Analysis of Variation in Pupil Size of Elementary Students on the Types of Generating Scientific Hypothesis

과학적 가설 생성 유형에 따른 초등학생의 동공크기 변화 분석

  • Received : 2017.04.29
  • Accepted : 2017.06.12
  • Published : 2017.06.30


The purpose of this study is to analyze the variation in pupil size as shown in the scientific hypothesis generation process of students in Elementary School. The subjects for research consisted of 20 fifth-year students at Seoul B elementary school who agreed to participate in the research. The task consisted of four scientific hypothesis-generating tasks. SMI's Eye Tracker(iView $X^{TM}$ RED) was used to collect eye movement data. Experiment 3.6 and BeGaze 3.6 softwares were used to plan experiment and analyzed the task performance process and eye movement data. The findings of this study are twofold. First, there were four types that generate hypothesis about the tasks. Second, in the moment of generating hypothesis, participants' pupils have grown bigger. And while thinking of generating hypothesis or elaborating hypothesis, there were no big changes. These results show the moment of generating hypothesis is affected by emotional factors besides cognitive factors.


scientific hypothesis generation;eye movement;pupil size;scientific emotion


  1. Beatty, J., & Lucero-Wagoner, B. (2000). The pupillary system. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 142-162). Cambridge University Press.
  2. Choi, H., Shin, W., & Shin, D. (2012). Differences in Eye Movement Pattern during the Classification between the Gifted and General Students in Elementary Schools. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(4), 501-512.
  3. Choi, H., Shin. W., & Shin, D. (2014). The Comparison of Eye Movement in Measuring Tasks between the Underachievers and the Overachievers. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(1), 181-194.
  4. Damasio, A. R. (1995). Toward a neurobiology of emotion and feeling: Operational concepts and hypotheses. The Neuroscientist, 1, 19-25.
  5. Dolan, R. J. (2002). Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science, 298, 1191-1194.
  6. Driver, R. (1988). The pupil as scientists? Milton Keynes. Open University Press.
  7. Hess, E. H. (1965). Attitude and pupil size. Scientific American, 212(2), 46-54.
  8. Hess, E., & Polt, J. (1964). Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving. Science, 140, 1190.
  9. Holmqvist, K., Nystrom, M., Anderson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H,m & van de- Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking : A comprehensive guide to methods and measures, pp. 9-144. Oxford University Press.
  10. Jeon, Y., & Shin, D. (2015). Comparative Analysis of Eye Movement on Performing Biology Classification Task between the Scientifically Gifted and General Elementary Students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 34(1), 142-152.
  11. Jeong, J. (2007). The Structure and Type of Scientific Hypotheses on Zoological Tasks as Generated by Prospective Elementary School Teachers. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 26(2), 388-404.
  12. Jeong, J., Michel, M., Shin, D. (2007). Development of the Models of the Causal Interconnections between Cognitive Processes of Scientific Hypothesis Generation and Emotional Factors. Journal of Korean Biological Education, 35(4), 663-677.
  13. Jo, E., & Shin, D. (2016). Development of a Descriptive Paper Test Item and a Counting Formula for Evaluating Elementary School Students' Scientific Hypothesis. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 35(2), 137-149.
  14. Kang, E., Shin, D., & Kwon, Y. (2006). Development of Elementary Students' Ability to Generate Hypothesis Knowledge through Knowledge Generation Learning in Science. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 25(3), 257-270.
  15. Kim S. (1999). Inference : Causal bridging inference : A cause of story interestingness. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 57-71.
  16. Kim, S., & Jeong, J. (2010). Comparative Analysis of Hearing-Impaired and Non-Disabled University Students’ Brain Waves Measured during the Biological Classification and Hypothesis-Generation. Journal of Korean Biological Education, 38(4), 621-630.
  17. Kim, Y., & Lee, E. (2014). Experimental verification on ocular features variation in terms of emotion stimuli and gender. Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology, 4(2), 107-116.
  18. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48.
  19. Kwon, Y., Jeong, J., Park, Y., & Kang, M. (2003). Focused on Inductive, Abductive, and Deductive Processes = A Philosophical Study on the Generating Process of Declarative Scientific Knowledge. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 23(3), 275-298
