Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Cases and Features of Abductive Inference Conducted by a Young Child to Explain Natural Phenomena in Everyday Life

  • Published : 2008.05.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the cases and features of the abductive inference used by young children when trying to explain natural phenomena in everyday life. From observing a 5-year-old's daily activities with his family, and analyzing the data according to the criterion extracted from the form of abductive inference described by C. S. Peirce, a few cases where the child used abductive inferences to explain natural phenomena were found. The abductive inferences in the cases were conducted: (a) based on figural resemblance and behavioral resemblance (b) under the influence by individual belief and communal belief, then (c) resulted in new categorization accompanied by over generalization. Such features of the abductive inference showed the 'double faces'; sometimes encourages and sometimes discourages children's generating better scientific hypotheses and explanations. These results suggest that even young children use abductive inference to explain doubtful natural phenomena in everyday life, although we need to consider carefully with the double aspects of the features of abductive inference for the practical applications to the fields of science education. Finally, several suggestions and following studies for science education are proposed.

Keywords

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science Education for Everyday Life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press
  2. Aliseda, A. (2004). Logics in scientific discovery. Foundations of Science, 9, 339-363 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FODA.0000042847.62285.81
  3. Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its Implication. 6th ed. New York: Worth Publishers
  4. Andersson, B. (1986). The experiential gestalt of causation: a common core to pupils' preconceptions in science. European Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 155-171 https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080205
  5. Brooks, L. R. (1987). Non-analytic cognition. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual bases of categories. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
  6. Chen, Z. (1996). Children's analogical problem solving: The effects of superficial, structural, and procedural similarity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 410-431 https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.0037
  7. Chen, Z., & Daehler, M. W. (1992). Intention and outcome: Key components of causal structure facilitating mapping in children's analogical transfer. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 53, 237-257 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(92)90038-8
  8. Crisafi, M. A., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Analogical transfer in very young children: Combining two separately learned solutions to reach a goal. Child Development, 57, 953-968 https://doi.org/10.2307/1130371
  9. Curd, M. V. (1980). The logic of discovery: an analysis of three approaches. In B. A. Brody & R. E. Grandy(1989) (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of science (pp. 417-430). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
  10. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's ideas in science. Milton Keynes, Philadelphia: Open University Press
  11. Duit, R. (1991). Students' conceptual frameworks: Consequences for learning science. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 65-85). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  12. Else, M. J., Clement, J., & Ramirez, M. A. (2003). Should different types of analogies be treated differently in instruction?: Observation from a middleschool life science curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA
  13. Fischer, H. R. (2001). Abductive reasoning as a way of worldmaking. Foundation of Science, 6, 361-383
  14. Fleer, M. (1996). Fusing the boundaries between home and child care to support children's scientific learning. Research in Science Education, 16(2), 143-154
  15. Fleer, M., & Robbins, J. (2003). "Hit and run research" with "hit and miss" results in early childhood science education. Research in Science Education, 33(4), 405-431 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000005249.45909.93
  16. French, L. (2004). Science as the center of coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 138-149 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.004
  17. Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children's science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education 66(4), 623-633 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660412
  18. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconception and alternative conceptions: changing perspectives in science education, Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268308559905
  19. Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  20. Hanson, N. R. (1961). Is there a logic of scientific discovery? In B. A. Brody & R. E. Grandy (1989) (Eds.) Readings in the philosophy of science (pp. 398-409). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
  21. Hinton, G. E., McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1986). Distributed representations. In D. E. Rumelhart & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Exploration in the microstructure of cognition, Vol. 1 (pp. 77-109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  22. Howard, E. W. (1987). Concepts and schemata. London: Cassell Educational
  23. Inagaki, K. (1992). Piagetian and post-Piagetian conceptions of development and their implications for science education in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 115-133 https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(92)90022-Q
  24. Jeong, J. -S., Won, H. -J., & Kwon, Y. -J. (2005). Application of the Triple Abduction Model for improving the skills of scientific hypothesis generation. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 25(5), 595-602
  25. Joung, Y. J. (2006). What do children do in everyday life to construct their scientific knowledge?: A case stud of a 5-year-old's experience. Proceedings of the International Science Education Conference 2006 (pp. 960-969), 22 nd - 24 th November 2006, Singapore
