Characteristics of Abductive

Inquiry in Earth Science: An

Undergraduate Case Study
PHIL SEOK OH
Department of Science Education, Gyeongin National University of Education,
Anyang, Gyeonggi, 430-040, Republic of Korea

Received 30 May 2010; revised 24 August 2010; accepted 29 August 2010

DOI 10.1002/sce.20424
Published online 11 October 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
ABSTRACT: The goal of this case study was to describe characteristic features of abductive
inquiry learning activities in the domain of earth science. Participants were undergraduate
junior and senior students who were enrolled in an earth science education course offered for
preservice secondary science teachers at a university in Korea. The undergraduate students
conducted, as a course activity, earth scientific inquiry according to the Abductive Inquiry
Model (AIM) to explain a typhoons anomalous path. Data sources included students presentation materials, written reports, and interviews with five selected participants. The data
were analyzed qualitatively in collaboration with a practicing earth scientist. The findings
of the study revealed the characteristics of students inquiry performance in each phase of
the AIM. During the exploration phase, the students investigated earth scientific phenomena with provided data and transformed the data into new forms to discover problems to
be explained abductively. In the examination phase, the students activated and expanded
their background knowledge to find appropriate rules for abductive inference. Furthermore,
they created new rules, which contained hypothetical explanations for the phenomena in
question. The selection phase provided the students with opportunities to evaluate their
hypotheses with empirical and theoretical criteria and choose more plausible ones. Finally,
in the explanation phase, the students provided genetic and narrative explanations using the
hypotheses selected previously. Implications for science inquiry learning as well as relevant
C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 95:409 430, 2011
research were suggested. 

INTRODUCTION
An important task of science is to provide explanations of natural phenomena. Earlier, Nagel (1961) viewed the distinctive aim of scientific enterprise as the provision
of systematic and responsibly supported explanations. One of the science education reform documents published more recently also proposed that key elements of science
Correspondence to: Phil Seok Oh; e-mail: philoh@ginue.ac.kr

C

2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

410

OH

learning include understanding scientific explanations and representing scientific arguments in productive ways (Michaels, Shouse, & Schweingruber, 2008). The most salient
form of scientific explanations is known as the deductive-nomological (DN) model proposed by Hempel (1965, 1966). In the DN model, an explanation is made by combining
a statement of general laws with a description of initial conditions. For example, an explanation of why the flame becomes yellow when it contains a piece of rock salt can be
formulated as follows (cf. Hempel, 1966, p. 10):
(law, H P)
(initial condition, H)
(phenomenon, P)

Any sodium salt, when put into the flame of a Bunsen burner,
turns the flame yellow.
This piece of rock salt is a sodium salt.
This piece of rock salt, when put into the flame of a Bunsen
burner, turns the flame yellow.

As shown above, the DN model is based on the syllogistic form of deduction and
explains an observed phenomenon as the necessary consequence of initial conditions. In
science, however, there are situations in which antecedent conditions are to be inferred after
certain facts have occurred or are discovered. In such cases, scientists explain phenomena by
hypothesizing initial conditions and causative processes that led to the resultant phenomena.
Simpson (1963) pointed out properly that this type of scientific explanations characterized
a reasoning process in historical sciences like earth science:
The most frequent operations in historical science are not based on the observation of causal
sequenceseventsbut on the observation of results. From those results an attempt is made
to infer previous causes. . . . Historical science largely involves the opposite: inferring causes
(of course including causal configurations) from results. (p. 45)

The reasoning process from a result toward a cause is of retrodiction or postdiction.

While in the literature, retrodiction and postdiction are used interchangeably to indicate the
backward direction of the argumentation, there is agreement that retrodiction/postdiction
constitutes a foundation of earth scientific knowledge and processes (Ault, 1998; Baker,
1996, 2000; Dodick & Orion, 2003; Engelhardt & Zimmermann, 1988; Frodeman, 1995;
Kitts, 1978; Kleinhans, Buskes, & de Regt, 2005; Schumm, 1991). Generally, there are two
sorts of retrodictive/postdictive problems in earth science (Engelhardt & Zimmermann,
1988; Rhoads & Thorn, 1993): those in which an inference is made from historical traces
to past causes, and those in which presently occurring phenomena are explained with
concurrent, but unknown causes. For example, earth scientists interpret fossil evidence and
based on this interpretation reconstruct the history of past geological events. They also
postulate an unobserved cause that brought out recent turbulence in Jupiters atmosphere
(cf. http://www.nasa.gov/mission pages/hubble/main/jupiter-hubble.html).
Solving retrodictive/postdictive problems is influenced by the underdeterminism of earth
scientific reasoning. Simply, underdeterminism means that historical and interpretive explanations cannot be firmly established by available evidence (Kitts, 1978; Kleinhans et al.,
2005; Turner, 2005). The underdeterminism arises from the fact that many earth scientific
phenomena and underlying processes cannot be observed directly or even indirectly. In
fact, all the events of the past and present are not recorded in the earth environment and,
if recorded, they may disappear or be deformed because of such processes as weathering,
erosion, metamorphism, mountain building, and climate change. Furthermore, earth scientific phenomena are so complex and systematically interconnected that similar-looking
Science Education

ABDUCTIVE INQUIRY IN EARTH SCIENCE

411

results may originate from different kinds of conditions or their different combinations.
Consequently, only partial and fragmented evidence are available to earth scientists, which
contributes to the underdeterministic nature of earth scientific explanations (Kitts, 1978;
Kleinhans et al., 2005; Selles-Martinez, 2004: Turner, 2005).
Because of the underdeterminism embedded in the process of solving retrodictive/
postdictive problems, earth scientists should employ a particular type of inference
abductionwhich is different from other inferential methods based on the formal logic such
as deduction. Abduction is the reasoning process that starts from a resultant phenomenon
to formulate a hypothesis, which, if true, explains the phenomenon in question (Goudge,
1950; Haig, 2005; Hanson, 1958; Magnani, 2001; Walton, 2004). Because it is backward
directed, abductive reasoning is frequently used to address retrodictive/postdictive problems in earth science (Baker, 1996, 2000; Engelhardt & Zimmermann, 1988; Frodeman,
1995; Kleinhans et al., 2005). In this study, careful attention is paid to the roles of abduction in earth science and the characteristic features of abductive inquiry applied in an
undergraduate earth science course.
ABDUCTION
Scientific explanations do not always proceed in a deductive manner but more often
than not develop in abduction (Haig, 2005; Magnani, 2001; Walton, 2004). The concept
of abduction originated from Aristotelian syllogistics and was articulated by C. S. Peirce
(18391914) who classified abduction as a type of inference. Peirce proposed two forms
of abductive inference. The first one begins with observation of a surprising fact, which
drives to generate a hypothesis that can explain the fact. This general scheme of abduction
is presented as follows (cf. Hanson, 1958, p. 86):
1. Some surprising phenomenon P is observed. (P)
2. If H were true, P would be explicable as a matter of course. (H P)
3. Hence there is reason to think that H is true. (H)
The second form of abduction is that of syllogism, which demonstrates that an explanatory hypothesis derives from the relation between two premises. The syllogistic form of
abduction is illustrated below when it is applied in a retrodictive/postdictive problem of
earth science (cf. Engelhardt & Zimmermann, 1988, p. 207):
(result, P)
(rule, H P)

(case, H)

Certain rocks of the crater-shaped structure of Lake

Manicouagan in Canada contain a glass whose chemical
composition corresponds to a plagioclase.
If a plagioclase is heated above its melting point, and the
resulting melt is cooled quickly, a glass of plagioclase
composition is always produced.
The plagioclase glass of Lake Manicouagan was therefore
produced by the melting and rapid cooling of a
plagioclase-bearing rock.

