Advancing research beyond the ruling theory stage

Abstract

Seldom do researchers in science education state causal hypotheses they seek to test. Even less often are alternative hypotheses stated, much less tested. Further, science education researchers as a rule confuse hypotheses with predictions. Thus, they stand little chance of conducting research which distinguishes among alternative explanations, and consequently stand little chance of advancing knowledge beyond the Ruling Theory Stage of thinking. The present article offers five research criteria and their rationale intended to help researchers avoid these problems and help them conduct higher-quality research, which should in turn improve the quality of science teaching.

How to Facilitate Teachers’ Understanding of Hypotheses and Predictions?

“…From this theory he hypothesized that if he sailed due West he would arrive at the Indies" (p. 93). Lawson, Reichert, Costenson, Fedock, and Litz (1989) have pointed out that Burns and Dobson (1981) made a mistake by using the term theory in place of the term hypothesis and the term hypothesis in place of the term prediction. Although some researchers might consider that confusion to be merely a question of semantics, Lawson et al considered that it weakened the scientific structure of the research, as hypotheses arise in response to the initial causal questions, whereas predictions generally arise deductively.…”