Process of Thinking and Difference of Rationality in the Hypothesis Formulation

East-Asian Association for Science Education (EASE) 2016
2016年8月27日

Transcript

1. Process of thinking and difference of rationality in the hypothesis formulation *Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University The purpose of study Discussion Daiki Nakamura*, Takuya Matsuura* Conclusion Introduction PISA2015 defined three competencies for scientific literacy: Explain phenomena scientifically, Evaluate and design scientific enquiry, Interpret data and evidence scientifically. Among them, “Explain phenomena scientifically” includes ability to “Offer explanatory hypotheses” (OECD, 2013). It has recently been determined that formulating an explanatory hypothesis to explain a discrepant event is important for students’ conceptual change (Park, 2006). However, few studies have focused on the process of thinking in formulating an explanatory hypothesis. 1. Process of thinking in formulating an explanatory hypothesis. 2. Difference of rationality in these process. 3. Relationship cognitive motive and rationality in these process. The purpose of this study is to reveal... 1. Process of thinking in formulating an explanatory hypothesis composed of 5 processes. 2. High rationality group links causal relationship with hypothesis more often than another group. 3. Rationality in formulating a scientific hypothesis correlate with Need for Cognition (r = 0.52).  The survey was conducted with think-aloud and semi-structured interview method.  Targeted at 16 under graduate school students.  We requested that they formulate an explanatory hypothesis about six unfamiliar situations.  We estimated thinking process from interview protocols and scored rationality of these process.  Need for Cognition (NFC) is measured by questionnaire survey.  Main process of thinking (total frequency > 16) Based on the result of this analysis, there are common process of thinking in formulating an explanatory hypothesis composed of 5 processes. Link between causal relationship and hypothesis lead to high rationality. And rationality in formulating an explanatory hypothesis have a connection with cognitive motive. Therefore, science teachers have to let students take note of causal relationship and to motivate students to think deeply. Methods Results UC IV CR CG EH TC 36 47 79 33 108 39  Protocol data classified as six category • Understand the circumstances of problem (UC) • Consider goal (CG) • Identify variables (IV) • Realization of a causal relationship (CR) • Think critical about hypothesis (TC) • Express the idea as their own hypothesis (EH)  Characteristics of high rationality score group CR→EH (per person) High rationality group (N=4) 5.75 Low rationality group (N=12) 4.67 Row→Column (total frequency) UC CG IV CR TC EH UC - 36 47 7 0 0 CG 2 - 39 6 0 2 IV 1 9 - 108 2 7 CR 2 2 33 - 13 79 TC 0 1 4 5 - 12 EH 1 0 3 3 8 -  Adjacency matrix of a thinking process  Relationship between cognitive motive and rationality Spearman's rank correlation coefficient Need for Cognition (NFC) Rationality score r = 0.50 (p < .05) difference >0 =89% Cohen's d = 0.74