Peirce called the first premise of abduction result, the second rule, and the third,
as the conclusion, case. Abduction is thus defined as the inference that, given a certain
result, finds an appropriate rule and derives a case or condition from the rule. This reasoning
process is different from both deduction and induction: The former draws a result from a
Science Education

412

OH

rule and a case, and the latter generalizes a rule from a case and a result (Goudge, 1950;
Haig, 2005; Magnani, 2001; Walton, 2004). In the context of scientific inquiry, abductive
reasoning is driven by data and runs backwards from an effect to a cause so that it can provide
a possible reason a certain phenomenon is observed in such a way. This is why abduction
is best suited for solving retrodictive/postdictive problems of earth science (Baker, 1996,
2000; Engelhardt & Zimmermann, 1988; Frodeman, 1995; Kleinhans et al., 2005).
The syllogistic form of abduction shows that abduction is an ampliatve inference
(Goudge, 1950; Haig, 2005; Magnani, 2001; Walton, 2004). Deduction is called the truth
preserving inference in the sense that the conclusion is necessarily true if the premises
are true and the reasoning process is valid. By contrast, the abductive conclusion goes
far into the range of information whose truth cannot be warranted by the premises. This
is because abduction, given the necessary condition P, draws from the rule H P the
sufficient condition H as the conclusion. Although it is a logical flaw, the ampliativeness
of abductive reasoning plays a significant role in scientific inquiry, for it serves to suggest
a hypothesis explaining a phenomenon for which initial conditions or causative processes
are unknown. In this sense, abduction is considered the kind of scientific method employed
in the context of scientific discovery where a new theory is first conjectured and proposed
for the justification stage of scientific inquiry (cf. Nickles, 1980).
To suggest a hypothesis successfully via abduction, it is important to identify an adequate
rule because an explanatory account (H) is already presupposed in the rule (H P) and one
has only to draw the conclusion from the premise according to the structure of the inference
(Bonfantini & Proni, 1983; Haig, 2005). The leading question in abductive inference is
therefore, From what premises can this anomaly be shown to follow? (Hanson, 1971,
p. 66). Previous studies on abduction as well as our direct or indirect experiences in science
imply that there are three ways to answer this question by finding rules for abductive
inference. First, sometimes we can almost automatically come up with rules which render
plausible explanations for observations given. Eco (1983) called this instantaneous thinking
overcoded abduction. That is, when we encounter problematic phenomena, relevant
information is revitalized immediately from our background knowledge to form a rule
for abductive inference. However, this automatic process is not always the case. We must
often make a conscious effort to activate or expand our background knowledge to solve a
problem. For example, when scientists struggle with puzzling problems, they will probably
review literature widely to elaborate their current knowledge and locate useful information
to utilize as rules for their abductive reasoning. Such work for activating or expanding
background knowledge is the second way of finding rules for abductive inference. Third
and lastly, if suitable rules do not arise instantaneously and no rules are found in spite of
the efforts for elaborating background knowledge, we have to create new rules. It is well
documented that scientists used several cognitive strategies, such as analogy, combination,
existential strategies, and model-based abduction, to generate new hypotheses abductively
(Clement, 2008; Engelhardt & Zimmermann, 1988; Magnani, 2001; Thagard, 1988, 1992).
Thus, abduction is regarded as a creative inference in that it generates brand new rules
to explain phenomena in question by using a variety of thinking strategies (Magnani,
2001).
To understand the nature of abduction, it should also be noted that the range of background knowledge is so wide and strategies for finding rules are so diverse that many
different hypotheses can be formed simultaneously. Particularly in earth science, it is rather
helpful to have several alternative hypotheses at the disposal because of the underdetermination problem. In fact, the method of multiple working hypotheses (Chamberlin, 1890) is employed for earth scientific research in such ways that various hypotheses
compete against evidence or each other and more plausible ones are selected for further
Science Education

ABDUCTIVE INQUIRY IN EARTH SCIENCE

413

Figure 1. The Abductive Inquiry Model (AIM).

investigations. Likewise, abductive reasoning involves the process of evaluating and selecting hypotheses (Haig, 2005; Magnani, 2001). The hypotheses selected in the abductive
process is then suggested for the next step of scientific inquiryjustificationand tested
with more evidence and investigations.
THE ABDUCTIVE INQUIRY MODEL
As discussed previously, abduction is an ampliative, creative, and evaluative mode of
reasoning that enables us to generate plausible hypotheses on the basis of background
knowledge and cognitive strategies to explain observed phenomena. It is also a scientific
method which is well-suited for solving retrodictive/postdictive problems of earth science.
Based upon these characteristics of abduction, the Abductive Inquiry Model (AIM) has
been developed and adopted to teach and learn earth science in schools (Kim, 2003; Oh,
2008a; Oh & Kim, 2005).
The AIM consists of four main elements, which are exploration, examination, selection, and explanation (see Figure 1). In the exploration phase, students investigate earth
scientific phenomena, collect data, and find aspects to be explained scientifically. During
the examination phase, students seek scientific facts, theories, or principles, which can
be used as rules to formulate hypotheses abductively. In other words, the major goal of
the examination phase is to scrutinize all possible rules, which are able to provide explanations for the phenomena under investigation. The selection phase then follows so that
the hypotheses inferred previously are evaluated and those providing the most plausible
explanations are chosen. If new problems or flaws in hypotheses are found in this step,
students may go back to the exploration and examination stages to revisit the procedures
for the development of more sophisticated explanations. That is, the elements in the AIM
are not organized linearly, but rather represent a cyclic process of scientific inquiry in which
hypotheses are iteratively modified and elaborated through ongoing development and evaluation. In the final phase of the AIMexplanationstudents propose complete explanations
for the phenomena in question using the rules and hypotheses selected in the preceding
steps.
The AIM was first introduced in the context of Earth Systems Education (Kim, 2003)
and elaborated with more emphasis on the nature of earth science (Oh & Kim, 2005).
Furthermore, the AIM was used in undergraduate earth science laboratories in which students were challenged to solve earth scientific problems abductively (Oh, 2008a). Previous
Science Education

414

OH

articles on abductive inquiry, however, either focused on presenting theoretical underpinnings for the AIM (Kim, 2003; Oh & Kim, 2005) or describing hypotheses generation
processes or pedagogical interventions to help these processes with no consideration of
the activity structure of the AIM (Oh, 2008b, 2010). Recently, the AIM was utilized in
an undergraduate course for educating preservice earth science teachers, which provided a
context for a further study on the AIM. Thus, the goal of the present study is to illustrate
in detail how the AIM was applied in an undergraduate class by describing characteristic
features of students activities in the phases of the AIM.
METHOD
Participants
Participants in this study were the preservice secondary science teachers who were
enrolled in an earth science education course taught by the author of this article during
the fall semester, 2006, at a university in Seoul, Korea. The objective of the course was
to develop preservice teachers understanding of the nature of earth science and develop
curriculum materials reflecting the features of earth scientific inquiry. The course enrollees
worked in groups of 1012 students throughout the semester as they conducted scientific
investigations, designed earth science instructions, and performed microteaching.
Abductive inquiry was one of the course activities in which students were asked to
generate scientific explanations for the anomalous path of a typhoon named Wukong.
Wukong advanced near the Korean Peninsula in August 2006 after moving in a curved
path, which was different from the typical parabolic path of typhoons (see Figure 2). The
task for students was to explore the tracking data of Wukong and formulate plausible

Figure 2. Typhoon Wukongs moving path drawn by student Group A with a computer program.

