Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

A Suggestion for a Creative Teaching-learning Program for Gifted Science Students Using Abductive Inference Strategies

귀추 추리 전략을 통한 과학영재를 위한 창의적 교수-학습 프로그램의 제안

  • Oh, Jun-Young (Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Kim, Sang-Su (Center for Gifted Education, Changwon National University) ;
  • Kang, Yong-Hee (Science Education Institute for Gifted Youth, Kyungpook National University)
  • Published : 2008.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to propose a program for teaching and learning effective problem-solving for gifted students based on abductive inference. The role of abductive inference is important for scientific discoveries and creative inferences in problem-solving processes. The characteristics of creativity and abductive inference were investigated, and the following were discussed: (a) a suggestion for a new program based on abductive inference for creative outcomes, this program largely consists of two phases: generative hypotheses and confirmative hypotheses, (b) a survey of the validity of a program. It is typical that hypotheses are confirmed in phases through experiments based on hypothetic deductive methodology. However, because generative hypotheses of this hypothetic deductive methodology are not manifest, we maintained that abductive inference strategies must be used in a Creative Teaching-learning Program for gifted science students.

Keywords

References

  1. 권용주, 심해숙, 정진수, 박국태 (2003). 수증기 응결에 관한 초등학생들의 가설 생성에서 귀추의 역할과 과정, 한국지구과학회지, 24(4), 250-257
  2. 권용주, 정진주, 박윤복, 강민정 (2003). 선언적 과학 지식의 생성과정에 대한 과학 철학적 연구-귀납적, 귀추적, 연역적 과정을 중심으로-. 한국과학교육학회지, 23(3), 215-228
  3. 강호감, 김남일, 하정원 (1996). 창의력 계발을 위한 자연과 학습에서의 마인드맵의 사용, 한국초등과학회지, 15(2), 293-303
  4. 김영채 (2006) 창의적 문제 해결: 창의력의 이론, 개발과 수업, 서울: 교육과학사
  5. 김현철 (1995). 뇌반구 활용을 위한 사고력 중심을 위한 마인드맵 프로그램 탐색, 영재교육연구, 5(2), 91-119
  6. 김찬종 (1995). "지구과학의 특성을 바탕으로 하는 효률적인 지구과학 탐구학습지도 방법연구 : 가설유도추리 탐구학습모형", 청주교육대학교 과학교육연구소 논문집 , 제16권, pp. 130-148
  7. 박종원, 김두현 (2008). 과학의 본성자료 개발과 과학영재를 대상으로 한 시험적용, 한국과학교육학회지, 28(2), 169-179
  8. 연희원 (1998). 퍼스의 상정 논법에 관한 연구, 철학연구, 21, 177-213
  9. 오준영 (2007), 과학탐구과정에서 강화된 가설-연역적 프로그램의 제안, 인문과학 39집, 215-242
  10. 오필석 (2006). 지구환경적 문제해결과정에서 귀추적 추론를 위한 규칙추리 전략들, 한국과학교육학회지, 26(4). 546-558
  11. 오필석, 김찬종 (2005). 지구과학의 한 탐구방법으로서 귀추법에 대한 이론적 고찰, 한국과학교육학회지, 25(5), 610-623
  12. 윤은호 (2006). 경험 귀추적 탐구수업 전략이 과학2 혼합물의 분리 단원에 미치는 효과, 이화여자대학교 석사학위논문, 118 p
  13. 임선하 (2000). 창의성에의 초대, 서울: 교보문고
  14. 이수암 (2006). 과학영재를 위한 교수-학습 프로그램의 개발-문제중심 학습법의 적용, 창의적 지식 양성을 위한 영재교육, 한국교육개발원 연수자료 TM 2006-4, 서울: 한국교육개발원
  15. 전경원 (1997a). 브레인스토밍의 문제점과 해결방안에 관한 연구(I). 열린유아교육연구, 2(22), 1-23
  16. 전경원 (1997b). 브레인스토밍에 관한 문헌 고찰. 창의력 교육연구, 1(1), 29-64
  17. 정용재, 송진웅 (2006). Peirce의 귀추법에 과나한 이론적 고찰을 통한 과하교육적 함의 탐색, 26(6), 703-722
  18. 조석희 (2000). 영재교육 중장기 종합 발전 방안. 교육개발 2000(가을호), 138-47
  19. 한국부잔센터 (1994). 아이들을 위한 마인드맵, 서울: 사계절
  20. Arieti, S. (1976). Creativity: The magic synthesis, Basic Books, New York
  21. Charniak, E. & McDermott, D. (1985). Introduction to Artificial ntelligence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesly
  22. Cropley, J. A (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators, Taylor & Francis Book Ltd. (이경화, 최병연, 박숙희 공역, "창의성 계발과 교육", 서울: 학지사)
  23. Laudan, R. (1987). "From mineralogy to geology: the foundations of a science, 1650-1830," Chicago: University of Chicago press
  24. Engelhardt, W. von, & Zimmermann, J. (1982). Theory of earth science (translated by L. Fischer). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
  25. Fisher, H. R. (2001). Abuductive Reasoning as a way og worldmaking, Foundations of Science, 6, 361-383 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011671106610
  26. Gelb, M. J. (1988). Present yourself !, Jalmar Press, Rolling Hills Estates, pp. 19-29
