in a bottom line success/failure score for each hypothesis. It cannot be that quantitatively objective, for the various observations are of unequal reliability and significance, in ways not readily reducible to a +/- symbol. Nevertheless, even experienced scientists often are surprised at how effectively this underused technique can draw their attention to the crux of a problem.
An outline is a familiar technique that is readily adapted for evidence evaluation. An outline works effectively for analysis of one or two major hypotheses. For multiple hypotheses, it has considerable redundancy because different hypotheses are affected by the same arguments. In contrast, the model/observation table is more compact and is concentrated on identifying differences among hypotheses. Like the model/observation table, an outline permits both arguments for and arguments against a hypothesis. It also permits nested hypotheses: often the premise for one conclusion has its own premises, strengths, and weaknesses. An evidence-evaluation outline might look like the following:
- I. Hypothesis
- A) argument for hypothesis
- 1) primary confirmation of A
- 2) secondary confirmation of A
- 3) ambiguity
- B) strong argument for hypothesis
- 1) primary confirmation of B
- 2) secondary confirmation of B
- 3) But evidence against B
- a) confirmation of #3
- b) But alternative explanation for #3
- A) argument for hypothesis
A less structured alternative to outlines and model/observation tables is the concept map, a flowchart that summarizes the known (or inferred) relationships among a suite of concepts. It is adaptable as a learning aid or as a method of evidence evaluation; at present it is used primarily as the former. Figure 23 illustrates the technique with a high-school-level concept map of sports [Arnaudin et al., 1984].
Concept mapping is based on a learning theory called cognitive association [Ausubel et al., 1978]. Cognitive association goes beyond the fixed patterns of simple memorization; like science, it evolves to encompass new knowledge. It employs the synergy of linking a new idea to existing ones: the new concept is easier to remember, and it subtly changes one’s perceptions of previously known ones. Additional ideas are subsumed into the existing conceptual framework and, like analogies, gain meaning from familiarity of patterns.
Based on teaching concept mapping to several hundred students, Arnaudin et al. [1984] reach the following conclusions about this technique:
• it is an effective study technique.
• it improves one’s ability to comprehend complex phenomena, by dissecting them into graspable components and links.