Science Education

ABDUCTIVE INQUIRY IN EARTH SCIENCE

415

hypotheses to explain Wukongs erratic path. Four student groups implemented abductive
inquiry following the structure of the AIM both in and out of class, and all the groups were
successful in producing hypothetical explanations about Wukongs path. After completing
the inquiry, the students presented their results to the whole class and handed in written
reports. In this article, the student groups are identified as Groups A, B, C, and D, and the
participating students are represented by their initials to keep them anonymous. When the
students conducted the abductive inquiry, the instructor provided them with worksheets,
which were organized according to the structure of the AIM and contained tracking data
of several typhoons as well as prompt questions for student activities. However, no explicit
guidance, such as what information resources should be referred to, was given to the
students, and the name of the inquiry-learning model the students were engaged in was not
even mentioned until they completed their inquiry tasks.
Data Collection and Analysis
In this study, data collection and analysis were completed in collaboration with a female
earth scientist working at a professional institute for administration and research in the area
of atmospheric science. A strong rapport was established between the earth scientist and
the researcher, for both attended in the same undergraduate school and worked together
more recently to develop curriculum materials for secondary school earth science. Thanks
to this close relationship, the earth scientist pleasantly agreed to collaborate for this study.
In fact, she helped design the abductive inquiry about typhoons by providing official reports
of her institute about recent typhoons and explaining how atmospheric scientists analyze
and predict weather phenomena. Also she, as an expert, took part in analyzing data for this
study.
Data sources for this study were students presentation materials, written reports, and
interviews with five selected participants. First, presentation materials and written reports of
all the four groups were collected as group assignments during the course. These documents
included information about how the undergraduates performed abductive inquiry and what
they achieved through the AIM. In addition, intensive interviews were conducted with five
students to better understand details about the inquiry activities of student groups. The
five interviewees were selected from the two groups that were rated as outstanding cases
by the earth scientist. Here, the outstanding cases refer to groups whose reports contained
rich information about the students performance and/or whose explanations were superior
to those of others. Part of these data was used previously for the study that compared
hypothesis generation processes between scientists and students (Oh, 2008b). Thus, the
present study provided additional findings by analyzing more data and reinterpreting them
with a focus on how the undergraduates implemented abductive inquiry with the AIM.
Data analysis was conducted in an inductive manner with a goal of identifying the
characteristic features of students performance in each phase of the AIM. At first, the
presentation materials and written reports as well as the verbatim-transcribed interviews
were read without any specific intention but understanding how the students implemented
inquiry activities. Recursive analyses were then carried out to develop codes for student
performance in each phase of the AIM. That is, codes that represented inquiry behaviors
commonly occurring among student groups were defined and their meanings were described
in terms of the characteristic nature of abductive inquiry in earth science. These codes
and descriptions were checked against the data until no new codes were suggested even
after the initial codes were revised and integrated. In this process, the collaborating earth
scientist reviewed the student data and indicated which parts of the inquiry were considered
exemplary from an experts perspective. For example, she remarked that although all the
Science Education

416

OH

student groups mentioned factors influencing the movement of typhoons, their explanations
differed in identifying more significant factors or connecting them causally. Her comment
helped discern quality explanations and suggest them as exemplary outcomes of abductive
inquiry.
After the analysis was completed, a draft manuscript was sent to two students who had
participated in the interview for the purpose of member checking. They agreed that most of
the content of the draft was consistent with their inquiry experiences, which increased the
trustworthiness of the analysis results. The final draft of the present study was then written
with more elaboration and discussion added.

FINDINGS
Findings of this study are presented in the following four sections. The title of each section
corresponds to one of the four phases of the AIM and the representative features of that
phase. Thus, the sections below describe the ways that students carried out inquiry activities
in the course of the AIM to depict and discuss how student performance characterizes
abductive inquiry of earth science.
Exploration: Discovering Problems From Phenomena
The AIM begins with the exploration phase in which students explore earth scientific
phenomena and identify problems that can be explained scientifically. In this study, four
groups of undergraduate students were given tracking data of four typhoons, which had
come close to the Korean Peninsula in the years of 2005 and 2006. The data consisted of
longitudinal and latitudinal locations of the typhoons during the days when the typhoons
occurred as tropical depressions, developed as typhoons, and finally weakened and disappeared. Although the tracking data were provided in a table format, typhoon moving
paths were not immediately evident. So the students were guided to transform the data
tables into graphs using spreadsheet software. Figure 3 shows one of the graphs that the
undergraduates created using a computer program and the data.
The graphical data such as what is shown in Figure 3 made it easier for the students to
find that all the four typhoons traveled in similar parabolic trajectories. They also helped the
students identify other characteristics that the typhoons had in common. The students presentation materials revealed what the undergraduates derived from the data and articulated
as conclusions regarding the general properties of typhoons. These included the following:
1. The paths of typhoons change around 3035 degrees north latitude from the northwest to the northeast.
2. Typhoons occur in the midst of the sea.
3. The lower the latitude where a typhoon begins to develop, the stronger the typhoon.
4. The intensity of typhoons becomes weak around Korea.
5. The time duration of the influence of typhoons is about 1 or 2 weeks.
After identifying the common characteristics of the typhoons around Korea, the students
were provided data about typhoon Wukong and asked to produce a graph in the same way
as they did for the previous four typhoons. When a graph such as Figure 2 was completed,
the students readily recognized that Wukong moved in an anomalous path. That is, Wukong
made a half-loop shape in the middle of its trajectory and dissipated at lower latitude as
compared with the other typhoons explored earlier. This abnormal behavior of Wukong
Science Education

ABDUCTIVE INQUIRY IN EARTH SCIENCE

417

Figure 3. General path of typhoons drawn by student Group C with a computer program.

was considered by the students a problem to be explained. For example, YH in Group B

said,
At first, [I] thought that, because this [Wukongs path] was curved in this way, I had drawn
it wrong. But, even after double checking, it was right. [So we] decided that we needed to
talk about this [looped] part.

At this point, it should be noted that the undergraduates discovery of problems was made
possible by aid of two processes. First, the students explored the typical path of typhoons,
and the results of these explorations became the students background knowledge in light
of which they could find a problem with more ease. YH again emphasized that Wukongs
erratic path was a very surprising phenomenon in consideration of what she knew about
typhoons:
We learned that paths of typhoons change. We learned, if the map of Korea is located [here],
[the typhoon paths] change like this [parabolic shape]. But, this [Wukongs path] was not
parabolic as we expected. . . . I have never thought that there could be very diverse paths of
typhoons, and this is the first time for me to see such a strange path.

