How to formulate a research hypothesis examples. Examples of hypotheses

Not a single serious student work, I mean good coursework or the diploma cannot be prepared without scientific foresight – the most important condition scientific research, as it helps to anticipate and minimize possible errors and failures.

A specific form of scientific foresight is a hypothesis. After determining the object and subject, the purpose and objectives of the research, when developing experimental work and in understanding it we constantly have to return to the hypothesis as reference point research work.

A hypothesis is an assumption put forward to explain a phenomenon that has not been confirmed or refuted. A hypothesis is a proposed solution to a problem.

The hypothesis determines the main direction of scientific research. She is the main one methodological tool, organizing the entire research process.

The following two main requirements are imposed on a scientific hypothesis:
a) the hypothesis should not contain concepts that are not specified;
b) it must be verifiable using available techniques.

What does it mean to test a hypothesis? This means checking the consequences that logically follow from it. As a result of testing, the hypothesis is confirmed or refuted.

Research objectives are those research actions that must be performed to achieve the goal set in the work, solve a problem, or test a formulated research hypothesis.

Example 1

Hypothesis. The effectiveness of solving psychodiagnostic problems is largely determined by the choice of diagnostic thinking strategy of psychologists.

To test the hypothesis, it was necessary to solve the following problems:
1. Based on theoretical study psychological and pedagogical literature to identify the main characteristics of the diagnostic search and formulate the principles of modeling psychodiagnostic tasks.
2. Construct psychodiagnostic tasks that model learning difficulties.
3. Develop a laboratory methodology for studying the process of solving diagnostic problems, reproducing the logic of making a psychological diagnosis in real conditions.
4. Conduct an experimental study of the features of solving diagnostic problems practical psychologists and teachers.

Example 2

Main hypotheses.
1. The hypothesis is that there are connections between personality statements, the representation of qualities in handwriting and the representation in physiognomy.
2. It is assumed that behind individual facial features (physiognomy) there are qualities that are “read” by others.
3. Behind the designs of letters, behind their features, there are also signs of individual properties and qualities of a person, by which one can judge a person.

Particular hypotheses.
1. There are areas where you can most accurately determine a person’s characteristics from handwriting.
2. There are zones where it is most accurately possible to determine a person’s characteristics based on physiognomy.
3. There are zones that can be effectively defined by verbal characteristics (fixed verbal statements).

To test the hypotheses, the following main tasks were solved:
1. Determine by literary sources directions in which the problem of non-verbal characteristics (handwriting and physiognomy) was solved.
2. Conduct experiments to identify individual personality traits manifested in handwriting and physiognomy.
3. Identify the analyzed characteristics of individuals based on verbal indicators.
4. Identify the objective characteristics of persons with whom the obtained data on verbal and nonverbal characteristics are associated.
5. Establish the most stable connections between verbal and non-verbal characteristics."

Example 3

The purpose of this work is to describe and analyze the reasons and patterns of conscious change of profession as a phenomenon of professional development. The general problem of studying a conscious change of profession was specified in the following research objectives:
1. Systematization psychological reasons conscious change of profession and evaluation of them as signs of professional development.
2. Analysis of the dynamics of ideas about requirements labor activity in the process of professionalization.
3. Analysis of the dynamics of the expression of professional orientation in the process of professional development.
4. Analysis of the dynamics of the relationship between professionally important qualities in the process of mastering a profession.
5. Building a model of conscious career change

Research methodology

Method is a fairly broad concept. For example, the experimental research method involves organizing and conducting an experiment.

Methodology is a narrower concept. For example, in an experimental research method you can use the electroencephalography technique.

All methods modern science are divided into theoretical and empirical. This division is very conditional. As an independent method, we can distinguish a modeling method that has its own specifics. In addition, interpretive methods, in particular methods of presenting and processing data, are distinguished from theoretical and empirical methods.

When conducting theoretical research, a scientist deals not with reality itself, but with its mental representation - representation in the form of mental images, formulas, spatial-dynamic models, diagrams, descriptions in natural language, etc. Theoretical work is done “in the mind.”