  27. Giere, R. N. (1997), Understanding Scientific Reasoning, in Ronald N. Giere,(Eds.), Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
  28. 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 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
  29. Harman, G. H. (1965). The inference to the Best Explanation. Philosophical Review 74, 88-95 https://doi.org/10.2307/2183532
  30. Harman, G. H. (1973). Thought. Prinston: Prinston University Press
  31. Hanson, N. R. (1965), Notes toward a logic of discovery, in R. J. Bernstein (eds.), Perspectives on Peirce, New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press, pp. 42-65
  32. Hoffmann, M.(1999), "Problems with Peirce's concept of abduction," Foundations of Science 4: 271-305 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009675824079
  33. Josephson, J. R. & Josephson, S. G. 1996, "Conceptual Analysis of Abduction", in R. Josephson, & S. G. Josephson(eds.), Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology, New York: Cambridge University Press
  34. Kordig, C. R. (1978). Discovery and Justification. Philosophy of Science, 45, 110-117 https://doi.org/10.1086/288782
  35. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking, CA: Wordsworth Publishing Company
  36. Lipton, P.(2004). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.), London: Routledge
  37. Lycan, W. G.(1988),. Judgement and Justification, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  38. Maker, C. J. (1982). The enrichment tried model, Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Center
  39. Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, Reason, and Science process of Discovery and Explanation, Dordrechet: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers
  40. Martin, R. (2007). The Opposable Mind: Harnessing the power of integrative thinking, MA, Boston: Harvard Business School Press
  41. Metzler, M. (2005). instructional models for physical education, in P. A. Smith (Ed.), Massachusetts: A Person Education Company
  42. Niiniluoto, I. (1999), "Defending abduction," Philosophy of Science 66: S436-S451 https://doi.org/10.1086/392744
  43. Peirce, C., S.,(CP), 1931-1958, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1-6, C. Hartshorne, and P. Weiss(eds.); vols. 7-8, A. W. Burks, (eds.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press
  44. Peirce, C. S. (1983). Phanomen und Logik der Zeichen. Hrsg. und ubersetzt von Helmut Paper, Frankfurt/Main, Suhrkamp
  45. Samipaavola, S. (2004). "Abduction as a logic and Methodology of discovery: The impotance of strategies," Foundation of science 9: 267-283
  46. Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science, MIT Press
  47. Thagard, P. (forthcoming). abductive inference: From philosophical analysis to neural mechanics. in A. Feeney & E. Heit (eds.). Inductive reasoning: Cognitive, Mathematical, and neuroscientific approaches. Cambridge University Press
  48. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creating talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
  49. Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for satori and creativity, Buffalo. NY: Creative Education Foundation
  50. Tsai, C. -C.(2000). Enhancing science instruction: the use of 'conflict maps'. International journal of science education, 22(3), 285-302 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289886
  51. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capture and Modeling the Process of Conceptual Change, Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69 https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3
  52. Engelhardt, W. von, & Zimmermann, J. (1982). Theory of earth science (translated by L. Fisher). Cambridge UK; Cambridge University Press