Second, student discovery of a problem in the exploration phase of the AIM was facilitated by the use of the data-restructuring strategy. That is, the tracking data of typhoons
were transformed from the form of tables to that of graphs, which helped the students
notice a new pattern in Wukongs moving track. JE in Group A explained how the graphic
representation guided her to identify a problem for abductive inquiry:
We have looked at typhoons which have normal paths like these, havent we? Since we
saw them all already, . . . after representing [Wukongs path], we were able to locate the

Science Education

418

OH
specific featuresthe peculiar points on the track. . . . Once [we] drew Wukong[s path]
like that, comparisons of typhoons occurrence points as well as dissipation points became
very clear. So, we just compared together.

As JE did with the graphically reconstructed data, the groups of students examined
their graphs carefully and defined several problems concerning typhoon Wukong. These
included the following:
1. At first Wukong tracked northwestward. As the power became weak around 26
degrees latitude, however, it changed the direction and moved northeast for a while.
Then, it traveled northwestward again. This made a zigzag pattern.
2. It looks like Wukong is staying at the same longitude while making a hook-shape.
3. Wukong dissipated more quickly as compared with other normal typhoons.
4. Wukong occurred at relatively high latitude.
5. The location [where Wukong dissipated] is a little lower than the places where
other typhoons still maintained their power as tropical storms. (excerpted from the
undergraduates presentation materials and written reports).
In summary, student activities in the exploration phase of the AIM revealed that the
discovery of a problem in the context of scientific inquiry is not simply the process of
picking up a problem inherent in the data. Rather, it is a cognitive process in that problems
are not merely perceived by ones unintended eyes, but rather defined in light of the
knowledge that the problem solvers possess. While it is not reasonable to say that the datarestructuring process is unique to abductive inquiry, this strategy is believed to facilitate the
discovery of problems because, through this process, data expressed in a particular form of
representation are reconstructed into another form so that the problem can be recognized
more easily. In this study, such cross-modal data representations helped the undergraduates
identify acute anomalies, which in turn led to authentic performance of the students in
following stages of the AIM.

Examination: Recalling, Searching for, and Creating Rules

After problems were defined, students were challenged by the task of providing scientific explanations of Wukongs movement in an erratic path. This was a retrodictive or
postdictive task because the causes for Wukongs anomalous path were unknown even
though some conditions might have occurred concurrently with Wukongs traveling. The
students therefore had to hypothesize abductively the conditions and processes that could
have resulted in Wukongs abnormal path. Since the abductive inference is performed using
a rule (H P), it is important for abductive reasoners to find appropriate rules that can
render explanatory hypotheses (H) about the phenomena (P) in question. Considering this,
the AIM provided the examination phase in which students are allowed to go over a wide
range of information resources to come up with rules for their abductive reasoning. Reviewing students written reports and presentation materials as well as interview transcripts
with five participants confirmed that there are three distinctive ways to determine rules for
abduction.

Recalling From Background Knowledge. At first, the undergraduates attempted to recall

scientific facts, laws, or theories from their background knowledge that might be relevant
Science Education

ABDUCTIVE INQUIRY IN EARTH SCIENCE

419

to abnormal movements of typhoons. But no one was successful in finding those that
could immediately explain the cause for a typhoons anomalous path like that of Wukong.
The students then redirected their focuses on two important aspects of Wukongs case:
that Wukong is nothing but a typhoon, and that Wukongs abnormal behavior is a sort of
anomalous weather phenomena.
First, most students focused their attention to the fact that Wukong is no more than a
typhoon and tried to recall what they knew about typhoons in general. In the interview, YH
explained,
Because this is a typhoon, we didnt do [the work] randomly. We decided that wed
better talk about how a typhoon develops and stuff like that. So, we discussed like, The
latitude [where typhoon Wukong first formed] seemed to be high, but what about normal
typhoons? . . . I cannot remember who said, but someone mentioned high pressure [is
related to typhoons], and then [others agreed], It makes sense. Well, we did it this way.

When successfully retrieving scientific information regarding general characteristics

of typhoons from their background knowledge, the undergraduates used it to formulate
explanations for the strange path of Wukong. For example, Group B students recalled that
the primary energy source for typhoons is the latent heat released by condensation of water
vapor and suggested that Wukong might have weakened considerably while passing a sea
area of low-surface water temperature. In their written report, the students wrote,
Thinking that the intensity of a typhoon decreases with losing its energy sources, a typhoon
would weaken over a sea area of low-surface temperature, not just over the land. Because
[Wukong] was not a violent typhoon from the beginning and because the direction [of
Wukong] was northwest . . . , it would reach the area of low sea surface temperature more
quickly. When [Wukong] reached the land after it had already started to get weaker, its
power would decrease drastically and [the typhoon would] die out quickly.

The argumentation above can be reorganized into the syllogistic form of abduction,
which shows that the students used the recalled knowledge as a rule from which they draw
a hypothesis explaining Wukongs abnormal behavior:
(result, P)
(rule, H P)

(case, H)

Wukong dissipated earlier than other typical typhoons.

If Wukong reached an area of low sea surface temperature
more quickly, it would then weaken and dissipate earlier than
other typical typhoons.
Wukong reached an area of low sea surface temperature more
quickly.

Second, when students failed to retrieve scientific knowledge that can explain a typhoons
erratic path specifically, they considered that Wukongs strange movement is a sort of
anomalous weather phenomena. For example, the students in Group D remembered some
well-known causes for abnormal environmental events on the globe, such as El Nino and
tsunami, and used them in formulating rules for their abductive inference. In their group
report, the students remarked, Because El Nino made the atmosphere unstable, the typhoon
could not move straightly in the general trajectory of typhoons. This student reasoning can
be expressed in the three-step formulation of abduction as follows:
Science Education

420

OH

1. Wukongs erratic path was observed. (P)

2. If El Nino made the atmosphere unstable and consequently the typhoon could not
move straightly in the general trajectory of typhoons, Wukongs erratic path would
be explicable as a matter of course. (H P)
3. Hence there is reason to think that, because El Nino made the atmosphere unstable,
the typhoon moved in the erratic way. (H)
To summarize, when students lacked specific knowledge concerning a typhoons anomalous path, other aspects of Wukong served as clues for the undergraduates to activate relevant
information from their background knowledge. The recalled knowledge was used as rules
for the students abductive inference in which hypothetical explanations were derived for
Wukongs abnormal movement.
Searching Information Resources. Although students background knowledge provided

some elements to form explanatory hypotheses for Wukongs path, the restored information
was not always sufficient to generate articulated accounts because their knowledge and
experiences in the domain of earth science were limited. Recognizing this problem, the
undergraduates proceeded to search various sources of information, including library books,
Internet, science textbooks, and professors lecture notes, to find adequate rules to be used
in their abductive inference. When useful-looking scientific information was found, the
students made use of it to develop an explanation for Wukongs anomalous path. For
example, the students in Group B found out the information of the relationship between
upper level winds and typhoons and applied it in formulating their own hypothesis. In their
written report, the students wrote,
[We] have learned that one of the causes for typhoons anomalous paths is weak upper
level winds. We have also learned that, in August, when typhoon Wukong occurred, there
are statistically a number of typhoons with anomalous paths because upper level winds are
usually weak. So we presumed that Wukongs interaction with weak upper level currents
would result in its anomalous path.