Empirical research is conducted to test the validity of theoretical constructs; the scientist interacts with the object itself, and not with its sign-symbolic or spatial-figurative analogue. When processing and interpreting data from empirical research, the experimenter, just like the theorist, works with graphs, tables, formulas, but interaction with them occurs mainly “in the external plane of action”: diagrams are drawn, calculations are made using a computer, etc. theoretical research a “thought experiment” is carried out when an idealized object of study (more precisely, a mental image) is placed in various conditions(also mental), after which, based on logical reasoning, its possible behavior is analyzed. The modeling method is different from both theoretical method, giving generalized, abstract knowledge, and from the empirical. When modeling, the researcher uses the method of analogies, inference “from particular to particular,” while the experimenter works using induction methods ( math statistics is modern version inductive output). The theorist uses the rules of deductive reasoning developed by Aristotle.

For a researcher who uses modeling, a model is an analogue of an object. Modeling is used when it is impossible to conduct an experimental study of an object. Such objects include unique systems that are inaccessible to experimental study, or systems on which experiments cannot be carried out for moral reasons: the Universe, solar system, ecosystem national park“Elk Island” and man as an object, for example, of a number of medical and psychopharmacological studies. Sometimes a model is chosen based on the principle of convenience, greater simplicity and cost-effectiveness of research. Thus, instead of testing a giant ship, its buoyancy is initially studied on a model (taking into account fundamentally important scale distortions). Instead of studying the characteristics of elementary forms of learning and cognitive activity in humans, psychologists successfully use “biological models” for this purpose: rats, monkeys, rabbits and even pigs.

In addition to the methodology, research should distinguish between purpose and result. As noted, the goal is what we want to get when conducting research, an image of the future. The result is what we really got, an image of the present. The methodology answers the question of how we got it, i.e. on what subjects, using what methods, under what conditions. In order for the description of the technique to be complete and at the same time not redundant, it is advisable to adhere to a certain scheme when describing it.

Hypothesis is a scientific assumption, an assumption whose true meaning is uncertain.

The main ways to test (confirm, prove) a hypothesis:

1) based on information received from certain sources, analysis of existing knowledge, logic;

2) based on experiments, observations, surveys, etc.

There are hypotheses:

a) descriptive (the existence of a phenomenon is assumed);

b) explanatory (revealing its reasons);

c) descriptive and explanatory.

The following specific requirements apply to a scientific hypothesis: requirements:

It should not include too many provisions. As a rule, one basic thing, rarely more for special special needs;

It cannot include concepts and categories that are not unambiguous and not understood by the researcher himself;

When formulating a hypothesis, value judgments should be avoided; the hypothesis must correspond to the facts, be verifiable and applicable to to a wide circle phenomena;

An impeccable stylistic design, logical simplicity, and respect for continuity are required.

Examples

We assume that in the ideas of older preschoolers, the predominant image of a woman is external characteristics, but not personal traits; the dominant sphere is professional.

An example of a hypothesis in a theoretical work

The hypothesis lies in the assumption that the influence of Byzantium on the culture of Kievan Rus, unlike other countries, was not so dominant, which made it possible to enrich the culture of the people with special originality, originality and originality.

An example of a hypothesis in a work that has an empirical part

The hypothesis of the study is the assumption that the cohesion of the high school team is influenced by the quantitative ratio of male and female sexes. At the same time, the dominant number of boys determines that the group of teenagers has more high percent cohesion.

Drawing up a research plan

The plan represents a certain order of sections/chapters, subsections/paragraphs that will be presented in the work. A well-written plan leads to better organization. independent activity researcher, helps to systematize the material and ensure the consistency of its presentation.

As a rule, the points of the plan correspond to the objectives of the study.

Example

The formulation of goals and objectives is usually followed by the formulation of a research hypothesis. A hypothesis is a scientific assumption resulting from a theory that has not yet been confirmed or refuted. The fact that a hypothesis is a scientific assumption means that it is subject to all the characteristics that distinguish scientific knowledge from everyday and pseudoscientific (see paragraph "Psychological research"). Actually, the criteria for the quality of a hypothesis are based on these characteristics: falsification, verification and level of generality.

