發現交互作用困難嗎？－「探究目標」對於大學生發現變項間交互關係的影響

李佩璇; 連韻文

doi:10.6129/CJP.20150515

山西大学，您好！

感谢采购，人社期刊库｜人社论文库，期间：2025/01/01~2025/12/31

感谢试用，科学期刊库｜科学论文库，期间：2024/10/20~2025/01/20

浏览高级检索

关闭
检索检索高级检索出版物检索
浏览期刊主题浏览核心期刊浏览期刊拼音浏览

关闭

查询符号(半角)	查询符号意义说明
空格	表示为「AND」两个查询词之交集
双引号 ( " " )	片语以双引号标示开始及结束，而且只寻找出现顺序相同的字词，例： " image process "
?	表示一个字母切截，输入两个?表两个字母，依此类推，例：输入「Appl?」，查得结果应为appl e , appl y … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
*	表示不限字母切截，由0~n. 例：输入「appl*」，查得结果应为appl e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
AND、OR、NOT	布尔逻辑组合关键字，用来扩大或缩小查询范围的技巧。 (1) AND ：缩小查询范围 (2) OR ：扩大查询范围(3) NOT：排除不相关的范围

DOI 是数位物件识别码（ D igital O bject I dentifier ）的简称，
为物件在网路上的唯一识别码，可用于永久连结并引用目标物件。

使用DOI作为永久连结

每个DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」便成为永久网址。
如以DOI号为 10.5297/ser.1201.002 的文献为例，此文献的永久连结便是： http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
日后不论出版单位如何更动此文献位置，永久连结所指向的位置皆会即时更新，不再错失重要的研究。

引用含有DOI的文献

有DOI的文献在引用时皆应同时引用DOI。若使用APA、Chicago以外未规范DOI的引用格式，可引用DOI永久连结。

DOI可强化引用精确性、增强学术圈连结，并给予使用者跨平台的良好使用经验，目前在全世界已有超过五千万个对象申请DOI。如想对DOI的使用与概念有进一步了解，请参考（）。

ACI:

数据来源：Academic Citation Index，简称ACI

台湾最大的引用文献资料库，目前收录台湾与港澳地区所出版的人文学、社会学领域学术期刊之书目资料与参考文献，总期刊量超过690种，每年定期公布收录期刊的影响指数(Impact Factor)等指标给大众，并提供专家学者与学术单位实用的计量与分析功能。

五年影响指数（5-Year Impact Factor）：某一期刊前五年所出版的文章在当年度的平均被引用次数。

公式：（前五年发表论文在统计年的被引用次数）÷（前五年论文产出论文总篇数）

例如：A期刊2017年之五年影响指数

(A期刊2012-2016年发表论文在2017年的被引总次数)/(A期刊2012-2016年发表的论文总数)

什么是预刊文章？

为提供读者最前线之学术资讯，于期刊文献获同意刊登后、纸本印制完成前，率先于网路线上发表之文章即为预刊文章。预刊文章尚未有卷期、页次及出版日期资讯，但可藉由DOI号识别。 DOI号是文献的数位身份证字号，不论预刊或正式出版皆不会改变，读者可点击DOI连结，或于DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」连结到文献目前最新版本。

如何引用预刊文章？

请使用预刊文章的线上发表日期及DOI号来引用该篇文献。

引用范例(视不同引文格式规范可能有所差异)：

作者姓名。文章篇名。期刊名称。 YYYY/MM/DD线上预先发表。

doi:DOI 号

来源数据

P245 - 260

社会科学 > 心理学

DOI： 10.6129/CJP

书目管理工具

相关连结

问题回报

全文下载

发现交互作用困难吗？－「探究目标」对於大学生发现变项间交互关系的影响

Improving Your Chance to Discover an Interaction Effect by Changing the Inquiry Goal

李佩璇(Pei-Hsuan Lee) ；连韵文(Yunn-Wen Lien)

中华心理学刊； 57 卷 3 期 (2015 / 09 / 01) ， P245 - 260

繁体中文 DOI： 10.6129/CJP.20150515

交互作用效果；因果推理；自主实验作业；科学推理；探究学习； interaction effect ； causal reasoning ； self-directed experiment task ； scientific reasoning ； inquiry learning

0 个人觉得这篇文章赞

摘要 │ 参考文献 (39) │ 被引用文献 (1) │ 国际计量

摘要〈TOP〉

并列摘要〈TOP〉

Previous research on scientific reasoning has shown that adults and children are poor at discovering interaction effects in inquiry tasks that involve multi-cause structures. Lack of a relevant causal framework and relevant reasoning skills have often been proposed to explain the failure rate. In this study we aimed to demonstrate that participants' performance finding interaction effects could be greatly improved by changing the inquiry goal even when the relevant abilities and task were kept the same. Three experiments with a self-directed experiment (SDE) paradigm were conducted to test the hypothesis at different levels of inquiry task complexity. With the SDE paradigm, participants could change the values of candidate variables in each test trial and observe the effect (i.e., the speed of toy racing cars) in order to figure out the underlying causal structure. Undergraduate participants were randomly assigned to two groups that only differed by the inquiry goal. In the causal-status group, particip ants were instructed to determine which variables could influence the effect of concern and how, as previous studies usually did; in the causal-rule group, participants were instead told to find a causal rule to predict the effect. In addition, participants’ abilities at inferring an interaction effect from a set of double-controlled experiments (changing the value of a variable at each level of the other variable while keeping other variables constant) and designing experiments to test a target interaction hypothesis were also measured. As predicted, the success rate at finding a target interaction between two candidate causes for casual-rule group was twice as much as for casual-status group in all three experiments. The causal-status group performed poorly as previous studies reported, even though their abilities of inferring and testing interactive hypothesis were as good as the other group's. Moreover, the causal-rule group tested more interactive hypotheses, less single-variable hypotheses, and thus had more chances to gather evidence about interaction with the same amount of testing trials. These results, for the first time show that adults' performance on finding interactive effects can be influenced by a top-down contextual factor, i.e., the inquiry goal, via changing the availability of interactive hypotheses in the reasoner's mind. Implications for science education are discussed.

参考文献 ( 39 ) 〈TOP〉

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, NY:Wiley.
Chater, N.(1999).The Search for simplicity: A fundamental cognitive principle?.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology,52,273-302.
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.

被引用文献 ( 1 ) 〈TOP〉

樱井正二郎,黄荣村,汪曼颖(2019)。台湾实验认知心理学发展选论：以台大心理学系为框架。中华心理学刊，61(4)，295-319。

国际计量

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

文章公开取用时，将寄通知信至您填写的信箱地址