• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.486-501
• /
• 2012

The aims of this study are to investigate two main problems for the hypothetico-deduction method and to develop a scientific inquiry model to resolve these problems. The structure of this scientific inquiry model consists of accounts of the context of discovery and justification that the hypothetico-deduction holds as two main problems : 1) the heuristic flaw in the hypothetico-deduction method is that there is no limit to creating hypotheses to explain natural phenomena; 2) Logically, this brings into question affirming the consequent and modus tollens. The features of the model are as follows: first, the generation of hypotheses using an analogical abduction and the selection of hypotheses using consilience and simplicity; second, the expansion phase as resolution for the fallacy of affirming the consequent and the recycle phase as resolution for modus tollens involving auxiliary hypotheses. Finally, we examine the establishment process of Copernicus's Heliocentric Hypothesis and the main role of the history of science for the historical invalidity of this scientific inquiry model based on three examples of If/and/then type of explanation testing suggested by Lawson (International journal of science and Mathematics Education, 2005a, 3(1): 1-5) We claim that this hypotheticho-deduction process involving abduction approach produced favorable in scientific literacy rising for science teacher as well as students.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.126-140
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this study was to design a 'Form of Abduction' which is the 'guide form used in generating hypothesis through abduction', and to analyze the features of the hypotheses generated with the 'Form of Abduction' compared with those generated without any special guide form. Through a review of Peirce's literature regarding the meaning and frame of abduction, a 'Form of Abduction' was designed as a three step format as follows: (i) writing down what is doubted, (ii) wiling tentative explanations which replace what is doubted with what is believed, (iii) writing the tentative explanations as hypotheses. The thirty four pre-service elementary teachers were asked to generate hypotheses without a 'Form of Abduction' at first, and then were asked to do so again using the form. The results of analysing the features of the hypotheses were as follows: in the case of using a 'Form of Abduction', firstly, the types of misunderstanding or mis-adapting the meaning of hypothesis were found to be rare, and secondly, the types of 'giving explanation about the cause of problematic situations through analogical inferencing from the existing knowledge' were found to be double the rate of when no special guide form was used. In conclusion, the hypotheses generated with the 'Form of Abduction' had the features of satisfying the original meaning of hypothesis, i.e. 'explaining the cause of phenomenon and leading to knowledge expansion'. These results also showed that using a 'Form of Abduction', although its form was simple, could be a way of helping students generate hypothesis properly in science classes.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.31 no.6
• /
• pp.901-919
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study was to analyze abductive reasoning on the inquiry of scientists and elementary school gifted children in science. Subjects for this study were eight scientists and eight elementary school gifted children in science studying in the Academy of Gifted Child Education in Science affiliated with Seoul National University of Education. As a result, abductive reasoning on the scientific inquiry of scientists and gifted children showed the three stages of generating hypotheses, designing the experiments, and interpreting the results. The abductive reasoning in each stage characterized the five types as complex abduction, analogical abduction, observation-based abduction, logic-based abduction, selective abduction. The sub-reasoning process of the abductive reasoning of gifted children in science differed in some ways from that of scientists. First, for most scientists, representing a method or representing a casual explican appeared after searching for the characteristics of variables but for gifted children in science, searching for the characteristics of variables appeared after representing a method. Second, scientists tend to rely on logic-based abduction but gifted children in science tend to rely on observationbased abduction. Third, scientists reason by the similar rate in three steps: generating the hypothesis, designing the experience, interpreting the results. On the other hand, most gifted children in science reason about designing the experience.