Falsification means the ability to disprove a hypothesis. If a hypothesis cannot be refuted (falsified) or the statement opposite to the hypothesis is meaningless, then it is not a hypothesis, but an axiom - a basis for reasoning that is not questioned. Moreover, an irrefutable statement is not a hypothesis by definition - being irrefutable, it does not need to be tested. Therefore, any hypothesis actually contains two statements: the direct one, which is tested in the study (hypothesis), and the opposite (counterhypothesis), which is confirmed if the main hypothesis is refuted by the research results. A counterhypothesis is an ego statement that denies the relationship that is stated in the main hypothesis.

Let's consider this example.

Hypothesis: the formed preference distorts the subjective assessment of the qualities of an object compared to the assessment in the absence of preferences.

Counterhypothesis: the formed preference does not in any way affect the subjective assessment of the qualities of the object.

To satisfy the falsifiability criterion, a hypothesis must contain a testable statement and a meaningful counter-hypothesis. Accordingly, the assessment of the quality of the hypothesis according to the falsifiability criterion is carried out through the assessment of the quality of the counter-hypothesis. In the example just given, the counterhypothesis is a meaningful statement that is likely to be confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis from this example can be tested in a study.

IN following example this is wrong.

Hypothesis: Certain types of parent-child relationships contribute to the formation certain types worldview and worldview of the child.

Counterhypothesis: there are types of parent-child relationships that do not contribute to the formation of certain types of worldview and worldview of the child.

The statement contained in the counter-hypothesis of the second example is unlikely. There are no types of relationships between parents and children that would not influence his perception and understanding of the world around him. Even if the parents do not communicate with the child at all, this is also a form of relationship that leads to a very specific worldview and worldview of the child. Therefore, the second example is an example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis that cannot be refuted. Whatever types of parent-child relationships its author studies, this hypothesis will always be confirmed. It makes no sense to conduct a study for this reason.

Another criterion for the quality of a hypothesis is the possibility of its verification. To verify a hypothesis means to test it in scientific research. This possibility does not always exist. There are at least two reasons for this: the insufficient level of development of scientific research methods, which does not allow testing the hypothesis, and ethical prohibitions. An unverifiable hypothesis is a hypothesis that cannot be tested in a study, since for objective reasons such a study cannot be constructed.

For example, the dissertation candidate indicates that in her dissertation research she tested the following hypothesis: the characteristics of rocking a baby in a stroller contribute to or hinder the formation of aggressiveness in adulthood. How can such a claim be tested in research? It is unlikely that very aggressive and completely non-aggressive people are able to remember exactly how they were rocked to sleep, or their mothers remember how they did it. On the other hand, ethics will not allow the construction of a study in which someone other than the mother will rock the baby so that he grows into an aggressive adult. psychological research.

And finally, the criterion for the quality of a hypothesis is the level of generality. The hypothesis must be formulated at a level of generality that allows it to be tested. If a hypothesis is formulated too abstractly, then it is not possible to test it.

Take, for example, the following hypothesis: specialized psychological help teachers actualize independent changes in the semantic structures of the individual, which creates a positive tendency towards the development of professionalism. This hypothesis seems too general. For example, it is completely unclear what kind of psychological impact should be exerted on the subjects: specialized or, in principle, any? It is also unclear what specific changes this impact should lead to. What should be the criteria and signs of the supposed positive trend towards the development of professionalism? How can this trend be captured in psychological research? In the form presented above, the hypothesis does not provide answers to the above questions.

Note that if a hypothesis does not satisfy at least one of the criteria for its quality, then it needs to be reformulated. A qualitative hypothesis of scientific research meets all three requirements: it is falsifiable (i.e., it allows the possibility of its refutation), verifiable (i.e., there are methods for its scientific verification) and formulated at an adequate level of generalization.

A research hypothesis can be theoretical or empirical.