In addition, all the four groups of students commonly found the theory of the Fujiwhara
effect from the literature. The Fujiwhara effect refers to the tendency that, when two
tropical cyclones appear nearby, they revolve counterclockwise around and approach each
other (Brand, 1970; Dong & Neumann, 1983; Fujiwhara, 1923). When they first learned the
Fujiwhara effect, the students adapt it to formulate abductive explanations about Wukong.
For instance, the students in Group A found that typhoon Sonamu had appeared close to
Wukong and suggested that the two typhoons might have interacted to result in Wukongs
erratic path. The explanatory hypothesis generated by Group A can be expressed in the
syllogistic form of abduction:
(result, P)
(rule, H P)

(case, H)

Wukongs anomalous path was observed.

If typhoon Sonamus interaction with typhoon Wukong
. . . affected the moving track in such a way that Wukong
traveled toward the direction of Sonamu, it could result in
Wukongs anomalous path.
The influence of another typhoon brought about the features of
the [Wukongs] route.

As described thus far, reference search was the second salient mechanism students
employed to identify rules for their abductive inference. This strategy helped the
Science Education

ABDUCTIVE INQUIRY IN EARTH SCIENCE

421

undergraduates expand their background knowledge and generate hypothetical explanations from the enriched knowledge base. In particular, the references examined by the
students provided specialized information whereby the students could construct more sophisticated scientific hypotheses than they could do with their limited knowledge and
understanding in earth science.

Creating New Rules. Even after searching diverse resources, most students felt that they

were still short of knowledge about typhoons. Facing this problem, the undergraduates
tried to create new rules for themselves to explain abductively the anomalous path of
Wukong. Researchers have suggested that a variety of cognitive strategies are employed
when scientists generate new hypotheses to explain puzzling problems (Clement, 2008;
Magnani, 2001; Thagard, 1988, 1992). Similarly, the undergraduates in this study were also
engaged in some cognitive strategies when they constructed new rules for their abductive
inference. First, it was found that the students utilized the analogy strategy to create new
rules. The students in Group A, for example, used the influence of North Pacific High on
the rainy season as a source for their analogical reasoning:
It is August when Wukong took place, and this is the time when there is strong influence
of the North Pacific High. Just like what it does for the rainy front, the North Pacific High
affects the entire weather as it expands and retreats in turns. Therefore, it can be established
as a hypothesis that this change of the typhoons trajectory is due to the North Pacific High.
(Group As written report)

In addition, Group D students proposed, A tsunami resulting from an earthquake or

similar movements of sea water brought a change to air currents over the ocean, and this in
turn changed the direction and intensity of the typhoon. They then justified their analogical
thinking by saying, Because, like El Nino and the southern oscillation, there are examples
of meteorological phenomena occurring as a consequence of interactions with the ocean, we
inferred analogically that there might be some relationship between tsunami and typhoon.
The reasoning process of Group D can be rearranged as below to make it clearer that the
analogy strategy was employed in creating a new rule for the students abductive inference:
(result, P)
(rule, H P)

(case, H)

Wukongs abnormal movement was observed.

If a tsunami brought a change to air currents over the ocean,
which in turn interacted with the typhoon, just as El Nino
and the southern oscillation do, then Wukongs abnormal
movement would be explicable as a matter of course.
Hence there is reason to think that a tsunami is a cause for
Wukongs abnormal movement.

Second, the undergraduates were observed to use what Thagard (1988) called the existential abduction. The existential abduction refers to the strategy of forming a rule for
abductive inference by postulating the existence of some previously unidentified things.
For instance, in the 19th century, astronomers observed that the orbit of Uranus diverged
from what was expected from Newtonian mechanics, and correctly hypothesized the existence of Neptune to explain the discrepancy (pp. 5657). In a manner similar to Thagards
description, Group D students assumed that there might have been high or low pressure
on the route of Wukong, which could have affected the typhoons moving track. Also, the
Science Education

422

OH

students in Group B hypothesized the existence of an uneven surface, like a huge mountain,
to explain Wukongs anomalous path. In this regard, SM in Group B said,
Well, in fact, at first, really at first when we met without any information, we just said,
Whats going on here? What we first hit upon was, There should be something, some
strange landforms, or There should be abnormal climate. Then, [we decided], lets then
look into the landform and climate.

It is obvious from the utterance above that the existential strategy was employed by the
students when they formulated a new rule for abductive inference.
At this point, it should be noted that the rules created by the students and the hypotheses
derived from the rules were not always constrained in the sentential form. Rather, they were
often expressed by means of alternative semiotic media including figures and diagrams.
When abductive reasoning is accompanied with such visual representations, it can be
called a model-based abduction (Magnani, 2001) or the modeling strategy, meaning
the cognitive operation of constructing and manipulating models. Models are defined as
representations of objects, phenomena, processes, ideas, and their systems (Gilbert &
Boulter, 2000), and they play significant roles in scientific inquiry and problem solving
by simplifying and highlighting important aspects of their targets. This feature was also
evident in this study as students made use of models to construct and communicate their
explanatory hypotheses. For example, although the Fujiwhara effect seemed to be relevant to
the movement of tropical cyclones, it did not provide an explanation which fit to a particular
meteorological event such as a typhoons anomalous path. Hence, the undergraduates had
to envision a specific instance of the Fujiwhara theory to explain the trajectory of Wukong.
In this case, a model helped the students represent effectively the targeted atmospheric
processes and build their explanations on those visual representations. Figure 4 indicates, for
instance, the pictorial model produced by Group C students, which shows that Wukong and
another typhoon Sonamu attract each other as the winds between the two typhoons cancel
each other. Similarly to their peers, the students in Group D visualized their hypotheses of
high or low pressure hampering Wukongs movement and distracting its path as illustrated
in Figure 5.

Figure 4. Example of visual representations of student hypotheses: The Fujiwhara effect.

Science Education

ABDUCTIVE INQUIRY IN EARTH SCIENCE

423

Figure 5. Example of visual representations of student hypotheses: Influence of high and low pressures on a
typhoons moving path.

Clement (2008) suggested that imagistic representations had advantages for abductive
construction of explanatory models in science. The strengths of imagery include its ability to
express many complex spatial and temporal constraints simultaneously and contain causal
chains within it. Such benefits from using the modeling strategy were confirmed in this
study as well when students represented in their models the complex processes that might
have caused Wukongs anomalous path.
In summary, during the examination phase of the AIM, the undergraduates combined
their knowledge base and cognitive strategies to come up with appropriate rules from
which scientific hypotheses could be drawn to explain Wukongs movement in an erratic
way. Again, the background knowledge of the students played an important role in inferring
rules as it did for discovering problems. Particularly, when the students did not have solid
knowledge base about specific aspects of the phenomena addressed, such outer information
sources as science books and the Internet served to expand their background knowledge.
In addition, the students employed cognitive strategies including the analogy, existential,
and modeling strategies to create new rules for their abductive reasoning. These results
provides an empirical support for the assertion by Thagard and Croft (1999) that abductive
generation of hypotheses can be performed using rules such as If Y then X, by causal
schemas that connect Y and X, by visual representations of causal connections, and by
analogical inference (pp. 134135).
Selection: Toward More Plausible Explanations
During the examination stage of the AIM, many alternative hypotheses emerge to explain
the phenomena under investigation. Although these hypotheses are all tentative and not
proven yet, abductive reasoners want to know which hypotheses are valid enough to be
considered for the next step of scientific inquiry (Curd, 1980; Haig, 2005; Kordig, 1978;
Magnani, 2001). The third component of the AIMselection is the phase in which the
hypotheses generated previously are evaluated and more plausible ones are chosen for
further consideration. In this study, it is revealed that the undergraduates were engaged in
such evaluation and selection processes by using two assessment criteria.
First, the students considered the empirical consistency an important criterion for evaluating alternative hypotheses. The empirical consistency means that what is indicated by a
hypothesis actually exists in the natural world. Thus, the groups of undergraduate students
gathered evidence and examined whether the evidence was congruent with their hypotheses to check the empirical consistency of the hypotheses. If there was a fit between their
Science Education

