類比故事的表面特徵與結構特徵在不同年齡層對故事回想表現的影響

The Effects of Superficial and Structure Feature Match on Story Recall Performance of Students at Different Ages

10.6251/BEP.20051024

陳茹玲(Ju-Ling Chen)；蘇宜芬(Yi-Fen Su)

類比 ； 類比歷程 ； 表面特徵 ； 結構特徵 ； 故事回想表現 ； analogy ； the process of analogy ； superficial feature ； structural feature ； story recall performance

教育心理學報

37卷2期（2005 / 12 / 01）

123 - 146

繁體中文

本研究包括兩個實驗，「實驗一」旨在探討台灣的大學生在閱讀故事時，類比故事的表面特徵與結構特徵對故事回想表現之影響，實驗二旨在探討國小四年級、國小六年級、國中二年級學生在閱讀故事時，其故事的回想表現受到表面特徵與結構特徵的影響程度是否與大學生不同。實驗一對象為120名大學生，實驗二對象為129名大學生，136名國二學生，132名國小六年級，130名國小四年級學生。研究結果顯示：一、類比故事的表面相似程度或結構相似程度越高時，學生的故事回想表現越佳。二、類比表現有發展上的差異。國小四年級學童的故事回想表現與其他年齡層不同，隨著年齡增加，學生的故事回想表現越好。三、不同年齡層學生的故事回想比率組型不同。大學生對於表面相似程度與結構相似程度反應最敏銳。國二學生的反應組型與大學生相似。小六與小四學生對於表面相似程度與結構相似程度的反應分化程度最低。

The main purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of superficial feature and structural feature match of analogical stories on students' story recall performance, and explore whether the effects varied with age differences. The findings are as follows: First, the result suggested that both superficial feature and structural feature may influence story recall performance. The better the two features matched, the better the story was recalled. However, there was no interaction between the two factors. Secondly, the effects of superficial feature and structural feature match on story recall performance changed with age. The recall performance of the fourth graders was significantly lower than other age groups. The performance of story recall improved with age. Thirdly, the recall patterns of different age groups were different. College students showed the strongest sensitivity to superficial feature match and structural feature match. Junior high school students showed similar story recall patterns with college students, but they were not as sensitive to superfical feature match and structural feature match as college students were. The sixth and fourth graders showed much less sensitirity to superficial feature match and structural feature match than college students and junior high school students did.