Theoretical hypothesis is a hypothesis about the relationship between theoretical constructs. An example of such a hypothesis would be the following statement: “Emotionally significant information is learned significantly better than neutral information.”

Empirical hypothesis is a hypothesis about the relationship between theoretical constructs, translated into the language of empirical research. This “translation” is called operationalization. For example, our hypothesis could be operationalized as follows: “Subjects correctly identify more photographs of smiling faces than faces with neutral expressions.”

It is easy to notice that both hypotheses, empirical and theoretical, given above, contain an assumption about the same thing, but they are formulated in different languages. The theoretical hypothesis is formulated in the language of psychological theory, but it can be tested different ways. To test it, you can take emotionally charged images or texts, or video fragments, or pleasant and unpleasant smells.

The empirical hypothesis clarifies how exactly the theoretical hypothesis is tested in the study: that photographs will be used, and not videos or smells; the photographs will show people's faces,

not animals, landscapes or comic book characters; subjects will be asked not to describe these faces, not to create an identikit, but to recognize them among other photographs of faces. Therefore, when describing a scientific study, the author, as a rule, formulates the hypothesis twice. During the theoretical analysis of the problem under study, he formulates a theoretical hypothesis; When starting to plan an empirical study, he formulates an empirical hypothesis.

Let us note once again that the procedures for such specification of theoretical constructs, thanks to which one can understand exactly how the researcher tests his hypothesis while working with subjects, are called operationalization. Operationalization is the definition of theoretical constructs in terms of those actions (operations) that the subject performs during the empirical research itself.

There are two types of operationalization (or formulation of an operational definition): qualitative and quantitative.

Qualitative operationalization answers the question whether the subject possesses any property or characteristic being studied. For example, you might ask: "Aggressive this person or not?" In order to answer this question, you need to make a person react to a provoking stimulus - for example, step on his foot, say harsh word, spit in his face or ask how he punishes his child for pranks. If a person responds with rudeness to influence or says that the child should be spanked, then he is aggressive. If he shrugs his shoulders or steps aside and says that he will try to explain to the child the consequences of his pranks, the researcher will conclude that such a person is not aggressive.

Quantitative operationalization answers the question of how pronounced this quality is in the subject. So, you can ask: “How aggressive is this person?” To answer this question, you can count the number of swear words that a person will say in response to a rude remark addressed to him, ask him how many times he spanked a child for last week etc. A comparison of qualitative and quantitative operationalization is given in Table. 2.2.

Table 2.2

Comparison of examples of qualitative and quantitative operationalization

End of table. 2.2

The strength or weakness of any study largely depends on how successfully or unsuccessfully the researcher operationalized his theoretical constructs, i.e. moved from a theoretical hypothesis to an empirical one. The choice of exactly how theoretical constructs will be operationalized in the study always remains with the researcher.

Theoretical and empirical hypotheses are statements that are directly tested in the study. Depending on what exactly is assumed and by what method this assumption will be tested (see the next section), there are several types of hypotheses: about existence, about connection and about cause-and-effect relationship.

Hypotheses about existence establish (prove or disprove) the fact of the existence of some phenomenon or psychological phenomenon. They do not report anything more about this phenomenon or phenomenon. But often in scientific research the discovery is the very proof of the existence of certain facts. In psychology, many studies begin with hypotheses about existence. Thus, before studying the characteristics of subthreshold perception, learned helplessness, or cognitive dissonance, researchers needed to prove that learned helplessness and cognitive dissonance exist and that subthreshold stimuli can be perceived. For example, when studying the Müller-Lyer illusion, the following fact was established: the vast majority of people perceive segments of the same length as different, even if they know about such an illusion (see Fig. 2.1). This is also an example of an existence hypothesis, when tested, the existence of such a visual illusion was substantiated.

Hypotheses about cause and effect are hypotheses that test whether an event actually influenced the occurrence or course of another event. In order to check,

Whether the hypothesis is cause-and-effect or not, it is necessary to establish the nature of the relationship: is it unidirectional or bidirectional. The cause-and-effect relationship is unidirectional, i.e. a change in the cause leads to a change in the effect, but a change in the effect cannot in any way affect the change in the cause.

