Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/65297Full metadata record
| ???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield??? | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 連韻文 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Pei-Hsuan Lee | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 李佩璇 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T23:35:09Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2014-08-01 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2012-08-01 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2012-07-26 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
Beishuizen, J., Wilhelm, P., & Schimmel, M. (2004). Computer-supported inquiry learning: Effects of training and practice. Computers & Education, 42, 389-402. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J. & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098-1120. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218. Croker, S., & Buchanan, H. (2010). Scientific reasoning in a real-world context: The effect of prior belief and outcome on children's hypothesis-testing strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 409-424. De Jong, T. (2006). Computer simulations - Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533. Dunbar, K. & Fugelsang, J. (2005). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. Holyoak and R.Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 705-725). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery strategies. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 109–143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hulshof, C. D., & de Jong, T. (2006). Using just-in-time information to support scientific discovery learning in a computer-based simulation. Interactive Learning Environments, 14, 79-94. Kelley, H. H. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. New York: General Learning Press. Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 898-921. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual-space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48. Kuhn, D. (2007). Reasoning about multiple variables: Control of variables is not the only challenge. Science Education, 91, 710-726. Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables? Psychological Science, 16, 866-870. Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2008). What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills? Cognition and Instruction, 26, 512-559. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495-523. Kuhn, D., GarciaMila, M., Zohar, A., & Andersen, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60, 1-128. Kuhn, D., Katz, J. B., & Dean, D. (2004). Developing reason. Thinking & Reasoning, 10, 197-219. Kuhn, D., Lordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23, 435-451. Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 285-327. Lazonder, A. W., Hagemans, M. G., & de Jong, T. (2010). Offering and discovering domain information in simulation-based inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 511-520. Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Hagemans, M. G. (2008). The influence of domain knowledge on strategy use during simulation-based inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 18, 580-592. Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Van Lieburg, E. (2009). Unraveling the influence of domain knowledge during simulation-based inquiry learning. Instructional Science, 37, 437-451. Lien, Y. W., & Lin, W. L. (2011). From falsification to generating an alternative hypothesis: Exploring the role of the new-perspective hypothesis in successful 2-4-6 task performance. Thinking & Reasoning, 17, 105-136. Newell, A. & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Novick, L. R., & Cheng, P. W. (2004). Assessing interactive causal influence. Psychological Review, 111, 455-485. Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children - the role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31-57. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102-119. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859-882. Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices' reasoning during computer-based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1695-1721. Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 51, 1-10. Van Joolingen, W. R., & De Jong, T. (1997). An extended dual search space model of scientific discovery learning. Instructional Science, 25, 307-346. Van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulou, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 111-119. Waldmann, M. R. (2007). Combining versus analyzing multiple causes: How domain assumptions and task context affect integration rules. Cognitive Science, 31, 233-256. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140. Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2003). Content effects in self-directed inductive learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 381-402. Wilhelm, P., Beishulzen, J. J., & Van Rijn, H. (2005). Studying inquiry learning with FILE. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 933-943. Zimmerman, C. (2005). The development of scientific reasoning skills: What psychologists contribute to an understanding of elementary science learning. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172-223. Zimmerman, C., & Glaser, R. (2001). Testing positive versus negative claims: A preliminary investigation of the role of cover story in the assessment of experimental design skills (Tech. Rep. No. 554). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Zohar, A. (1995). Reasoning about interactions between variables. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 1039-1064. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/65297 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 交互作用效果普遍存在日常生活當中，思考變項間關係亦是科學推理的重要能力。過去研究顯示，即使是成人透過自我導向探究方式發現交互作用比例甚低，且被認為是因為缺乏形成和檢驗交互作用假設等能力所致，但尚未對相關能力進行系統性的評估。本論文除了探討這些能力以外，更假設參與者可能受到過去常用的作業目標引導，因而傾向分別找出變項的因果屬性，而忽略變項之間的互動，以致於無法發現交互作用效果。故以大學生為研究對象，藉由操弄作業目標，一是取自過去研究使用的指導語，要求尋找變項的因果屬性（稱為因果屬性組），一是要求尋找能夠預測結果的規則（稱為因果規則組），在控制相關能力的情況下，以組間設計檢視作業目標對於發現交互作用的影響。實驗一之作業材料與過去研究相同，結果發現因果規則組發現交互作用的人數多於因果屬性組；實驗二簡化作業中因果結構，排除其中非線性效果後，更顯示因果規則組在探究歷程中檢驗交互作用假設的傾向大於因果屬性組，提供作業目標效果的作用機制；實驗三將實驗空間縮小至參與者可能在時間內搜尋完畢，仍得到相似結果。研究結果顯示作業目標會影響檢驗交互作用假設的傾向，進而影響交互作用效果的發現。本論文對成人發現交互作用的能力提出不同與過去研究的看法和評估結果，並討論增進發現交互作用表現的方式。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T23:35:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R98227116-1.pdf: 484957 bytes, checksum: 7143bb378e6135ae6ddfd5abf44b4e39 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目次
緒論................................................................1 文獻回顧..... ..... .............................................2 研究假設與預測.................................................14 實驗一.............................................................17 方法...........................................................17 結果...........................................................23討論...........................................................28 實驗二.............................................................31 方法...........................................................31 結果...........................................................33 討論...........................................................37 實驗三.............................................................39 方法...........................................................39 結果...........................................................41討論...........................................................45 綜合討論...........................................................47 參考文獻...........................................................52 表目次 表一：實驗一車的問題的因果結構 （數字為車速等級）.................19 表二：實驗一自我導向實驗各特徵的正確因果屬性與效果描述............19 表三：實驗一證據評估作業各特徵的正確因果屬性與效果描述............21 表四：實驗一因果規則組與因果屬性組在實驗空間搜尋行為表現..........26 表五：實驗一因果規則組與因果屬性組在六種測試目的分布的比率（%）..27 表六：實驗二賽車問題的因果結構（數字為車速等級）..................32 表七：實驗二因果規則組與因果屬性組在實驗空間搜尋行為表現..........35 表八：實驗二因果規則組與因果屬性組在六種測試目的分布的比率（%）..36 表九：實驗三因果規則組與因果屬性組在實驗空間搜尋行為表現..........43 表十：實驗三因果規則組與因果屬性組在六種測試目的分布的比率（%）..44 圖目次 圖一：實驗一自我導向實驗的作業形式................................20 圖二：實驗一證據評估作業的題目內容................................21 圖三：實驗一參與者在自我導向實驗對各特徵因果判斷的正確率..........26 圖四：實驗二參與者在自我導向實驗對各特徵因果判斷的正確率..........34 圖五：實驗三參與者在自我導向實驗對各特徵因果判斷的正確率..........42 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 交互作用 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 探究學習 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 科學推理。 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | interaction effect | en |
| dc.subject | inquiry learning | en |
| dc.subject | scientific reasoning | en |
| dc.title | 作業目標對發現變項間交互作用的影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Influence of Task Goal on Discovering Interactions between Variables | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 100-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 洪瑞雲,吳昭容,顏妙璇 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 交互作用,探究學習,科學推理。, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | interaction effect,inquiry learning,scientific reasoning, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 56 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2012-07-27 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 心理學研究所 | zh_TW |
| Appears in Collections: | 心理學系 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-101-1.pdf Restricted Access | 473.59 kB | Adobe PDF |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.