標題: 合作學習、解釋行為及發問架構提示對歸納推理表現之影響The Effects of Collaborative Learning, Giving Explanation, and Guiding Questions on Inductive Reasoning 作者: 吳明樺Wu, Ming-Hua洪瑞雲Horng Ruey-Yun工業工程與管理學系 關鍵字: 歸納推理;假設檢定策略;合作學習;建構活動;解釋行為;發問提示;inductive reasoning;hypothesis testing;collaborative learning;constructive activity;explanation;guiding questions 公開日期: 1996 摘要: 歸納推理是人類藉以產生新的知識的一種方法，且是我們日常生活中 時常進行的一項思考活動。然而過去許多的研究都發現，人在進行歸納時 往往只能形成一個假設，且在假設的檢定上表現出極強烈的證真偏好，以 致於無法推論出正確的結果。本研究的目的即在探討學習情境（合作或個 別學習）、解釋行為（要求給與解釋或沒有要求解釋），及發問架構提示 （有引導提示或無引導提示）對歸納推理表現的影響，看是否可藉由不同 的學習情境及認知活動的要求，來改善人在歸納推理上的表現。 161個交通大學大學部學生被隨機指派到2（學習情境）×2（解釋）×2（ 提示）個實驗情境之一，學習類似Wason's 2 4 6的歸納推理作業。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不僅在客觀的推理表現或是主觀的 滿意度或信心評估上都有較好的成績，且事後當單獨進行歸納推理時，正 確率也較高。要求受試者給與解釋的效果在學習階段時不明顯，但到了測 試階段時則很明顯的會使受試者產生較多的替代假設，較為周延的案例測 試，及使用較多證偽策略，同時可以減少一般人對自己表現常有的過度信 心的傾向。 Studies have shown that people not only fail to form more than one initial hypothesis in inductive reasoning, but also exhibit a strong confirmation bias in hypotheses testing. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of collaborative learning, giving explanation, and guiding questions on learning inductive reasoning. One hundred and sixty-one undergraduate students of National Chiao Tung University were randomly assigned to one of the 2 (collaborative vs. individual learning) x 2 (explanation vs. no explanation) x 2 (guiding vs. no guiding questions) experimental situations to work on 6 inductive reasoning tasks similar to Wason's 2-4-6 task. At the practice and the learning phase, subjects in collaborative condition worked in pairs. At the testing phase, all subjects were tested individually. Results showed that collaborative experience indeed led to higher accuracy, greater satisfaction, and higher confidence in inductive reasoning, both at the learning and the testing phase. Subjects who were asked to provide explanations to their reasoning behaviors were, on the other hand, found to generate more alternative hypotheses, use more instances to test their hypotheses, also use higher proportion of falsifying instances and, of course, higher accuracy at the testing phase. Furthermore, giving explanation also effectively lowered the strong overconfidence tendency exhibited by subjects in no explanation conditions. URI: http://140.113.39.130/cdrfb3/record/nctu/#NT850031029http://hdl.handle.net/11536/61471 Appears in Collections: Thesis