Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Hypothesized Causes (hypothesized + cause)
Selected AbstractsSound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities,JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING, Issue 3 2002Anton E. Lawson A sample of preservice biology teachers (biology majors) enrolled in a teaching methods course formulated and attempted to test six hypotheses to answer a causal question about why water rose in a jar inverted over a burning candle placed in a pan of water. The students submitted a lab report in which arguments and evidence for testing each hypothesis were presented in an if/then/therefore hypothetico-predictive form. Analysis of written arguments revealed considerable success when students were able to manipulate observable hypothesized causes. However, when the hypothesized causes were unobservable, such that they could be only indirectly tested, performance dropped, as shown by use of three types of faulty arguments: (a) arguments that had missing or confused elements, (b) arguments whose predictions did not follow from hypotheses and planned tests, and (c) arguments that failed to consider alternative hypotheses. Science is an enterprise in which unobservable theoretical entities and processes (e.g., atoms, genes, osmosis, and photosynthesis) are often used to explain observable phenomena. Consequently, if it is assumed that effective teaching requires prior understanding, then it follows that these future teachers have yet to develop adequate hypothesis-testing skills and sufficient awareness of the nature of science to teach science in the inquiry mode advocated by reform guidelines. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 237,252, 2002 [source] Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades?THE JOURNAL OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY AND ALLIED DISCIPLINES, Issue 1 2004Frank R. Vellutino We summarize some of the most important findings from research evaluating the hypothesized causes of specific reading disability (,dyslexia') over the past four decades. After outlining components of reading ability, we discuss manifest causes of reading difficulties, in terms of deficiencies in component reading skills that might lead to such difficulties. The evidence suggests that inadequate facility in word identification due, in most cases, to more basic deficits in alphabetic coding is the basic cause of difficulties in learning to read. We next discuss hypothesized deficiencies in reading-related cognitive abilities as underlying causes of deficiencies in component reading skills. The evidence in these areas suggests that, in most cases, phonological skills deficiencies associated with phonological coding deficits are the probable causes of the disorder rather than visual, semantic, or syntactic deficits, although reading difficulties in some children may be associated with general language deficits. Hypothesized deficits in general learning abilities (e.g., attention, association learning, cross-modal transfer etc.) and low-level sensory deficits have weak validity as causal factors in specific reading disability. These inferences are, by and large, supported by research evaluating the biological foundations of dyslexia. Finally, evidence is presented in support of the idea that many poor readers are impaired because of inadequate instruction or other experiential factors. This does not mean that biological factors are not relevant, because the brain and environment interact to produce the neural networks that support reading acquisition. We conclude with a discussion of the clinical implications of the research findings, focusing on the need for enhanced instruction. [source] Patients' explanations for depression: a factor analytic studyCLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHOTHERAPY (AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THEORY & PRACTICE), Issue 1 2008Rick Budd Objectives: Previous questionnaire studies have attempted to explore the factor structure of lay beliefs about the causes of depression. These studies have tended to either fail to sample the full range of possible causal explanations or extract too many factors, thereby producing complex solutions. The main objective of the present study was to obtain a more complete and robust factor structure of lay theories of depression while more adequately sampling from the full range of hypothesized causes of depression. A second objective of the study was to explore the relationship between respondents' explanations for depression and their perceptions of the helpfulness of different treatments received. Method and design: A 77-item questionnaire comprising possible reasons for ,why a person might get depressed' was mailed out to members of a large self-help organization. Also included was a short questionnaire inviting respondents to note treatments received and their perceptions of the helpfulness of these treatments. Data from the 77-item questionnaire were subjected to a principal components analysis. Results: The reasons rated as most important causes of depression related to recent bereavement, imbalance in brain chemistry and having suffered sexual assault/abuse. The data were best described by a two-factor solution, with the first factor clearly representing stress and the second factor depressogenic beliefs, the latter corresponding to a cognitive,behavioural formulation of depression aetiology. The two scales thus derived did not, however, correspond substantially with rated helpfulness for different treatments received. Conclusions: The factor structure obtained was in contrast to more complex models from previous studies, comprising two factors. It is likely to be more robust and meaningful. It accords with previous research on lay theories of depression, which highlight ,stress' as a key cause for depression. Possible limitations in the study are discussed, and it is suggested that using the questionnaire with more recently depressed people might yield clearer findings in relation to perceptions of treatment helpfulness.,Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] | ||||||||||