請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/40928完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 連韻文 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yen-Ching Chen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳妍靜 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-14T17:07:13Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2008-08-05 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2008-08-05 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2008-07-26 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 林逸鑫、連韻文（2000）。「探討小組合作在假設檢驗推理作業上表現成功的因素」中國心理學會第40屆年會（嘉義民雄）的口頭報告論文。
林緯倫（2006）。「不同創造力運作與認知抑制、工作記憶廣度間關係之探討」（未發表之博士論文）。台北：國立台灣大學心理學研究所。 林緯倫、連韻文（2001）。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。「科學教育學刊」，9，299-322。 林緯倫、連韻文及任純慧（2005）。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。「中華心理學刊」，47，211-227。 吳庭瑜、吳明樺及洪瑞雲（1998）。合作學習、解釋及發問架構提示對歸納推理表現之影響。「中華心理學刊」，40，117-136。 洪瑞雲、吳庭瑜（2001）。法則發現的背後：合作與解釋對科學推理技能獲得的影響。「應用心理研究」，15，129-161。 連韻文（1998）。科學資優生哪裡資優？--以假設檢驗能力為例。「資優教育二十五週年研討會論文專輯」，135-147。 陳亦媛（2002）。「兒童歸納推理能力探究--影響兒童證據與假設協調能力的可能原因與解決之道」（未發表之碩士論文）。台北：國立台灣大學心理學研究所。 劉蓓蓓（2007）。「如何提升兒童的科學推理表現--探討練習時認知負荷量與工作記憶廣度的影響」（未發表之碩士論文）。台北：國立台灣大學心理學研究所。 Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 159-182. Brodbeck, F. C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2000). Effects of individual versus mixed individual and group experience in rule induction of group member learning and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 621-648. Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29, 495-526. Camacho, L. M., & Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1071-1080. Carter, L. F., Haythorn, W. W., & Howell, M. (1950). A further investigation of the criteria of leadership. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45, 350-358. Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R. L., & Schneider, S. K. (1993). On the effectiveness of group brainstorming: Test of an underlying cognitive mechanism. Small Group Research, 24, 490-503. Crott, H. W., Giesel, M., & Hoffmann, C. (1998). The process of inductive inference in groups: The use of positive and negative hypothesis and target testing in sequential rule-discovery tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 938-952. Davis, J. H. (1969). Group performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 5331-537. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509. Dugosh, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Roland, E. J., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 722-735. Fisher, K., & Fisher, M. D. (1998). The distributed mind. New York: AMACON. Gallupe, R. B., Bastianutti, L. M., & Cooper, W. H. (1991). Unblocking brainstorms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 137-142. Gardner, M. (1977). Mathematical games. Scientific American, 237, 132-137. Gorman, M. E. & Gorman, M. E. (1984). A comparison of disconfirmatory, comfirmatory and control strategies on Wason’s 2-4-6 task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 629-648. Gorman, M. E., Gorman, M. E., Latta, R. M., & Cunningham, G. (1984). How disconfirmatory, confirmatory and combined strategies affect group problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 65-79. Gorman, M. E., Stafford, A., & Gorman, M. E. (1987). Disconfirmation and dual hypotheses on a more difficult version of Wason’s 2-4-6 task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 1-28. Green, D. W. (1990). Confirmation bias, problem-solving and cognitive models. In J. P. Caverni, J. M. Fabre, & M. Gonzales (Eds.), Cognitive biases. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hackman, J. R. (1968). Effects of task characteristic on group products. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 162-187. Hackman, J. R. (1976). Group influences on individuals. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. 8. New York: Academic Press. Hare, A. P. (1976). Handbook of small group research (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are n + 1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517-539. Hoffman, L. R. (1965). Group problem solving. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social Psychology Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press. Hoffman, L. R., & Smith, C. G. (1960). Some factors affecting te behaviors of members of problem-solving groups. Carter, Haythorn, & Howell, 1950. Karau, S., & Williams, K. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78-94. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228. 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. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamm, H., & Trommsdorff, G. (1973). Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming). European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 361-387. Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative, problem-solving groups as verbal intellective tasks. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Laughlin, P. R. (1992). Influence and performance in simultaneous collective and individual induction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 447-470. Laughlin, P. R. (1999). Collective induction: Twelve postulates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 50-69. Laughlin, P. R., & Bonner, B. L. (1999). Collective induction: Effects of multiple hypotheses and multiple evidence in two problem domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1163-1172. Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Altermatt, T. W. (1998). Collective versus individual induction with single versus multiple hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1481-1489. Laughlin, P. R., & Futoran, G. C. (1985). Collective induction – Social combination and sequential transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 608-613. Laughlin, P. R., & Shippy, T. A. (1983). Collective induction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 94-100. Laughlin, P. R., & Shupe, E. I. (1996). Intergroup collective induction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 44-57. Laughlin, P. R., VanderStoep, S. W., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1991). Collective versus individual induction: Recognition of truth, rejection of error, and collective information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 50-67. Lien, Y-W., & Lin, W-L.(in preparation). What is critical for discovering a rule: Investigating the role of falsification and alternative hypothesis. Lorge, I., & Solomon, H. (1955). Tow models of group behavior in the solution of Eureka-type problems. Psychometrika, 20, 139-148. Marquart, D. I. (1955). Group problem-solving. Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 103-113. McGlynn, R. P., McGurk, D., Effland, V. S., Johll, N. L., & Harding, D. J. (2004). Barinstorming and task performance in groups constrained by evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 75-87. McGlynn, R. P., Tubbs, D. D., & Holzhausen K. G. (1995). Hypothesis generation in groups constrained by evidence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 64-81. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cilffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. McGrath, J. E., & Altman, I. (1966). Small group research: A synthesis and critique of the field. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3-24. Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Tweney, R. D. (1977). Confirmation bais in a simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inference. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 85-95. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 392-430). New York: Cambridge University Press. Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 531-548. Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Creativity and group innovation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 400-406. Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21, 109-146. Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner. Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effects of ‘brainstorming’ instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 171-176. Paulus, P. B., & Dzindloet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 575-586. Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 78-89. Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Dzindolet, M. T. (2000). Creativity in groups and teams. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 319-338). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. (1995). Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organization al setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 249-265. Paulus, P. B. & Yang, H-C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: a basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76-87. Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347-353. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books. Restle, F., & Davis, J. H. (1962). Success and speed of problem solving by individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 69, 520-536. Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 244-251. Rossi, S., Caverni, J. P., & Girotto, V. (2001). Hypothesis testing in a rule discovery problem: When a focused procedure is effective. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 263-267. Shaw, M. E. (1932). A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. American Journal of Psychology, 44, 491-504. Shaw, M. E. (1976). Group dynamics: The psychology of small groups (2nd ed.). New York: Mcgraw-Hill. Shaw, M. E., & Ashton, N. (1976). Do assembly affects occur on disjunctive tasks? Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8, 469-471. Stasser, G. (1999). The uncertain role of unshared information in collective choice. In L. Thompson & J. Levine (Eds.), Shared knowledge in organizations (pp. 49-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Steiner, I. D. (1966). Models for inferring relationships between group size and potential group productivity. Behavioral Science, 11, 273-283. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press. Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of group effectivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 643-650. Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685-718. Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate of inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 23-47. Taylor, D. W., & Faust, W. L. (1952). Twenty questions: Efficiency in problem solving as a function of size of group. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 360-368. Tobin, D. R. (1998). The knowledge-enabled organization. New York: AMACON. Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pace-making and competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-533. Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., Womer, W. J., Pliske, D. B., Mynatt, C. R., Gross, K. A., & Arkkelin, D. L. (1980). Strategies of rule discovery in an inference task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32A, 109-132. Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Connolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computer based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 448-467. Vallee-Tourangeau, F., Beynon, D. M., James, S. A. (2000). The role of alternative hypotheses in the integration of evidence that disconfirms an acquired belief. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12, 107-129. Vartanian, O., Martindale, C., & Kwiatkowski, J. (2003). Creativity and inductive reasoning: The relationship between divergent thinking and performance on Wason’s 2-4-6 task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 641-655. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140. Wittenbaum, G. M., Vaughan, S. I., & Stasser, G. (1998). Coordination in task-performing groups. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, & J. Edwards (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups (pp. 177-204). New York: Plenum. Wu, C-C., & Lien, Y-W. (under review). Are disjunctive rules more difficult to learn than conjunctive rules? –Investigating the context effect on concept learning. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/40928 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 在如何促進新想法的產生這個議題上，合作的功效是常被提起。過去研究發現新角度假設的產生是受試者能否在規則發現作業（2 4 6問題）成功解題的關鍵因素，本論文旨在承繼上述的觀點，探討合作（兩人小組）是否有助於新角度假設的產生，並瞭解何種互動方式最能促進新角度假設的產生與解題表現，以找出合作有效的機制。實驗一比較兩種常見的合作方式（訊息交換方式不同，為面對面自由討論與非面對面假設交換）對於解題的影響，並與個別解題組比較，以初步瞭解合作是否有利於解題表現以及新角度假設的產生。結果發現兩者均可有效提升新角度假設的產生以及解題正確率。實驗二則在資訊來源與數量相同的狀況下，操弄交換訊息的差異（是否進行假設交換或自由討論）與成員對於測試的貢獻（是否能夠主動進行測試），企圖瞭解主導性與訊息交換量（交換訊息的多寡）如何影響新角度假設的產生。結果發現在一人主導進行解題的情況，即使有訊息的交換也無法提升解題表現，若兩人能夠對等進行解題互動，則交換的訊息量與解題表現呈線性關係。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Past research showed that generating new-perspective hypotheses is crucial for solving a rule discovery task, such as ‘2 4 6 problem’. Collaboration is usually used for facilitating the generation of new ideas. In the current research the author intended to find out whether in which way that collaboration can improve the performance of rule discovery task, particularly the generation of new-perspective hypotheses. In experiment 1, the team members (two in each team) were either allowed to freely interact with each other while they were solving the problem together or to exchange hypotheses alternatively while they were solving problem on they own. Compared to the control group (solving problem individually), both types of collaboration could increase the correct rate and facilitate the generation of new-perspective hypothesis. In experiment 2, three types of information exchange were applied to each of 18 teams. Team members must exchange hypotheses with each other in all conditions and the number of testing trials was kept the same (twelve times) across conditions as well. However, the second member of each team might (1) had no control of what to test in all testing trials (dominant condition), or (2) took charge of what to test for half of the times (six times. non-dominant condition), or (3) allow to freely discuss with the other member before they tested any instance (freely interactive condition). Compared to the control condition (the fourth group in which an individual solved the same problem, with a bystander watching), exchanging hypothesis was found to be in vein in the dominant condition but had facilitating effect in the non-dominant condition. In addition, freely discussion after exchanging hypothesis and before testing further enhances the performance. How information exchange in collaborative problem solving influenced performance is discussed in the thesis. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-14T17:07:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R91227009-1.pdf: 600671 bytes, checksum: 63bdc5a32cb978d722480ee2ba16f6a6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 緒論 1
假設產生與檢驗歷程的心理學研究 2 合作對作業表現的影響 7 腦力激盪對想法產出的影響 9 合作對規則作業表現的影響 12 實驗一 18 方法 25 結果 28 討論 35 實驗二 53 方法 57 結果 62 討論 67 綜合討論 71 參考文獻 78 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 規則發現作業 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 合作 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 主導性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 假設交換 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 新角度假設 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | rule discovery task | en |
| dc.subject | collaborative problem solving | en |
| dc.subject | hypothesis testing | en |
| dc.subject | new-perspective hypothesis | en |
| dc.title | 合作有助於規則發現嗎？訊息交換方式與主導性對新想法產生的影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Does Collaboration Facilitate Rule Discovery? Different Types of Information Exchange and Domination Influence New Ideas Generation | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 96-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 吳昭容,洪瑞雲,黃永廣 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 合作,規則發現作業,新角度假設,假設交換,主導性, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | collaborative problem solving,rule discovery task, new-perspective hypothesis,hypothesis testing, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 85 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2008-07-29 | |
| 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-97-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 586.59 kB | Adobe PDF |
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。