424

OH

hypotheses and the empirical data available to them, the students believed that it increased
the validity of their explanations. By contrast, when they failed to find supporting data,
they eliminated the hypothesis from the list of candidate explanations. For instance, the
students of Groups B and C selected a hypothesis indicating the Fujiwhara effect on the basis of their finding Sonamu moving around Wukong during the time when Wukong moved
northward. Also, Group D students made a choice of the hypothesis that the development
of high pressure brought about Wukongs abnormal movement because their data showed
that there had existed a high pressure, actually expanding before Wukong started its erratic
path. However, the hypothesis suggesting an area of low sea surface temperature made by
Group B and the hypothesis about the existence of low pressure by Group D were found
to be improbable because the empirical data were not consistent with what the hypotheses
denoted. In their reports, students wrote,
Weather map 2006081318 [18 hour, August 13, 2006]: . . . High pressures are seen to take
up the position around Wukong in an extensive scale just before the anomalous path occurs.
The scale of these high pressures is similar to that of Wukong so that they can impose an
effect on the path and intensity of Wukong. The influence [of these high pressures] seems
to be larger than those in any other hypotheses mentioned above. (Group D)
We expected that the sea surface temperature would be lower around our country and
Japan than the areas at lower latitudes and that this [difference in sea surface temperature]
would influence the dissipation of the typhoon. But, the newscast in August 18 expressed
the concern that the power of typhoons might be stronger since the sea water temperature
around our country was high. . . . [Our] explanation was not plausible. (Group B)

According to the students written reports, the hypotheses that had gained empirical
support remained for the next phase of the AIM to provide a final explanation of Wukongs
anomalous path. In other words, the empirical check for consistency between hypotheses
and data served to eliminate implausible explanations among several alternatives.
As the collaborating earth scientist analyzed students documents, she provided a comment that, besides the empirical consistency, the undergraduates seemed to have considered
another criterion to make their explanations more plausible. This additional criterion was
the theoretical coherence, which refers to the harmony of a hypothesis with well-established
knowledge of science. For example, Group B students confessed that, even though they
failed to locate empirical data for the appearance of upper level winds during the days
when Wukong developed, they did not discard their hypothesis since it was a well-known
scientific fact that upper level winds affect the path of a typhoon. That is, the undergraduates
believed that their hypothesis was still plausible enough to be considered an explanation
for Wukongs case because it is conceptually consistent with other scientific knowledge.
The theoretical coherence also means that a hypothesis contains a causal relationship
between important variables about the phenomena with no logical contradiction. This aspect
can be called the internal coherence and the former aspect the external coherence. As an
example of evaluating a hypothesis based on the internal coherence, the students in Group
D rejected their hypothesis because they were not sure that there was a causal relationship
between El Nino and typhoons moving tracks:
Since El Nino is a more periodic, global phenomenon, it is hardly believe that El Nino
made a temporal and small-scaled intervention in a local event like the trajectory change
of typhoon Wukong. Besides, when we examined the years of El Nino occurrence and
its duration, there was no record for El Nino in summer, 2006 when Wukong appeared.
Therefore, this hypothesis is not right. (Group Ds written report)

Science Education

ABDUCTIVE INQUIRY IN EARTH SCIENCE

425

The earth scientist emphasized that the three conditions the students considered to
select more plausible hypotheses are also the criteria practicing weather specialists use to
develop scientific explanations for atmospheric phenomena. But the students did not remark
explicitly about the latter two conditionsexternal and internal theoretical coherencein
their interviews or reports. It can therefore be concluded that the undergraduates certainly
have the ability to develop and evaluate scientific hypotheses even though they do not
recognize all the evaluative criteria overtly.
Explanation: Explaining Genetically and Narratively
Earth science as a historical and interpretive science is distinguished from experimental
sciences, such as physics and chemistry, in terms of its norm for what counts as an explanation (Ault, 1998; Frodeman, 1995; Kleinhans et al., 2005). In earth science, a phenomenon
is explained by being integrated into a sequence of relevant events, rather than being subsumed under a general law. The explanatory account depicts causal relationships among the
events in the sequence and involves antecedent conditions that result in the phenomenon
through a short- or long-time span. Although no explicit instruction was given concerning
how the final explanation should be made and what kind of argument structure it should
follow, the undergraduates in this study were aware of these features of earth scientific
explanations as they were trying to explain Wukongs anomalous path by means of the
hypotheses they had selected in the previous stage. For example, JE realized that merely
one hypothesis with a single event could not explain Wukongs movement in an erratic
way. She said,
The biggest problem we had in forming hypotheses was that, when we tried to talk about
Wukong, . . . there was no single hypothesis which could cover all about it. No single
hypothesis emerged to explain the phenomenon or problem . . . so I figured it out, like,
at random: thought about this [aspect] separately and then thought about that [aspect]
additionally. As a matter of fact, we concluded later that a single factor or a single hypothesis
could not explain the entire features of this [phenomenon]. So, we were kind of forced to
talk like, Those hypotheses which were previously considered valid would work together
in many ways [to cause Wukongs anomalous path].

Consequently, in the explanation phase of the AIM, multiple hypotheses were combined
to compose a scenario of how it had happened that Wukong had followed the strange
path. As shown in the examples below, the explanations finally suggested by the students
involved a rather long account of causal chains of several intervening events:
Typhoon Wukong, which occurred at relatively high latitude, did not have a large amount
of energy from the beginning. Although the typhoon was provided energy little by little as
moving northward over the ocean, it could not develop as an intense typhoon because of the
low initial energy and the short traveling distance. While traveling northwest alongside the
strong North Pacific High which were powered by the seasonal effect, the typhoon started
to make an anomalous path from August 14. In August 14, typhoon Sonamu appeared very
near to the typhoon [Wukong], and typhoons Sonamu and Wukong were interconnected
to yield the Fujiwhara effect. . . . Typhoon Wukong followed the strange path until August
16 when typhoon Sonamu dissipated. Probably, the influence of the North Pacific High
increased while the power of typhoon Sonamu was getting weaker, and, thanks to the
rotating force of the high pressure, the typhoon [Wukong] suddenly turned northeastward.
As typhoon Wukongs power also became stronger, it made a balance with the North Pacific
High and came back to the normal path. . . . Landing on the Kyushu area, Japan, the typhoon

Science Education

426

OH
became weaker because it was got friction from the high and humpy-dumpy landforms and
because it showered a lot of rain. (Group Bs written report)
Wukong turned its direction from northwest to northeast around 27 N and 137 E. That is,
the moving track changed to the northeast as Wukong entered the area of 25 N which was
under the influence of the westerly winds. . . . Wukong got back in the earlier track toward the
northwest after moving northeast for a while. This means that Wukong was strengthened by
the continuous supply of latent heat provided from the ocean, gained powers strong enough
to beat the westerly winds, and eventually escaped from the influence of the westerly
winds, whereafter Wukong moved back to the original route toward the northwest, drawing
a zigzag pattern. (Group Cs written report)

