Earth Science logical reasoning framework: logical inference, hermeneutics, and historical method¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 1 study (1 qualitative), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article adopts a three-part framework of Earth Science methodology as an analytic tool for coding curriculum inquiry tasks. As the authors state, "The methodology of Earth Science study is divided into logical inference, hermeneutics, and historical method." Logical inference includes inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning; hermeneutics includes recursive reasoning, forestructures of understanding, and the historical nature of human understanding; the historical method includes uniformitarianism, place substituting for time in stage theorizing, relic interpretation, constructing proper taxonomies, and evaluating independent lines of inquiry for convergence. The framework reflects the discipline's reliance on retrodiction and reasoning across deep time and abyssal space where direct experimentation is impossible.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Raters trained to 85% to 90% agreement before independent coding of sampled text

Constraints¶

• Appropriate for inquiry tasks requiring extrapolation from observable events across time and place on an unobservable scale, as in Earth Science where direct experimentation is often impossible

Target Learners¶

• high school Earth Science students

Target Learning Objectives¶

• Earth Science logical reasoning
• authentic scientific inquiry practices

Claims¶

• Holt Earth Science Induction Abduction Dominate [+M]
• Forestructures Dominate Hermeneutic Tasks [+M]
• Historical Method Uniformitarianism Dominates [+M]

Related Theories¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Do-Yong Park and Mira Park. (2013). Examining the Features of Earth Science Logical Reasoning and Authentic Scientific Inquiry Demonstrated in a High School Earth Science Curriculum: A Case Study. Journal of Geoscience Education. https://doi.org/10.5408/12-360.1