資料載入處理中...
臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統
:::
網站導覽
國圖首頁
聯絡我們
操作說明
English
行動版
(18.222.230.126)
登入
字型:
**字體大小變更功能,需開啟瀏覽器的JAVASCRIPT,如您的瀏覽器不支援,
IE6請利用鍵盤按住ALT鍵 + V → X → (G)最大(L)較大(M)中(S)較小(A)小,來選擇適合您的文字大小,
如為IE7以上、Firefoxy或Chrome瀏覽器則可利用鍵盤 Ctrl + (+)放大 (-)縮小來改變字型大小。
來源文獻查詢
引文查詢
瀏覽查詢
作者權威檔
引用/點閱統計
我的研究室
資料庫說明
相關網站
來源文獻查詢
/
簡易查詢
/
查詢結果列表
/
詳目列表
:::
詳目顯示
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆
/1
頁
來源文獻資料
摘要
外文摘要
引文資料
題名:
合作學習、解釋及發問架構提示對歸納推理表現之影響
書刊名:
中華心理學刊
作者:
吳庭瑜
/
吳明樺
/
洪瑞雲
作者(外文):
Wu, Ting-yu
/
Wu, Ming-hwa
/
Horng, Ruey-yun
出版日期:
1998
卷期:
40:2
頁次:
頁117-136
主題關鍵詞:
歸納推理
;
合作學習
;
建構活動
;
解釋
;
發問提示
;
Inductive reasoning
;
Collaboration
;
Explanation
;
Guiding questions
原始連結:
連回原系統網址
相關次數:
被引用次數:期刊(
3
) 博士論文(
1
) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
排除自我引用:
3
共同引用:0
點閱:98
歸納推理包含假設形成和假設檢定兩個部分,過去的研究發現,在歸納推理的過 程中,人往往只會形成一個假設,且在檢定假設時表現出強烈的證真偏好,有礙正確的推論 。本研究的目的即在探討合作學習情境與個別學習、解釋與無解釋,及發問架構提示與無引 導提示,三個因素是否有助於歸納推理的表現。161 個大學生被隨機指派到上述 2 × 2 × 2 的實驗情境之一去解決 16 個類似 Wason's 2-4-6 的歸納推理作業的問題。 在練習與學 習階段中,合作學習情境的受試者是以兩人一組的方式進行解題,個別情境則是一個人單獨 進行。測試階段中所有的受試者皆個別進行測試。研究結果顯示,兩人合作的學習情境在客 觀的推理表現或是主觀的滿意度上都有較好的成績,且事後當單獨進行歸納推理時,也正確 的發現較多的法則。另一方面,要求受試者對思考行為給與解釋的效果在學習階段時不明顯 ,但到了測試階段時則明顯的會使受試者產生較多的替代假設,及案例測試,使用較多證偽 策略,發現了較多的法則,同時可以減少一般人對自己表現常見的過度信心的傾向。
以文找文
Inductive reasoning has two subcomponents: hypothesis formation and hypothesis testing. Studies have shown that people often fail to form more than one initial hypothesis and furthermore show a strong confirmation bias in hypotheses testing. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of collaboration, giving explanation, and guiding questions on inductive reasoning. One hundred and sixty-one undergraduate students were randomly assigned to one of the 2 (collaborative vs. individual learning) × 2 (explanation vs. no explanation) × 2 (guiding vs. no guiding questions) experimental conditions to work on 16 inductive reasoning problems similar to Wason's 2-4-6 task. At the practice and the learning phase, subjects in collaborative codition worked in pairs. At the testing phase, all subjects were tested individually. Results showed that collaborative experience indeed led to more correct rules discovered, both at the learning and the testing phase. Subjects who were asked to provide explanations to their reasoning were, on the other hand, found to generate more alternative hypotheses, use more instances to test their hypotheses, use higher proportion of falsifying testing instances, and discover more rules only at the testing phase. Furthermore, giving explanation also effectively lowered the overconfidence tendency exhibited by subjects in no explanation condition.
以文找文
期刊論文
1.
Mugny, G.、Doise, W.(1978)。Socio-cognitive conflict and the structure of individual and collective performances。European Journal of Social Psychology,8,181-192。
2.
Webb, N. M.(1991)。Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups。Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,22(5),366-389。
3.
Klayman, Joshua、Ha, Young-Won(1987)。Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing。Psychological Review,94(2),211-228。
4.
King, A.(1995)。Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking。Teaching of Psychology,22(1),13-17。
5.
Chi, M. T. H.、De Leeuw, N.、Chiu, M. H.、Lavancher, C.(1994)。Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding。Cognitive Science,18(3),439-477。
6.