1. 江淑卿(2001)。兒童類比推理能力的學習潛能評估研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系教育心理學報，33(1)，47-64。
   連結：
2. 黃幸美(2001)。兒童解決數學及自然科學問題的問題討論與類比推理思考之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系教育心理學報，32(2)，121-142。
   連結：
3. Blanchette, I.,Dunbar, K.(2000).How analogies are generated: The role of structural and superficial similarity.Memory & Cognition,28,108-124.
4. Blanchette, I.,Dunbar, K.(2002).Representational change and analogy: How analogical inferences alter target representations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning , Memory , and Cognition,25(4),672-685.
5. Catrambone, R.(1998).The subgoal learning model and problem-solving transfer: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problem.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,,127,355-376.
6. Catrambone, R.(2002).The effects of surface and structural feature matches on the access of story analogs.Journal of Experimental Psychology,28(2),318-334.
7. Catrambone, R.,Holyoak, K. J.(1989).Overcome limitation on problem transfer.Journal of Experimental Psychology,75(6),1147-1156.
8. Cohen, J.(1998).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
9. Dunbar, K.(1995).The nature of insight.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
10. Dunbar, K.(1997).Conceptual structures and processes: Emergence, discovery and change.Washington, DC:APA Press.
11. Forbus, K. D.(2001).The analogical mind.London:MIT Press.
12. Gentner, D.(1989).Similarity and analogical reasoning.Nework:Cambridge University Press.
13. Gentner, D.(2001).Spatial schemas in abstract thought.Cambridge:MIT Press.
14. Gentner, D.(1998).A companion to cognitive science.Oxford:Blackwell.
15. Gentner, D.(1983).Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science,7,155-170.
16. Gentner, D.,Holyoak, K. J.(1997).Reasoning and learning by analogy.American Psychology,52(1),32-34.
17. Gentner, D.,Landers, R.(1895).Similarity and analogical reasoning.Nework:Cambridge University Press.
18. Gentner, D.,Markman, A. B.(1997).Structure mapping in analogy and similarity.American psychologist,52(1),45-56.
19. Gentner, D.,Rattermann, M. J.,Forbus, K. D.(1933).The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrieval from inferential soundness.Cognitive Psychology,25,524-575.
20. Gick, M. L.,Holyoak, K. J.(1983).Schema induction and analogical transfer.Cognitive Psychology,14,1-38.
21. Gowsami, U.(2001).The analogical mind.London:MIT Press.
22. Hofstadter, D. R.(2001).The analogical mind.London:MIT Press.
23. Holyoak, K. J.,Gentner, D.,Kokinov, B. N.(2001).The analogical mind.London:MIT Press.
24. Holyoak, K. J.,Hummel, J. E.(2001).The analogical mind.London:MIT Press.
25. Holyoak, K. J.,Koh, K.(1987).Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer.Memory and Cognition,15,295-355.
26. Keane, M. T.(1987).On retrieving analogues when solving problems.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology,39(A),29-41.
27. Keane, M. T.(1997).What makes an analogy difficult? The effects of order and causal structure in analogical mapping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition,23,946-967.
28. Keane, M. T.,Ledgeway, T.,Duff, S.(1994).Constraints on analogical mapping: A comparison of three models.Cognitive Science,18,387-438.
29. Kubos, T. T.,Holyoak, K. J.,Hummel, J. E.(2002).The role of textual coherence in incremental analogical mapping.Journal of Memory and Language,47,407-435.
30. Novick, L. R.(1988).Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise.Journal of Experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,14,510-520.
31. Petrov, A.,Kokinov, B.(1998).A simulation experiment with AMBR.Sofia:NBU Press.
32. Ross, B. H.(1989).Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: Different effects on the access and use of earlier problems.Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory, and Cognition,75(3),456-468.
33. Ross, B. H.(1984).Remindings and their effects in learning a cognitive skill.Cognitive Psychology,16,371-416.
34. Ross, B. H.(1987).This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory, and Cognition,13,629-639.
35. Stemberg, R. J.(1979).Developmental patterns in the encoding and combination of logical connectives.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,25(3),469-498.
36. Thagard, P.(1996).Mind: Introduction to cognitive science.London:MIT Press.
37. Thagard, P.,Holyoak, K. J.(1997).The analogical mind.American Psychologist,52(1),35-44.
38. Vosniadou, S.,Ortony. A.(1989).Similarity and analogical reasoning.Nework:Cambridge University Press.
39. Wharton, C. M.,Holyoak, K. J.,Downing, P. E.,Lange, T. E.,Wickens, T. D.,Melz, E. R.(1994).Below the surface: Analogical similarity and retrieval competition in reminding.Cognitive Psychology,26(1),64-101.
40. 張麗芬(1994)。幼兒的類比推理能力。國教天地，103，40-47。
41. 張麗芬(1997)。幼兒解決幾何類比題能力的發展。國立台南師範學院「初等教育學報」，10，357-388。
42. 黃幸美(2000)。兒童問題討論解決類比推理問題之探討。台北巿立師範學院學報，31，49-72。

1. 黃麗分、黃永昌、洪瑞雲、吳庭瑜(2007)。類比與證僞思考技能之學習。教育心理學報，38(3)，271-290。
2. 廖淯菘、陳建中(2018)。義同憶異：飯店產品知識與訊息類型於適配下提高說服與記憶。觀光休閒學報，24(2)，117-142。
3. (2008)。故事情緒面向與呈現方式對國小五年級學童在理解表現上之影響。教育與心理研究，31(2)，59-84。