For example, in the hypothesis that more acts of aggression are committed in poorly lit rooms than in well-lit rooms, the presumed cause of increased aggression is the lighting of the room. And if a change in illumination can indeed lead to an increase in aggressive feelings, then an increase in aggressiveness cannot lead to a deterioration in lighting. Thus, the relationship between aggressiveness and illumination is unidirectional: poor lighting can cause an increase in aggressiveness, and an increase in aggressiveness has no effect on lighting.

An example of a bidirectional relationship is the hypothesis “children who play Cossacks-Robbers more often are more aggressive.” Here the connection is bidirectional, because just as a child’s personal aggressiveness can lead to him playing Cossack-robbers more often, so this game itself can lead to increased aggressiveness of the child. Such hypotheses are called connection hypotheses. When checking them, the researcher can answer the question whether there is a connection between two facts (for example, playing Cossacks-robbers and aggressiveness) or whether there is no such connection. At the same time, the researcher cannot claim that one of the facts is the cause of the other.

Hypotheses about relationships enable researchers to predict developments. For example, there is a high correlation between the number of accidents on the road and the water level in reservoirs. Knowing about this connection, the level of water can predict the accident rate of the season and, for example, increase the vigilance of emergency services. However, it is obvious that the water level is not the cause of accidents - the cause, most likely, is weather conditions, which lead to an increase in the water level in reservoirs and to accidents. Thus, knowledge of the connection between events makes it possible to predict the development of events, but not to explain the reasons for their occurrence.

Only hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationships make it possible to both predict and explain the causes of phenomena. When formulating them, to facilitate the interpretation of the research results, auxiliary hypotheses are formulated: competing and alternative.

A competing hypothesis is a statement that provides an explanation for the research problem that is no less probable than the statement stated in the main hypothesis and is inconsistent with it. A competing hypothesis is supported when the results of a study directly contradict the statement made in the primary hypothesis.

An alternative hypothesis is a statement (or statements) that provides an explanation for the research problem that is no less probable than the statement formulated in the main hypothesis, but does not refute it.

An example of the relationship between a hypothesis, counter-hypothesis, competing and alternative hypotheses is presented in Table. 2.3.

Table 2.3

Relationship between counter-hypothesis, competing and alternative hypotheses

What differentiates a well-designed study from a poorly designed study is the extent to which the researcher can imagine all the possible results that will result from collecting and processing the data. In any case, he must think in advance what will happen if his influence during the research does not lead to the result that is assumed in the main hypothesis, but to the exact opposite. The idea of ​​such an outcome is embedded in the competing hypothesis. Also, the researcher must think through various possible influences that could lead to the same result as assumed in his hypothesis, in order to control them. Such possible influences form alternative hypotheses. The more detailed the researcher thinks through and formulates competing and alternative hypotheses, the easier it will be for him to interpret the data obtained during the testing process. his main hypothesis.

• The term of one of the greatest philosophers of science K. Popper.

PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS OF THE RESEARCH

Purpose of the study – this is the scientific result that should be obtained as a result of the entire study.

It should be noted that some scientists recommend placing the research goal after the research problem, i.e., before the object and subject, and some – after the object and subject. Here the choice is up to the supervisor.

Some students make such a gross methodological mistake - instead of the goal of the entire study, they formulate the goal of only a pedagogical experiment, thereby the goal, which is inherently broader than the task, becomes narrower than the formulated tasks, and sometimes even one task. The goal must cover all tasks in its scope.

It is usually recommended to begin the formulation of the goal with a perfective verb in an indefinite form: to identify, justify, develop, determine, etc. For example, if the topic of the study is “Control of the level of student achievement in the system of developmental education,” then the goal can be formulated as follows: “Identify and theoretically substantiate the features of monitoring the level of student achievement as a component of developmental education.”