It should be noted that the explanations above are genetic in nature. A genetic explanation
is an account of some state of affairs by describing how it developed or by what process
it came about (Green, 1971, p. 155). In the construction of a genetic explanation, various
events are connected in a sequential order so that causal links in the development of a
phenomenon can be set out (Green, 1971; Nagel, 1961). In the examples above, multiple
factors such as initial energy, high pressure around the typhoon, landforms, latent heat,
and the upper level wind system are causally chained to produce Wukongs abnormal
movement.
A genetic explanation usually takes the form of narratives. According to Norris, Guilbert,
Smith, Hakimelahi, and Phillips (2005), event-tokens and past time are central to a narrative
explanation even though other diverse factors may constitute a narrative account. First, a
narrative explanation is concerned with a particular occurrence rather than regularity among
recurring events. Therefore, in contrast to the deductive model of scientific explanations
in which known initial conditions are connected with general theories or laws, a narrative
model explains a phenomenon by organizing causally related events up to its genesis
within a story-like account (Kleinhans et al., 2005; Nagel, 1961; Norris et al., 2005).
Second, a narrative explanation addresses a process of temporal change or transformation
in which a series of precedent events contributes to the occurrence of its effect. Hence, the
norm of a narrative is retrodiction, whereby what happens in the present is understood
as a consequence of what comes before (Norris et al., 2005, p. 551). The explanatory
hypotheses generated by the students in this study satisfied these conditions in the sense
that several natural entities were structured in a temporal flow to cause the unique occurrence
of Wukongs erratic path.
Although the students hypotheses appeared in similar forms, they were different from
one another in terms of quality. According to the collaborating earth scientist, while the
explanation of Group B shared many parts with the official report of her institute, some
explanations by the other groups either missed significant factors and conditions influencing
typhoons behaviors or lacked causal connections in their narratives. For example, in the
following explanation presented by the students in Group A, concrete and dynamic cause
effect relationships were not elaborated although some important factors affecting the paths
of typhoons were mentioned:
To talk about the trajectory, the anomalous route seems to have resulted from the influence
of high pressures, including the North Pacific High, which were in the right- or left-side
of the typhoon. For some areas, it looks likely that the typhoon was influenced by another
typhoon which had developed and traveled earlier [than Wukong]. (Group As written
report)

Science Education

ABDUCTIVE INQUIRY IN EARTH SCIENCE

427

The earth scientist emphasized that generating quality explanations depends largely on
the background knowledge in relevant domains. It is therefore concluded that the students
in Group B were successful in enriching their knowledge base in earth science and using it
to formulate genuine scientific hypotheses.
To sum up, in the final stage of the AIM, the undergraduates provided hypothetical
explanations in the forms of genetic and narrative discourses. Just as the genetic and narrative explanations reflect the nature of earth science as a historical and interpretive science
(Dodick & Orion, 2003; Frodeman, 1995; Kleinhans et al., 2005), the student-generated hypotheses characterize what can be achieved when learning earth science through abductive
inquiry.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Every academic discipline has a unique mode of inquiry, which can be defined by the
nature of problems pursued and the types of reasoning which guides problem solving
in that discipline. For example, physical sciences deal mostly with problems that could
be explained by the combination of general laws and initial conditions. Deduction is
the inferential method employed to provide such formal, nomological explanations. The
same type of scientific explanations, however, cannot be applied directly in earth science
because earth scientific inquiry often includes retrodictive or postdictive problems (Ault,
1998; Baker, 1996, 2000; Dodick & Orion, 2003; Engelhardt & Zimmermann, 1988;
Frodeman, 1995; Kitts, 1978; Kleinhans et al., 2005; Schumm, 1991). Abduction is a
backward-directed inference, which proceeds from an effect to a cause and best suited for
solving retrodictive/postdictive problems of earth science. Abductive reasoning enables us
to explain an observed result with unobserved processes on which it is supposed to be based
(Magnani, 2001; Walton, 2004). The characteristics of abduction provided inspiration to the
development and use of the AIM as an inquiry-learning model in earth science education.
Learning with the AIM, students are allowed to practice abductive reasoning as they are
engaged in solving retrodictive/postdictive problems of earth science (Oh, 2008a, 2010).
Abductive inquiry includes the processes of generating, evaluating, selecting, and proposing hypotheses to explain phenomena in question. Abductively inferred hypotheses make
the phenomena understandable by showing that they are probable consequences of other
processes which are reasonably conjectured (Clement, 2008; Magnani, 2001; Oh, 2008a;
Walton, 2004). These characteristic features of abductive inquiry were evident in this study
in which four groups of undergraduate students participated in inquiry activities structured
by the AIM to explain the anomalous path of typhoon Wukong. During the exploration
phase, the students investigated earth scientific phenomena with provided data and transformed the data into new forms to discover problems to be explained abductively. In the
examination phase, the students tried to activate and expand their background knowledge to
find appropriate rules for abductive inference. Furthermore, using such cognitive strategies
as analogy, existential, and modeling strategies, they created new rules which contained
explanatory hypotheses for Wukongs erratic movement. The selection phase provided the
students with opportunities to evaluate their hypotheses with empirical and theoretical criteria and choose more plausible ones. Finally, in the explanation phase, the students presented
genetic and narrative explanations for Wukongs abnormal behavior using the hypotheses
selected in the previous stage.
The findings of this study suggest important implications to be discussed and considered
in science education. First, on the basis of the results of the study, it is concluded that
undergraduate students have capabilities to make scientific hypotheses and these capabilities
can be facilitated when appropriate resources, such as relevant scientific information and
Science Education

