Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

An Analysis of the Experimental Designs Suggested by Students for Testing Scientific Hypotheses

과학적 가설 검증을 위한 학생들의 실험 설계 내용 분석

  • Park, Jong-Won (Chonnam National University, Department of Physics Education)
  • 박종원 (전남대학교 사번대학 물리교육과)
  • Published : 2003.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study is one of the successive studies for investigating students' processes of generating and evaluating scientific hypothesis. In this study, I analyzed the characteristics of students' experimental design to test whether the given hypotheses were correct or not. As results, it was found that (1) 3 components (experimental method, prediction of the result of experiment, evaluation of hypothesis) were needed to complete description of the experimental design, (2) students tried to test hypothesis considered as being correct as well as hypothesis considered as being false by students, (3) student tried to confirm hypothesis, which was considered as being correct, based on theoretical approach rather than experimental approach, (4) students' experimental design could be classified as two types, that is, direct experimental testing and comparative experimental design, and the latter could be classified as two subtypes; positive comparative one and negative comparative one, (5) students showed tendency to design positive comparative experiment when they considered hypothesis as being correct, and vise versa, (6) students preferred the prediction which could confirm the hypothesis when they considered the hypothesis as being correct, and vise versa, (7) many students rejected contradicting prediction even though they did not actually conduct experiment yet.

가설의 생성과정과 검증과정에 대한 연구는 가설의 생성과정, 가설을 검증하기 위한 실험설계과정, 실제 실험수행과정, 실험결과에 따른 가설의 평가과정 등으로 세분화할 수 있다. 본 연구는 이러한 연구들 중에서 가설을 검증하기 위한 실험설계과정에 대한 연구이다. 이를 위해, 본 연구에서는 제안된 가설을 검증하기 위해 학생들이 제안한 실험설계 내용을 분석하였다. 분석 결과, (1) 실험설계를 위해서 실험방법, 실험결과의 예측, 예측된 결과에 의한 가설평가의 3요소가 필요함을 알 수 있었다. (2) 학생들은 옳다고 생각하는 가설과 틀리다고 생각하는 가설에 대해서 모두 검증하려는 경향을 보였다. (3) 간혹, 옳다고 생각되는 가설에 대해서는 실험적 검증이 아닌 이론적 검증을 하려는 경우도 관촬되었다. (4) 학생들이 제안한 실험설계의 유형은 직접실험과 비교실험으로 나눌 수 있었고, 비교실험은 긍정비교실험과 부정비교 실험으로 나눌 수 있었다. (5) 학생들은 옳다고 생각하는 가설에 대해서는 긍정비교실험설계를, 틀리다고 생각하는 가설에 대해서는 부정비교실험설계를 선호하는 것으로 나타났다. (6) 학생들은 옳다고 생각하는 가설에 대해서는 실험설계를 하면서 가설을 지지하는 결과만을 예측하였고, 틀리다고 생각하는 가설에 대해서는 실험설계를 하면서 가설을 반증하는 결과만을 예측하였다. (7) 이러한 편향된 예측과 반대되는 예측을 하도록 강요하여도 이를 거부하는 경우가 많았다. 따라서, 자신의 예측과 반대되는 결과에 대한 거부반응은 실험결과의 해석에서 뿐 아니라 실험설계 단계부터 있을 수 있음을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 박종원(1998). 과학활동에서 연역적 사고의 역할. 한국과학교육학회지. 18(1), 1-17
  2. 박종원(2002). 학생개념체제의 연속적 세련화와 정교화를 통한 개념변화 분석-이론적 논의를 중심으로-한국과학교육학회지, 22(2), 357-377
  3. Baker, L. M., & Dunbar, K(2000). Experimental design heuristics for scientific discovery: the use of ‘baseline: and :known standard’ controls. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 335-349 https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0393
  4. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D.(1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-1120 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00081
  5. Gough, N.(1998). 'If this were played upon a stage ...' : school laboratory work as theatre of representation. In J. Wellington (Ed.) Practical work in school science: Which way now? London: Routledge
  6. Kaufman, D. R., Vosniadou, S., diSessa, A.. & Thagard, P.(2000). Scientific explanation, systematicity, and conceptual change. Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the cognitive science society, August, 13-15. University of Pennsylvania, 5-9
  7. Klahr & Dunbar(1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48 https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90007-9
  8. Klahr, D.(2000). Exploring Science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. London: The MIT Press
  9. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O' Loughlin, M.(1988). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Pub.
  10. Laughlin, P. R, Bonner, B. L., & Altermatt, T. W.(1999). Effectiveness of positive hypothesis testing in inductive and deductive rule learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(2), 130-146 https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2815
  11. Laughlin, P. R, Magley, V. J., Shupe, E. L. (1997). Positive and negative hypothesis testing by cooperative groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(3), 265-275 https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2687
  12. Lawson, A. E., Clark, B., Cramer-Meldrum, E., Falconer, K.A., Sequist, J.M., & Kwon, Y. (2000). Development of scientific reasoning in college biology: Do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(1), 81-101 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200001)37:1<81::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-I
  13. Nellist, J., & Nicholl, B.(1986). ASE science teachers' handbook. London: Hutchinson
  14. Park, J., & Pak, S.(1997). Students' responses to experimental evidence based on perceptions of causality and availability of evidence. Journal of research in science teaching, 34(1), 57-67 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<57::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-N
  15. Park, J., & Kim, I.(2002). Analysis of students' processes of generating scientific explanatory hypothesis. Paper presented at the ASERA, Townsville, Australia
  16. Park, J., Kim, I., Lim, M., & Lee, M.(2001). Analysis of students' processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 1219-1236 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110049097
  17. Popper, K. R(1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson
  18. Sharaagen, J. M.(1993). How experts solve a novel problem in experimental design. Cognitive Science, 17(2), 285-309 https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(93)90013-X
  19. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140 https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216008416717