Abstract
Hypothesis-verification process requires students to predict reasons and explanations for certain phenomena and to test their ideas in order to verify the hypothesis. As it is regarded as an effective way of enhancing children’s inquiry mind and skills, hypothesis-based inquiry teaching is adapted in elementary science classrooms in Korea. However, without understanding the nature of hypothesis, teachers often utilize this method as a simple process of predict-check without the depth of scientific reasoning and explanation. To understand how preservice teachers could understand and adapt the method of hypothesis-verification process in their elementary science teaching, we conducted a study with 16 fourth-year university students in elementary teacher education program in Korea. We observed their teaching practice on hypothesis-verification process and examined their difficulties of teaching with this method. We videotaped, transcribed, and analyzed their classroom teaching and reflective discussion. Based on the data collected, this study examines preservice teachers’ difficulties in teaching hypothesis construction, test, and data interpretation in hypothesis-based inquiry approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We have discussed lessons 1 and 2 more in detail to discuss the difficulties of inquiry teaching in our other work (Yoon et al., in press). In this chapter, we particularly focus on the issues of hypothesis-verification process in the cases of lesson 3.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Beveridge, W. (1961). The art of scientific investigation. London: Mercury Books.
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.
Flick, U. (2006). An introduction of qualitative research. London: Sage.
Gilbert, C., & Matthews, P. (1986). Look! Primary science: Teacher’s guide A. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Jeong, J.-S., & Kwon, Y.-J. (2006). Definition of scientific hypothesis: A generalization or a casual explanation? Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(5), 637–645.
Jeong, H., Songer, N., & Lee, S.-Y. (2007). Evidentiary competence: Sixth graders’ understanding for gathering and interpreting evidence in scientific investigation. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 75–97.
Joung, Y. J. (2008). Cases and features of abductive inference conducted by a young child to explain natural phenomena in everyday life. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 28(3), 197–210.
Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Research, 41(7), 748–769.
Kelly, G., Crawford, T., & Green, J. (2001). Common task and uncommon knowledge: Dissenting voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups. Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 135–174.
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1–48.
Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408.
Millar, R. (1989). What is scientific method and can it be taught? In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Skills and processes in science education: A critical analysis (pp. 47–62). London: Routledge.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Park, J. (2006). Modeling analysis of students’ processes of generating scientific explanatory hypotheses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 469–489.
Peirce, C. S. (1998). Abduction. In A. W. Burks (Ed.), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol. 7, pp. 136–144). Bristol: Thoemmes Press.
Quinn, M. E., & George, K. (1975). Teaching hypothesis formation. Science Education, 59(3), 289–296.
Salmon, W. (1998) Causality and explanation. Oxford University Press: New York.
Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.
Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2003). Tracing young children’s scientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 33(3), 433–465.
Wenham, M. (1993). The nature and role of hypotheses in school investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 15(3), 231–240.
Yoon, H.-G., Joung, Y. J., & Kim, M. (in press). The challenges of science inquiry teaching for pre-service teachers in elementary classrooms: Difficulties on and under the scene. Research in Science Education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kim, M., Joung, Y.J., Yoon, HG. (2012). Stories of Teaching Hypothesis-Verification Process in Elementary Science Classrooms. In: Tan, K., Kim, M. (eds) Issues and Challenges in Science Education Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3980-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3980-2_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-3979-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-3980-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)