After determining the object, subject and purpose of the study, its hypothesis is put forward. Hypothesis is an assumption put forward to explain a phenomenon that is neither confirmed nor refuted. A hypothesis is a proposed solution to a problem. It determines the main direction of scientific research and is the main methodological tool that organizes the entire research process.

The following two main requirements are imposed on a scientific hypothesis:

The hypothesis should not contain concepts that are not specified;

It must be verifiable using available techniques.

When formulating a hypothesis, the researcher must make an assumption about how and under what conditions the research problem and the stated goal will be successfully implemented.

What does it mean to test a hypothesis? This means checking the consequences that logically follow from it. As a result of testing, the hypothesis is confirmed or refuted.

A hypothesis is necessarily put forward in studies that involve a pedagogical experiment aimed at confirming the hypothesis. In studies on the history of pedagogy, a hypothesis, as a rule, is not provided.

Let us give an example of formulating a hypothesis on the above topic: “Control as a component of the developmental system will ensure the development of schoolchildren if:

Stimulates and promotes unity in achieving educational, educational and developmental learning goals;

Unity takes into account the process and result of the activity;

Determines the dynamics of student advancement;

Promotes self-development of students.

The formulated goal and hypothesis of the study determine the objectives of the study, i.e., the objectives follow not only from the goal, but also from the hypothesis. Research objectives – these are those research actions that need to be performed to achieve the goal set in the work, solve a problem, or test the formulated research hypothesis. As a rule, there are three groups of tasks that are associated with:

1) identifying the essential features and criteria of the phenomenon or process being studied;

2) justification of ways to solve the problem;

3) formulating the leading conditions for ensuring an effective solution to the problem.

The sequence of solving research problems determines its structure, i.e., each problem must find its solution in one of the paragraphs of the work. In the process of developing a system of tasks, it is necessary to determine which of them require primarily studying the literature, which require modernization, generalization or combination of existing approaches, and, finally, which of them are problematic and need to be solved specifically in this study.

For example, the following research objectives can be formulated:

1) based on the analysis of psychological and pedagogical literature, highlight the conceptual and categorical apparatus of research and systematize the definitions of these concepts given by scientists;

2) identify the main approaches and points of view of scientists to solving the problem posed (or the state of development of the problem posed in the literature being studied);

3) study the state of solving the problem posed in teaching practice (study the experience of teachers in solving the problem).

If the research involves conducting an experiment, then the following must be added to the listed tasks:

1) develop an organizational and pedagogical system (or didactic model, or methodology) for the formation...;

2) experimentally test its effectiveness.

Objectives must be interrelated and must reflect the overall path to achieving the goal. Uniform requirements and there are no algorithms for formulating research problems. We can only outline general guidelines for their definition.

One of the tasks may be related to the characteristics of the subject of research, to identifying the essence of the problem, and the theoretical justification of ways to solve it. Here are some examples of possible formulation of the first task:

Conduct analysis theoretical approaches on the problem...;

Analyze psychological literature on the problem...;

Reveal and specify the essence of the concept “….”.

The second task is aimed at revealing common methods solving a problem, to analyze the conditions for its solution. For example:

Carry out diagnostics...;

Explore the features...

Identify the relationship...;

Develop a program aimed at...

In research, a distinction must be made between purpose and outcome. As noted, the goal is what is expected to be obtained during the research. And the result is what we actually got. The question of how we got this is answered by the methodology. The research methodology explains on which subjects, using what methods, under what conditions this result was achieved.

Lyudmila Kazarina
Purpose of the hypothesis in the study

Kinds hypotheses:

1) According to hierarchical importance: General Auxiliary

2) By breadth of use: Universal Private

3) According to the degree of validity: Primary Secondary.

Requirements to hypotheses:

1. Purposefulness – providing an explanation of all the facts characterizing the problem being solved.

2. Relevance - reliance on facts, ensuring the admissibility of recognition hypotheses, both in science and in practice.

3. Predictiveness – providing prediction of results research.

4. Verifiability – allows the fundamental possibility of verification hypotheses, empirically, based on observation or experiment. This should provide or deny hypothesis or confirmation.

