請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/3987
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 連韻文(Yunn-Wen Lien) | |
dc.contributor.author | Ching-Chia Lin | en |
dc.contributor.author | 林京佳 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-13T08:39:47Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-03-08 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-13T08:39:47Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2016-03-08 | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2016-02-04 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 謝銳(民103年5月16日)。圍棋人機大戰10年沒戲 最多50年電腦圍棋可勝。民104年5月20日,取自:http://sports.qq.com/a/20140516/009496.htm
蕭愛霖(2014)。圍棋活動對幼兒空間能力及專注力的影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。 chiuinan(民103年9月30日)。[分享]電腦圍棋程式發展史&最強的圍棋程式。民104年4月22日,取自:http://www.gamebase.com.tw/forum/30032/topic/97476611/1 Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist,48(1), 35. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and instruction, 13(2), 221-252. Bossomaier, T., Delaney, A., Crane, J., Gobet, F., & Harre, M. (2013). The neurological scaling of human expertise. In Cognitive 2013: The Fifth International Conference on Advanced Cognitive Technologies and Applications(pp. 53-58). International Academy, Research, and Industry Association (IARIA). Campitelli, G., & Gobet, F. (2008). The role of practice in chess: A longitudinal study. Learning and individual differences, 18(4), 446-458. Chabris, C. F., & Hearst, E. S. (2003). Visualization, pattern recognition, and forward search: Effects of playing speed and sight of the position on grandmaster chess errors. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 637-648. Chi, M. T. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Advances in instructional psychology, 5, 161-238. Chi, M. T., 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. Chi, M. T., Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self‐explanations improves understanding. Cognitive science, 18(3), 439-477. Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of educational psychology, 79(4), 347. Crowley, K., & Siegler, R. S. (1999). Explanation and generalization in young children's strategy learning. Child development, 70(2), 304-316. de Bruin, A. B., Rikers, R. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2007). The effect of self-explanation and prediction on the development of principled understanding of chess in novices. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(2), 188-205. DeLeeuw, N., & Chi, M. T. H. (2003). Self-explanation: Enriching a situation model or repairing a domain model. International conceptual change, 55-78. De Groot, A. D., & de Groot, A. D. (1978). Thought and choice in chess (Vol. 4). Walter de Gruyter. Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996). The roles of recognition processes and look-ahead search in time-constrained expert problem solving: Evidence from grand-master-level chess. Psychological science, 52-55. Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1998). Pattern recognition makes search possible: Comments on Holding (1992). Psychological Research, 61(3), 204-208. Klein, G. A. (1993). A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making (pp. 138-147). Ablex Publishing Corporation. Kuhn, D., & Katz, J. (2009). Are self-explanations always beneficial?. Journal of experimental child psychology, 103(3), 386-394. Lewis, M., & Anderson, J. (1985). Discrimination of operator schemata in problem solving: Learning from examples. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 26-65. Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(10), 464-470. Needham, D. R., & Begg, I. M. (1991). Problem-oriented training promotes spontaneous analogical transfer: Memory-oriented training promotes memory for training. Memory & cognition, 19(6), 543-557. Neuman, Y., & Schwarz, B. (1998). Is self‐explanation while solving problems helpful? The case of analogical problem‐solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(1), 15-24. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving (Vol. 104, No. 9). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and instruction, 12(3), 235-275. Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive psychology, 3(3), 382-407. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked‐out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive science, 21(1), 1-29. Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learning and instruction, 12(5), 529-556. Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations.Contemporary educational psychology, 23(1), 90-108. Stark, R. (1998). Lernen mit Lösungsbeispielen. Der Einfluß unvollständiger Lö sungsschritte auf Beispielelaboration, Motivation und Lernererfolg [Learning by worked-out examples. The impact of incomplete solution steps on example elaboration, motivation, and learning outcomes]. Unpublished dissertation. University of Munich, Germany. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction,2(1), 59-89. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational psychology review, 22(2), 123-138. VanLehn, K., & Jones, R. (1993). What mediates the self-explanation effect? Knowledge gaps, schemas or analogies? In M. Polson (Ed.). Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1034–1039). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/3987 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 不同於分析與搜索解題路徑,快速型態辨識能力被認為是偏重直觀的,也是專家解決問題與決策時優勢所在。過去發現問題導向型策略(例如自我解釋策略)可促進問題解決的表現並有遷移效果,但是該策略是否可提升快速型態辨識能力則尚待檢視。本研究以圍棋棋譜佈局棋型的型態辨識(以下簡稱棋型辨識)為例,探討問題導向程度不同的學習策略對初學者解決棋型辨識問題的效果。由於問題導向型策略需要較多的認知資源投入,本論文從認知能力的個別差異(個體的工作記憶廣度)與學習情境認知負荷來檢視其成效。實驗一與二隨機分派59名和62名圍棋初學者(18到29歲)至三組,分別使用自我解釋(問題導向程度高)、預測(問題導向程度中等)和範例觀察(問題導向程度低)三種策略進行棋譜學習四十分鐘,學習階段前後各進行一次棋型辨識測驗。棋譜學習指擺放專家棋士對局棋步的圍棋學習法,兩個實驗分別採用兩種常用的棋譜學習情境:實驗一為電腦擺譜情境(低認知負荷),實驗二為傳統擺譜情境(高認知負荷)。結果發現在電腦擺譜情境下,自我解釋策略較觀察策略更有助於棋型辨識的遷移效果。此外,個體工作記憶廣度只對預測組學習遷移有所影響。而在傳統擺譜的情境下,各組棋型辨識的學習遷移都有顯著進步,且無差異,也不受工作記憶廣度影響。本論文首次發現自我解釋策略有助於快速型態辨認的學習,且不受個體工作記憶廣度與學習情境認知負荷的影響。同時也顯示低工作記憶廣度者棋型辨識的學習受到學習策略和情境設計的影響較高工作記憶廣度者大。本論文結果也支持認知負荷理論(Sweller, 2010)對問題導向型策略可引導認知資源分配的說法,但亦有所修正。