428

OH

empirical data, are made available to them. Especially, the role of background knowledge
is critical, because it helps students recognize what problems are present and can be
pursued and because some elements of the background knowledge are used in formulating
rules for abductive inference. In other words, classroom inquiry can be implemented more
meaningfully and successfully when students are empowered with a solid knowledge base
in science. This is not, however, arguing for rote learning and memorization of a body of
scientific information. Learning scientific knowledge should be emphasized in the context of
scientific inquiry and problem solving. That is, students must be guided to take advantage of
relevant knowledge throughout their inquiry processes. For instance, the teacher can assist
students in activating and expanding their background knowledge and scaffold them to use
the knowledge to answer the questions of interest (Oh, 2010). In addition, students should
be given opportunities to apply what they have learned from the science classroom to solve
challenging problems through inquiry. It is expected that these pedagogical actions will
enrich students knowledge of science in terms of both the experiential knowledge, which
develops through direct transaction with physical realities and the traded knowledge, which
is acquired from conversation with other people, from textbooks, or any other sources of
information (Halloun, 2004, 2007).
Second, although background knowledge is certainly helpful to offer some components
of explanations, an abductive reasoner has to construct a brand new explanation in a situation where it is not clear what theories or principles are relevant to the problem. In this
regard, Magnani (2001) argues that, to better appreciate abductive reasoning, we need to
understand heuristic procedures that involve all kinds of inferential actions employed to
generate new hypotheses. In fact, a variety of cognitive strategies, including model-based
and action-induced reasoning, are employed in the abductive formulation of hypotheses
(Clement, 2008; Magnani, 2001; Thagard, 1988, 1992). The findings of this study provided
additional evidence for this claim. That is, having rich knowledge base was insufficient
for students to explain Wukongs anomalous path. Rather some cognitive strategies, including data restructuring, analogy, existential and modeling strategies, were employed
by the students in the processes of discovering problems and generating hypothetical explanations for those problems. Using such cognitive strategies leads to the effective use
of abductive reasoning in solving earth scientific problems. The same strategies should
therefore be utilized to teach and learn earth science via inquiry-based approaches. Furthermore, future research must be conducted to uncover far more thinking strategies which
can better support inquiry learning across different domains of science as well as grade
levels.
Third, Walton (2004) appraised abductive reasoning as creative in the sense that different
hypotheses are formed and judged as more plausible or less plausible (p. 181). This implies
that, in the course of abductive reasoning, hypotheses can be assessed and modified in an
ongoing manner to become more plausible ones. In fact, in scientific inquiry, there is an
interim process in which after its initial psychological occurrence, a hypothesis may be
elaborated, seriously proposed, deemed promising, and plausible to explore (Kordig, 1978,
p. 115). The present study also showed that student-generated hypotheses were evaluated
and selected according to their plausibility. Nevertheless, the study could not explicate
in detail how initial hypotheses developed into more sophisticated ones in the process of
inquiry with the AIM. One of the reasons for this shortcoming is that students documents
and interview transcripts were not sufficient enough to scrutinize the detailed process of
modifying and elaborating hypotheses, for they were produced and collected after the
student inquiry had been completed. Therefore, in future studies, complementary research
methods should be employed in such ways that the entire process of scientific inquiry can
be recorded and analyzed to reveal more specific features of the inquiry practice.
Science Education

ABDUCTIVE INQUIRY IN EARTH SCIENCE

429

CONCLUDING REMARKS
A promising way to help students appropriate disciplinary knowledge and methods is
to engage them in domain-specific inquiry. Abductive inquiry is specialized in the domain
of earth science, and it characterizes the discipline as a historical and interpretive science
(Ault, 1998; Baker, 1996, 2000; Dodick & Orion, 2003; Engelhardt & Zimmermann, 1988;
Frodeman, 1995; Kleinhans et al., 2005). More opportunities of abductive inquiry should
thus be given for students to learn earth science meaningfully by exercising the mode of
reasoning similar to what professional earth scientists are actually engaged in. Abductive
inquiry also offers new perspectives on the nature science, including the historical methodology of scientific inquiry and the genetic and narrative aspects of scientific explanations.
If science education research places more interest in domain-specific practices, it would
contribute to strengthening our understanding of the essential characteristics of science and
applying the understanding in educating each domain of science.
REFERENCES
Ault, C. A., Jr. (1998). Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 35, 189 212.
Baker, V. R. (1996). Hypotheses and geomorphological reasoning. In B. L. Rhoads & C. E. Thorn (Ed.), The
scientific nature of geomorphology (p. 57 85). New York: Wiley.
Baker, V. R. (2000). Conversing with the earth: The geological approach to understanding. In R. Frodeman (Ed.),
Earth matters: The earth sciences, philosophy, and the claims of the community (pp. 2 10). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bonfantini, M. A., & Proni, G. (1983). To guess or not to guess? In U. Eco & T. A. Sebeok (Eds.), The sign of
three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce (pp. 119 134). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brand, S. (1970). Interaction of binary tropical cyclones of the western North Pacific Ocean. Journal of Applied
Meteorology, 9, 433 441.
Chamberlin, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 15, 92 96.
Clement, J. J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and
mental simulation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Curd, M. V. (1980). The logic of discovery: An analysis of three approaches. In T. Nickles (Ed.), Scientific
discovery, logic, and rationality (pp. 201 219). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003). Geology as an historical science: Its perception within science and the education
system. Science & Education, 12, 197 211.
Dong, K., & Neumann, C. J. (1983). On the relative motion of binary tropical cyclones. Monthly Weather Review,
11, 945 953.
Eco, U. (1983). Horns, hooves, insteps: Some hypotheses on three types of abduction. In U. Eco & T. A. Sebeok
(Eds.), The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce (pp. 198 220). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Engelhardt, W. von, & Zimmermann, J. (1988). Theory of earth science (translated by L. Fisher). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Frodeman, R. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science. GSA Bulletin,
107(8), 960 968.
Fujiwhara, S. (1923). On the growth and decay of vortical systems. Quarterly Journal of Royal Meteorological
Society, 49, 75 104.
Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Goudge, T. A. (1950). The thought of C. S. Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.
Green, T. F. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Haig, B. D. (2005). An abductive theory of scientific method. Psychological Methods, 10(4), 371 388.
Halloun, I. A. (2004). Modeling theory in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16, 653 697.
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. London: Cambridge University Press.
Hanson, N. R. (1971). Observation and explanation: A guide to philosophy of science. London: George Allen &
Unwin.
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York:
The Free Press.

Science Education

430

OH

Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kim, C.-J. (2003). Preparing teachers for systems science methodology. In V. J. Mayer (Ed.), Implementing global
science literacy (pp. 255 266). Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Kitts, D. B. (1978). Retrodiction in geology. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science
Association, 2, 215 226.
Kleinhans, M. G., Buskes, C. J. J., & de Regt, H. W. (2005). Terra incognita: Explanation and reduction in earth
science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 19(3), 289 317.
Kordig, C. R. (1978). Discovery and justification. Philosophy of Science, 45, 110 117.
Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science: Process of discovery and explanation. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K-8
science classrooms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World.
Nickles, T. (Ed.). (1980). Scientific discovery, logic, and rationality. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for
narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89, 535 563.
Oh, P. S. (2008a). Adopting the Abductive Inquiry Model (AIM) into undergraduate earth science laboratories. In
V. Eriksson (Ed.), Science education in the 21st century (pp. 263 277). New York: Nova.
Oh, P. S. (2008b). Comparison of hypotheses-formation processes between an earth scientist and undergraduate
students: A case study about a typhoons anomalous path. Journal of the Korean Association for Science
Education, 28(6), 649 663. (In Korean with an abstract in English)
Oh, P. S. (2010). How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some strategies found in
abductive inquiry activities of earth science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 541 560.
Oh, P. S., & Kim, C.-J. (2005). A theoretical study on abduction as an inquiry method in earth science. Journal of
the Korean Association for Science Education, 25(5), 610 623. (In Korean with an abstract in English)
Rhoads, B. L., & Thorn, C. E. (1993). Geomorphology as science: The role of theory. Geomorphology, 6, 287 307.
Schumm, S. A. (1991). To interpret the earth: Ten ways to be wrong. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Selles-Martinez, J. (2004). International Earth Science Olympiad: What to test and how to do so. A paper presented
at the International Earth Science Olympiad (ISEO) Conference, Seoul, Korea, November 26 27.
Simpson, G. G. (1963). Historical science. In C. C. Albritton Jr. (Ed.), The fabric of geology (pp. 24 48). Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Thagard, P., & Croft, D. (1999). Scientific discovery and technological innovation: Ulcers, dinosaur extinction,
and the programming language Java. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based
reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 125 137). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Turner, D. (2005). Local underdetermination in historical science. Philosophy of Science, 72, 209 230.
Walton, D. (2004). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Science Education