5. Consistency – achieved by the logical consistency of all structural components hypotheses.

6. Compatibility – ensuring connection between retractable assumptions with existing scientific, theoretical and practical knowledge.

7. Potentiality – includes possibilities of use hypotheses by the quantity and quality of the conclusions and consequences made.

8. Simplicity – based on consistency and large number contained in hypothesis initial premises for obtaining conclusions and consequences, as well as on a sufficiently large number of facts explained by it.

Formation and development hypotheses includes:

1) Preparatory stage

2) Formative stage

3) Experimental stage

After development hypotheses concept is being formed research is a system of fundamental views, ideas and principles research, i.e. his general plan (idea).

GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

Target research- this is the scientific result that should be obtained as a result of everything research.

It should be noted that the goal research some scientists recommend placing after the problem research, i.e. in front of the object and subject, and some – after the object and subject. Here the choice is up to the supervisor.

It is usually recommended to begin the formulation of the goal with a perfective verb in indefinite form: identify, justify, develop, determine etc. etc. For example, if the topic research –“Control of the level of student achievements in the developmental education system”, then the goal can be formulated as follows way: “Identify and theoretically substantiate the features of monitoring the level of student achievement as a component of developmental education.”

After object definitions, the subject and purpose of the research, its hypothesis is put forward. A hypothesis is an assumption, put forward to explain a phenomenon that has not been confirmed or refuted. A hypothesis is a proposed solution to a problem.. She defines the main direction of scientific research and is the main methodological tool organizing the entire process research.

Towards scientific the hypothesis is presented the next two main requirements:

- hypothesis should not contain concepts that are not specified;

It must be verifiable using available techniques.

Formulating hypothesis, the researcher must make an assumption about, how, under what conditions the problem research and the set goal will be successfully achieved.

What does it mean to check hypothesis? This means checking the consequences that logically follow from it. As a result of the check hypothesis confirm or deny.

Hypothesis must be put forward in research, suggesting pedagogical experiment aimed at confirming hypotheses. IN research in the history of pedagogy hypothesis, as a rule, not provided.

Let's give an example of the formulation hypotheses on the topic: “Control as a component of the developmental system will ensure the development of schoolchildren, If:

Stimulates and promotes unity in achieving educational, educational and developmental learning goals;

Unity takes into account the process and result of the activity;

- defines dynamics of student advancement;

Promotes self-development of students.

Formulated goal and research hypothesis determines the research objectives, i.e. tasks follow not only from the goal, but also hypotheses. Tasks research is those investigative activities, which must be completed to achieve the goal set in the work, solve a problem or to verify the formulated research hypotheses. As a rule, there are three groups of tasks that are related With:

1) identifying the essential features and criteria of the phenomenon or process being studied;

2) justification of ways to solve the problem;

3) formulating the leading conditions for ensuring an effective solution to the problem.

Sequence of problem solving research determines its structure, i.e., each problem must find its solution in one of the paragraphs of the work. In the process of developing a task system, it is necessary define, which of them require primarily studying the literature, which require modernization, generalization or combination of existing approaches and, finally, which of them are problematic and need to be solved specifically in this research.

For example, as tasks research can be formulated following:

1) based on the analysis of psychological and pedagogical literature, highlight the conceptual and categorical apparatus research and systematize the data given by scientists definitions of these concepts;

2) identify the main approaches and points of view of scientists to solving the problem posed (or the state of development of the problem posed in the literature being studied);

3) study the state of solving the problem posed in teaching practice (to study the experience of teachers in solving the problem).

Is. assumes conducting an experiment, then to the listed tasks add:

1) develop an organizational and pedagogical system (or didactic model, or methodology) formation. ;

2) experimentally test its effectiveness.

Objectives must be interrelated and must reflect the overall path to achieving the goal. Unified requirements and algorithms for formulating tasks research does not exist. It is possible to outline only general guidelines for their definitions.

One of the tasks may be related to the characteristic subject of research, with identification of the essence of the problem, theoretical justification of ways to solve it. Let us give several examples of possible formulation of the first tasks:

Conduct an analysis of theoretical approaches to the problem...;

Analyze the psychological literature on the problem...;

Reveal and specify the essence of the concept “….”.