  20. Kwon, Y., Lee, J., & Jeong, J. (2007). Explanation Patterns of Biological Hypotheses Generated by Science High School Students in Starch Experiment. Secondary institute of Education, 55(1), 275-298.
  21. Kwon, Y., Park, J., Shin, D., Jeong, J., & Park, K. (2006). Changes of the Brain Activities after Learning Hypothesis-Generation in Elementary Students. Journal of Korean Biological Education, 34(1), 72-80
  22. Kwon, Y., Shin, D., Han H., & Park, Y. (2004). Relationships between Types of Emotional Words and Abilities of Science-Knowledge Generation in Students’ Scientific Observation and Rule-Discovery. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 24(6), 1106-1117.
  23. LeDoux, J. E. (2002). Synaptic self; How our brains become who we are. Penguin Books, pp. 97-324.
  24. Lee, H., Yang, I., & Kwon, Y. (2008). A Study on the Abductive Thinking in the Processes of Biologists' Science Knowledge Generation. Journal of Korean Biological Education. 36(2), 178-188.
  25. Lee, J. (2006). Brain Activities during Science Teacher’s Hypothesis-Generating about Biological Phenomena-An fMRI Study. Journal of Korean Biological Education, 34(4), 453-464.
  26. Lee, Y. (2015). The Effect of Incidental Sematic Activation on Hypothesis Generation : Exclusive vs Compatible Hypothesis. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 26(2), 209-239.
  27. Oh, P., & Oh, S. (2011). A Study on the Processes of Elaborating Hypotheses in Abductive Inquiry of Preservice Elementary School Teachers. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 31(1), 128-142.
  28. Park, H., & Shin, D. (2015). Analysis of Processes in Reading about 'Science Stories' in 6th Grade Science Textbook Using Eye-tracking. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 383-393.
  29. Park, K., Kwon, Y., Kim, S., & Lee, G. (2006). Analysis of EEG Characteristics in Science Gifted and General Students' Cooperative Brain Function. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 26(3), 415-424.
  30. Park, J. (2000). Analysis of students' Processes of Generating Scientific Explanatory Hypothesis-Focused on the Definition and the Characteristics of Scientific Hypothesis. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 20(4), 667-679.
  31. Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing Mechanistic Reasoning in Student Scientific Inquiry: A Framework for Discourse Analysis Developed From Philosophy of Science. Science Education, 92(3), 499-525.
  32. Senso Motoric Instruments. (2011a). BeGaze Manual version 3.1.
  33. Senso Motoric Instruments. (2011b). iVeiw Xtm Manual.
  34. Shin, D. (2006). Development of Neurocognitive Models for Explaining the Generating Process of Scientific Emotion in the Generating Process of Biological Hypothesis. Journal of Korean Biological Education, 34(2), 232-245.
  35. Shin, D. (2008). The Correlation between the Representation of Similar Experience and the Generation of Scientific Hypothesis of Biology Teacher on the Swallowtail Butterfly Task. Journal of Korean Biological Education, 36(3), 353-362.
  36. Shin, D., & Kwon, Y. (2006). Brain Activities by the Generating-Process-Types of Scientific Emotion in the Pre-Service Teachers' Hypothesis Generation About Biological Phenomena: An fMRI Study. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 26(4), 568-580.
  37. Shin, W., Kim, M., & Shin, D. (2013). Analysis of the Elementary Students' Eye Movement in Science Problems Solving Process applying Multiple Representation. Biology Education, 41(4), 544-555
  38. Shin, W., Shin, D. (2012). Eye Movement Analysis on Elementary Teachers' Understanding Process of Science Textbook Graphs. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(3), 386-397.
  39. Shin, W., Shin, D. (2013). Development of the Heuristic Attention Model Based on Analysis of Eye Movement of Elementary School Students on Discrimination task. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 33(7), 1471-1485.
  40. Slykhuis, D. A., Wiebe, E. N., & Annetta, L.A. (2005). Eye Tracking student’s attention to powerpoint photographs in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(6), 509-520.
  41. Sylwester, R. (1994). How emotions affect learning. Educational leadership, 52, 60-68.
  42. Thargard, P. (2002). The passionate scientist: Emotion in scientific cognition. In P. Carruthers, S. Sitch, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The Cognitive basis of science (pp. 235-250). Cambridge University Press.
  43. Wenham, M. (1993). The nature and role of hypotheses in school investigations. International Journal of Science of Education.