  26. Joung, Y. J., & Song, J. (2006a). The features of the hypotheses generated by pre-service elementary teachers using the form of Peirce's abduction. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 25(2), 126-140
  27. Joung, Y. J., & Song, J. (2006b). Exploring the implications of Pierce's abduction in science education by theoretical investigation. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(6), 703-722
  28. Jung, Y. -J., & Song, J. (2004). An analysis of the features of 'Typically-Perceived-Situation (TPS)' for in-depth understanding of students' ideas: The case of four elementary school students' TPSs related to the action of force. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24(4), 785-803
  29. Kang, T. (2006). The characteristics of Typically Perceived Situations (TPSs) and Critical Examples: Focusing on the secondary students' ideas of force and mechanical conversion. Unpublished MEd thesis. Seoul National University
  30. Kim, J. Y., & Kang, S. H. (2006). The practical use of process skill and the perception about hypothesis by secondary school science teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(2), 258-267
  31. Kim, K., Shin, E., Byun, S., & Noh, T. (2006). Analysis of students' mapping errors induced in learning chemistry concept with analogy. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(4), 592-600
  32. Kaufman, D.R., Vosniadou, S., diSessa, A. & Thagard, P. (2000). Scientific Explanation, Systematicity, and Conceptual Change. In L. Gleitman & A.K. Joshi (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 5-9). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  33. Kwon, Y. -J, Jeong, J. -S., Kang, M. -J., & Kim, Y. -S. (2003a). A grounded theory on the process of generating hypothesis: Knowledge about scientific episodes. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(5), 458-469
  34. Kwon, Y. -J, Jeong, J. -S., Park, Y, -B., and Kang, M. -J. (2003b). A philosophical study on the generating process of declarative scientific knowledge: Focused on inductive, abductive, and deductive process. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(3), 215-228
  35. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company
  36. Lawson, A. E. (2002). What does Galileo's discovery of Jupiter's moons tell us about the process of scientific discovery?. Science & Education, 11(1), 1-24 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013048828150
  37. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R
  38. Magnani, L. (2004). Model and manipulative abduction in science. Foundation of Science, 9(3), 219-247
  39. Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44(12), 1469-1481 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1469
  40. Medin, D. L, & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 86, 207-238
  41. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass Publishers
  42. Myrstad, J. A. (2004). The use of converse abduction in Kepler. Foundation of Science, 9(3), 321-338
  43. Murphey, M. G. (1969). The development of Peirce's philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  44. Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem-solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: NJ
  45. Oh, P. S. (2006). Rule-inferring strategies for abductive reasoning in the process of solving an earth-environmental problem. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(4), 546-558
  46. 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 Research in Science Education, 25(5), 610-623
  47. Osborne, R. J., Bell, B. F., & Gilbert, J. K. (1983). Science teaching and children's views of the world. European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 1-14 https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528830050101
  48. Osborne, R. J., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children's science. London: Heinemann
  49. Paavola, S. (2004). Abduction as a logic and methodology of discovery: The importance of strategies. Foundation of Science, 9(3), 267-283
  50. Park, E. M., & Kang, S. H. (2006). Effects of offering similar experiences for hypothesis-generation based on abduction. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(3), 356-366
  51. Park, J. (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 Research in Science Education, 20(4), 667-679
  52. Peirce, C. S. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce [abbr. CP], 8 vols. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss(1931-1958) (Eds.) vols. 1-6; A. W. Burks (1931-1958) (Ed.) vols. 7-8, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  53. Robbins, J. (2005). 'Brown paper packages'? A sociocultural perspective on young children's ideas in science. Research in Science Education, 35(2-3), 151-172 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-0092-x
  54. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Chief Ed.), D. Kuhn, & R. S. Siegler (Volume Eds.), Cognition, perceptions and language. 5 th Ed., Handbook of child psychology (pp. 679-744). New York: Wiley
  55. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  56. Rosch, E., & Marvis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories, Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
  57. Sherin, B. (2006). Common sense clarified: the role of intuitive knowledge in physics problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 43(6). 535-555 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20136
  58. Shin, D. -H., & Kwon, Y. -J. (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 Research in Science Education, 26(4), 568-580
  59. Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
  60. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. NJ: Princeton University Press
  61. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1987). Theories of Knowledge restructing in development. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 51-67 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057001051
  62. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  63. Yang, I. H., Jeong, J. S., Kwon, Y. J., Jeong, J. W., Hur, M., & Oh, C. H. (2006). An intensive interview study on the process of scientists` science knowledge generation. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(1), 88-98