The second task is aimed at revealing general ways to solve the problem and analyzing the conditions for its solution. For example:

Carry out diagnostics...;

Explore the features...

Identify the relationship...;

Develop a program aimed at...

IN research one must distinguish between goal and result. As noted, the goal is that suggest receive when conducting research. And the result is what we actually got. The question of how we got this is answered by the methodology. Methodology research explains, on which subjects, using what methods, under what conditions this result was achieved.

Research hypothesis

The solution to a scientific problem never begins directly with an experiment. This procedure precedes very important stage related to promotion hypotheses. `` Scientific a hypothesis is a statement containing assumption regarding the decision facing problem researcher. Essentially hypothesis- This main idea solutions. possible errors in the wording hypotheses the following should be adhered to approaches:

1. Hypothesis must be formulated in clear, literate language appropriate subject of research. The need for strict compliance with this requirement is due to the fact that sports science is complex discipline. Therefore, there are frequent attempts to researching certain objects to put forward hypotheses in the language of science, having as the subject of research is completely different. For example, teachers, studying the performance of athletes and ways to increase it, often try to find the answer to the question posed in the biomechanical mechanisms of this phenomenon. However hypothesis that that the performance of an athlete, say a cyclist, depends on certain combination of aerobic and anaerobic energy supply mechanisms looks at least incorrect, since the pedagogical phenomenon is discussed in the language of biology. Moreover, biochemists themselves do not yet know a reliable answer to this question.

2. Hypothesis must either be justified previous knowledge, follow from them or, in the case of complete independence, at least not contradict them. scientific idea, if true, does not appear out of nowhere. No wonder one of the aphorisms attributed to I. Newton sounds So: ``He saw far only because he stood on his mighty shoulders predecessors"". This emphasizes the continuity of generations in scientific activity. This requirement is easily fulfilled if, after a clear statement of the problem researcher will seriously study the literature on the issue that interests him. In general, it should be noted that reading for future use is not very effective. Only when the problem has taken over everyone's thoughts researcher, one can expect benefits from working with literature, and hypothesis will not be divorced from already accumulated knowledge. Most often this happens when patterns found in one sport or group of sports are transferred to everything else. This is done hypothetical assumption based on the principle of analogy.

3. Hypothesis can perform functions of protecting others hypotheses in the face of new experienced and old knowledge. For example, in theory and methodology physical education It is believed that the physical training of athletes includes several sections, determined tasks of improving basic physical qualities such as speed, strength, endurance, flexibility and agility. In this regard, it was put forward hypothesis that that the level of sports results in sports with the manifestation of certain physical qualities depend on the level of their development in a particular athlete. Thus, the results in cyclic forms (long distances) determine the level of endurance of the athlete, the strength indicator in the barbell, etc.

4. Hypothesis must be formulated so that the truth put forward in it assumptions were not obvious. For example, from studies conducted by individual authors research and practical experience it is known that junior school age (seven years) favorable for the development of coordination abilities. That., assumption that, that “pedagogical influences aimed at developing these abilities give the greatest effect if they are purposefully applied precisely at this age,” can serve as a general hypothesis when conducting research related to the development of methods for developing coordination abilities. At work hypothesis, it is advisable to determine those provisions, which may raise doubts, need proof and protection. Therefore the working hypothesis V special case may look like this way: ``Supposed that the use of a standard training program based on the principles of health training will qualitatively increase the level of coordination abilities of seven-year-old children" - it is in this case that the effectiveness of the developed methodology researcher.

In the end, hypothesis precedes both solving the problem as a whole and each task separately. The hypothesis is refined during the research process, supplemented or changed.

Hypotheses differ from ordinary guesses and topic assumptions that they are adopted based on an analysis of available reliable information and compliance certain scientific criteria.

IN general view the hypothesis can be considered: as part of a scientific theory;

as scientific assumption, requiring subsequent experimental verification.