 Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In T. S. Kuhn(Ed.), The Essential Tension(pp. 320-339). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
19 Kwon, Y. J., Jeong, J. S., Park, Y. B., & Kang, M. J. (2003). A philosophical study on the generating process of declarative scientific knowledge-focused on inductive, abductive, and deductive process. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 23(3), 215-228.
20 Kwon, Y. J., Nam, J. H., Lee, K. Y., Lee, H. N., & Choi, K. H. (2013). Science education. Seoul: Bookshill.
21 Kwon, J., Kim, B. K., Kang, N. H., Choi, B., Kim, H. N., Paik, S. H., Yang, I. H, Kwon, Y. J., Cha, H., U, J. O., & Jeong, J. W. (2012). Theories of science education. Paju: Kyoyookbook.
22 Magnani, L. (2009). Theoretical and manipulative abduction. In R. Dillmann, Y. Nakamura, S. Schaal, D. Vernon(Eds.), Abductive cognition (pp. 1-61). New York, NY: Springer.
23 Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of research in science teaching, 39(6), 497-521.   DOI
24 Lee, S. K., Choi, C. I., Lee, G., Shin, M. K., & Song, H. (2013). Exploring Scientific Reasoning in Elementary Science Classroom Discourses. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 33(1), 181-192.   DOI
25 Losee, J. (2001). A historical introduction to the philosophy of science(4th ed.). England, UK: Oxford university Press.
26 Magnani, L., Nercessian, N., & Thagard, P. (1999), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
27 Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond process. Studeis in Science Education, 14, 33-62.   DOI
28 National Research Council(2012), A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts. and core ideas. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press.
29 Park, J. W. (2000). Analysis of students' processes of generating scientific explanatory hypothesis -Focused on the definition and the characteristics of scientific hypothesis. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 20(4), 667-679.
30 Park, J. W., Choi, K. H., & Kim, Y. M. (2001). Theory of physics education 1. Seoul: Bookshill.
31 Osborne, J., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?. Science Education, 95, 627-638.   DOI
32 Park, B. H., Kim, H. K., & Lee, B. W. (2007). Analyses of the basic inquiry process in Korean 3-10 grade science textbooks: Focused on observation and measurement. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 27(5), 421-431.
33 Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction: An analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34 Oh, J. Y., Kim, S. S., & Kang, Y. H. (2008). A suggestion for a creative teaching-learning program for gifted science students using abductive inference strategies. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 28(8), 786-795.
35 Oh, P. S., & Kim, C. J. (2005). A theoretical study on abduction as an inquiry method in earth science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 25(5), 610-623.
36 Oh, P. S., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Criteria for evaluating scientific models used by pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 34(2), 135-146.   DOI
37 Popper, K. (1958). The logic of scientific discovery. London and New York: Routledge.
38 Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634-656.   DOI
39 Song, H. (2017). Logic training for leader. Seoul: Sapiens21.
40 The Korean Society of Earth Science (2009). Earth science education. Paju: Kyoyookbook.
41 Wilson, R. A., & Keil, F. (1998). The shadows and shallows of explanation. Minds and Machines, 8, 137-159.   DOI
42 Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941-967.   DOI
43 Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.   DOI
44 Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 939-969.
45 Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education, Science Education, 92, 473-498.   DOI