King, Alison(1994)。Guiding Knowledge Construction in the Classroom: Effects of Teaching Children How To Question and How To Explain。American Educational Research Journal,31(2),338-368。
7.
Webb, N. M.(1989)。Peer interaction and learning in small groups。International Journal of Educational Research,13,21-39。
8.
Chi, M. T. H.、Bassok, M.、Lewis, M. W.、Reimann, P.、Glaser, R.(1989)。Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems。Cognitive Science,13(2),145-182。
9.
Webb, N. M.、Troper, J. D.、Fall, R.(1995)。Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups。Journal of Educational Psychology,87(3),406-423。
10.
Brewer, William F.、Ahn, W. K.、Mooney, R. J.(1992)。Schema acquisition from a single example。Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,18,391-412。
11.
Doherty, M. E.、Mynatt, C. R.、Tweney, R. D.、Schiavo, M. D.(1979)。Pseudodiagnosticity。Acta Psychologica,43,11-21。
12.
Fischhoff, B.、Slovic, P.、Lichtenstein, S.(1977)。Knowing with certainty: the appropriateness of extreme confidence。Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,3(4),552-564。
13.
Gorman, Michael E.、Latta, R. M.、Cunningham, G.(1984)。How disconfirmatory, confirmatory and combined strategies affect group problem solving。British Journal of Psychology,75,65-97。
14.
Klayman, J.、Ha, Y. W.(1989)。Hypothesis Testing in Rule Discovery: Strategy, Structure, and Content。Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,15,596-604。
15.
Laughlin, P. R.(1992)。Influence and performance in simultaneous collective and individual induction。Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,51,447-470。
16.
Laughlin, P. R.、Magley, V. J.、Shupe, E. I.(1997)。Positive and negative hypothesis testing by cooperative groups。Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,69,265-275。
17.
Mitchell, T. M.、Keller, R. M.、Kedar-Cabelli, S. T.(1986)。Explanation-based generalization: A unifying view。Machine Learning,1,47-80。
18.
Mooney, R. J.(1990)。Learning plan schemata from observation: Explanation-based learning for plan recognition。Cognitive Science,14,483-509。
19.
Tweney, R. D.、Doherty, M. E.、Worner, W. J.、Pliske, D. B.、Warner, W. J.、Pliske, D.(1980)。Strategies of Rule Discovery in an Inference Task。The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,32,109-123。
20.
Wason, P. C.(1960)。On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task。The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,12(3),129-140。
21.
Wason, P. C.(1968)。Reasoning about a Rule。The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,20(3),273-281。
圖書
1.
Bruner, J.(1979)。On knowing: Essays for the left hand。Cambridge:Harvard University Press。
2.
Popper, K.(1959)。The logic of scientific discovery。New York:Harper Torch:Basic Books。
3.
Berry, D. C.、Dienes, Z.(1993)。Implicit learning: Theoretical and empirical issues。Lawrence Erlbaum Associates。
4.
Evans, J. St. B. T.(1989)。Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences。Erlbaum。
5.
Slavin, R. E.(1983)。Cooperative learning。New York, NY:Longman。
6.
Legranzi, P.、Girotto, V.、Johnson-Laird, P. N.(1993)。Focusing in reasoning and decision making。Reasoning and decision making。Cambridge, MA。
7.
Newstead, S. E.、Evans, J. St. B. T.(1995)。New directions in thinking and reasoning。New directions in thinking and reasoning。Hove, UK。
8.
Wason, Peter Cathcart、Johnson-Laird, Philip Nicholas(1972)。Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content。Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content。Cambridge, MA。
圖書論文
1.
Brown, A. L.、Palincsar, A. S.(1989)。Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition。Knowing, learning, and instruction: essays in honor of Robert Glaser。Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates。
推文
當script無法執行時可按︰
推文
推薦
當script無法執行時可按︰
推薦
引用網址
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用嵌入語法
轉寄
當script無法執行時可按︰
轉寄
top
:::
相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱
1.
想得多是想得好的前提嗎?--探討發散性思考能力在創意問題解決的角色
2.
知識管理活動中隱性知識轉化為顯性知識的方法
3.
如何能發現隱藏的規則﹖--從科學資優生表現的特色,探索提升規則發現能力的方法
1.
不同創造力運作與認知抑制、工作記憶廣度間關係之探討
無相關書籍
無相關著作
1.
象限訊息對視覺辨識之影響
2.
促發論點數量線索之不同意涵對說服的影響
3.
積極義務與消極義務:臺美大學生道德判斷的文化比較研究
4.
An Exploratory Investigation on Commitment to Specific Constituencies in Taiwan
QR Code