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Experts are known to be better at fast pattern-recognition in problem solving and decision making than the novices. This intuitive ability is the results of massive practice of a skill. However, the differences in learning strategies that facilitate a beginner in establishing this ability have never been examined. This thesis is using pattern recognition of Go game in a playbook as an example to investigate this issue. In particular, whether problem-oriented strategies, such as self-explanation and prediction, are better than repeated observation during a short-term practice in facilitating learning transfer of fast pattern-recognition of Go was focused. Traditionally, when one practices of the Go game through a playbook, learners examine each piece placed by two professional players step by step. They can 1) search for a right piece on a playbook and repeat the move on the Go board (the observation strategy); 2) predict the next steps before search for the answer (the prediction strategy); or 3) give an explanation for that moves after prediction (self-explanation strategy). Prior studies have found that the last two problem-oriented strategies can improve participants’ performance on analytic problems. However, whether learners using these strategies can outperform those with repeated observation on fast pattern-recognition ability is still unclear. In addition, since problem-oriented strategies are relatively cognitive-demanding than simply observation, participants’ working memory spans were also measured to clarify whether cognitive resources mediate the efficacy of strategy.
In experiment 1, 59 young grown-ups who had never learned how to play a 19x19 Go were randomly assigned to three strategy groups in a relatively low-load computer-aided circumstance, in which a computer program automatically showed each move of the game on the screen just by a click. Participants were taught to practice a playbook of Go for forty minutes with each of the assigned strategy. Before and after playbook learning stage, they did a rapid go-pattern test. In that test, participants had to choose a best move from five options for each items in the test within 8 seconds. Half of the items are from the learned playbook (the memory items), and half from an unknown playbook (the transfer items). In Experiment 2, 62 young grown-ups went through the same procedures and tasks in a high-load traditional playbook practice circumstance, in which they had to search for each move from a printed playbook. It was found that only self-explanation group showed significant transfer effect on Go pattern recognition task and outperformed the observation group in computer-aided (low cognitive load) situation. In addition, the transfer effect of prediction strategy depends on participants’ working memory capacities. In traditional playbook circumstance (high cognitive load), all three groups showed significant transfer effects regardless of learning strategies and working memory spans. This research, for the first time, shows that using self-explanation strategy is beneficial for beginners’ learning of Go pattern-recognition, and its effect is robust regardless with learners’ mental capacities and the cognitive load of learning circumstance. In addition, the results also revealed that participants with relatively low mental capacities were more likely to be influenced by learning strategies and circumstances on learning Go pattern recognition than those with high mental capacities. The results also in line with Sweller’s cognitive load theory (2010) with a new perspective of individual differences in cognitive ability. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-13T08:39:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-105-R99227123-1.pdf: 764879 bytes, checksum: 423b9bf06a21b69e44ca444ff145132f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 緒論...................................................................................................................1
專家的型態辨識.......................................................................................1 圍棋棋型辨識的重要性...........................................................................3 棋型辨識的學習策略與問題解決...........................................................5 問題導向的學習策略...............................................................................8 認知負荷理論與學習策略.......................................................................9 研究目的與假設.....................................................................................12 實驗一.............................................................................................................15 方法.........................................................................................................15 結果.........................................................................................................19 討論.........................................................................................................23 實驗二.............................................................................................................26 方法.........................................................................................................26 結果.........................................................................................................27 討論.........................................................................................................30 綜合討論.........................................................................................................32 參考文獻.........................................................................................................37 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 學習策略與工作記憶廣度對快速型態辨識學習的影響:以圍棋棋型辨識為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Influence of Learning Strategy and Working Memory Capacity on Fast Pattern-Recognition Problems: Using Go Game as an Example | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 104-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 吳昭容(Chao-Jung Wu),楊立行(Lee-Xieng Yang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 棋型辨識,自我解釋,問題導向策略,工作記憶廣度,圍棋,認知負荷, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | pattern recognition,self-explanation,problem-oriented strategy,working memory capacity,game of Go,cognitive load, | en |
dc.relation.page | 40 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2016-02-04 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 心理學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 心理學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-105-1.pdf | 746.95 kB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。