Abstract
The objective of this study was to facilitate inservice high school and university teachers’ understanding of the difference between the terms hypothesis and prediction. The context for understanding these terms was Columbus’s discovery of America (as in the previous study). Control group teachers (N=94) were evaluated before the discussion of these terms, whereas Experimental group teachers (N=102) were evaluated after these terms had been fully discussed and elaborated in class. Results, based on written responses, showed that the Experimental group performed better than the Control group in elaborating both hypothesis and prediction. The difference was, however, statistically significant only for prediction. Despite improvement, almost 50% of the teachers still had difficulty in formulating a hypothesis and 40% in formulating a prediction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adey P., Shayer M. (1994) Really raising standards: Cognitive intervention and academic achievement. Routledge, London, UK
Burns R.B., Dobson C.B. (1981) Statistical tests in experimental psychology research methods and statistics. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD
Cartwright N. (1999) The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Cortéz R., Niaz M. (1999) Adolescents’ understanding of observation, prediction, and hypothesis in everyday and educational contexts. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 160: 125–141
Feyerabend P. (1975) Against method. Verso, London, UK
Giere R.N. (1999) Science without laws. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Giere R.N. (2006) Scientific perspectivism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Hanson N.R. (1958) Patterns of discovery. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Inhelder B., Piaget J. (1958) The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. Basic Books, New York
Johnson M.A., Lawson A.E. (1998) What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35: 89–103
Kuhn D., Amsel E., O’Loughlin M. (1988) The development of scientific thinking skills. Academic Press, San Diego, CA
Kuhn T.S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Lakatos I. (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos I., Musgrave A. (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 91–196
Lawson A.E., Reichert E.A., Costenson K.L., Fedock P.M., Litz K.K. (1989) Advanced research beyond the ruling theory stage. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26: 679–686
Niaz M. (1994) Enhancing thinking skills: Domain specific/domain general strategies – A dilemma for science education. Instructional Science 22: 413–422
Niaz M. (2004) Did Columbus hypothesize or predict that if he sailed due West, he would arrive at the Indies?. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 165: 149–156
Niaz M. (2004) Exploring alternative approaches to methodology in educational research. Interchange 35: 155–184
Polanyi, M. (1964). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. New York: Harper & Row (Original work published 1958)
Vaquero J., Rojas de Astudillo L., Niaz M. (1996) Pascual-Leone and Baddeley’s models of information processing as predictors of academic performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills 82: 787–798
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Niaz, M. How to Facilitate Teachers’ Understanding of Hypotheses and Predictions?. Interchange 42, 51–58 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-011-9145-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-011-9145-4