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

How to Discover a Rule? Investigating the Advantages of the Alternative Hypothesis and Dual-Hypothesis Testing Strategy

10.6173/CJSE.2001.0903.05

林緯倫(Wei-Lun Lin)；連韻文(Yunn-Wen Lien)

工作記憶 ； 另有假設 ； 科學資優生 ； 假設檢驗 ； 概念改變 ； Working Memory ； Alternative Hypothesis ； Science-Talented Student ； Hypothesis Testing ； Conceptual Change

科學教育學刊

9卷3期（2001 / 09 / 01）

299 - 322

繁體中文

形成假設，檢驗假設從而發現規則是人類進行分類、區辨、形成概念、建立因果關係等思考活動時所需具備的能力，也是科學研究的必備能力。本研究採用心理學中常用的規則發現作業－「246作業」，以實驗的方式，探討假設產生與檢驗的能力，並分析具有科學潛力的人才在此一認知能力上的特色。我們比較一般大學生與通過教育部甄選進入大學就讀的科學資優生在此作業的表現，如所預期，後者的正確率的確較高。分析其策略，他們在測試法上較一般生多採用「雙假設測試法」，而非過去研究所關注的反例法。此外，如所預測，在修正假設的過程中較一般生產生更多新角度的假設。這和我們過去發現一般大學生中成功者的特色相仿。我們討論採用雙假設測試法的可能優勢並考慮工作記憶資源的限制，據此我們指導另一組大學生採用一種「有限的雙假設測試策略」，結果一般大學生在假設檢驗推理作業上的成功率由26.7%大幅提升至81.8%。

Our research intended to find out what strategy makes a reasoner perform better in a rulediscovery task. In Experiment 1, two groups of 29 college students were tested with the 2 4 6 task, a popular rule-discovery task. One group was composed of undergraduates who were judged by experts and professors as top students in nature science and life science when they were high school students. These students subsequently were enrolled in relevant programs in National Taiwan University. The results showed that these students performed better on the task than did the contrast group, composed of students from the same university. Particularly, compared with the contrast group, these students generated more alternative hypotheses as well as applying more dual-hypothesis testing strategy. They, however, did not use negative-test strategy more often than the contrast group. We argue the way how a reasoner revised his/her hypothesis based on new evidence is crucial for the success on the 246 task. In addition, the potential advantages and constraints of using a dual-hypothesis testing strategy were discussed, as well as its relation with the reasoners' working memory. In Experiment 2, a group of university students were instructed on the limited dual-hypothesis testing developed by the researchers. Their performance in the rule-discovery task significantly improved when compared with the contrast group.c

1. Baddeley, A. D.(1976).The psychology of memory.New York:Basic Books.
2. Carey, S.(1985).Are children fundamentally different kinds of thinkers and learners than adults?.Thinking and learning skills,Hillsdale, NJ:
3. Carey, S.(1986).Cognitive science and science education.American Psychologist,41(10),1123-1130.
4. Chang, C. M.(1993).University of heeds.
5. Cortina, J. M.,Nouri, H.(2000).Effect size for ANOVA designs.Thousand Oaks:SAGE Publications, Inc..
6. Fischhoff, B.,Beyth-Marom, R.(1983).Hypothesis evaluation from a Bayesian perspective.Psychological Review,87,190-211.
7. Foss, B. M.(Ed.)(1966).New horizons in psychology.Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:Penguin.
8. Gorman, M. E.(1986).How the possibility of error affects falsification on a task that models scientific problem-solving.British Journal of Psychology,77,85-96.
9. Gorman, M. E.,Gorman, M. E.(1984).A comparison of disconfirmatory, confirmatory and control strategies on Wason’s 2-4-6 task.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A,629-648.
10. 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.
11. 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.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,39A,1-28.
12. Green, D. W.(1990).Confirmation bias, problem solving and cognitive models.Cognitive biases,Amsterdam:
13. Johnson-Laird, P. N.(1983).Mental models.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
14. Just, M. A.,Carpenter, P. A.(1992).A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory.Psychological Review,99(1),122-149.
15. Kareev, Y.,Halberstadt, N.,Shafir, D.(1993).Improving performance and increasing the use of non-positive testing in a rule-discovery task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,46A,729-742.
16. Klahr, D.,Dunbar, K.(1988).Dual Space search during scientific reasoning.Cognitive Science,12,1-55.
17. Klayman, J.,Ha, Y. W.(1987).Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing.Psychological Review,94,211-228.
18. 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.
19. Kuhn, T. S.(1970).The structure of scientific revolutions.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
20. Kyllonen, P. C.,Christal, R. E.(1990).Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity ?!.Intelligence,14,389-433.
21. Lakatos, I.(1970).Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmers.Criticism and the growth of knowledge,London:
22. 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(6),1163-1172.
23. 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(6),1481-1489.
24. Lien, Y-W., & Lin, W-L. (in preparation). What is critical for discovering a rule : Investigating the role of falsification and alternative hypothesis.
25. Lord, C.,Ross, L.,Lepper, M.(1979).Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effect of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37,2098-2109.
26. Mynatt, C. R.,Doherty, M. E.,Tweney, R. D.(1977).Confirmation bias in a simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inference.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,29,85-95.
27. Nisbett, R.,Ross, L.(1980).Human inference: Strategies and short-comings of social judgment.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
28. Nussbaum, J.,Novak, S.(1982).Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy.Instructional Science,11,183-200.
29. Penner, D.,Klahr, D.(1996).When to trust the evidence: Further investigations of the effects of system error on the Wason 2-4-6 task.Memory & Cognition,24(5),655-668.
30. Platt, J. R.(1964).Strong inference.Science,146,347-353.
31. Popper, K. R.(1959).The logic of scientific discovery.New York:Basic Books.
32. Ross, L.,Lepper, M. R.(1980).The perseverance of beliefs: Empirical and normative considera-tions.Fallible judgment in behavioral research: New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science,San Francisco:
33. 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(1),263-267.
34. Snyder, M.(1980).Seek and you shall find : Testing hypotheses about other people.Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium on personality and social psychology,Hillsdale, NJ:
35. Snyder, M.,Campbell, B. H.(1980).Testing hypotheses about other people: The role of the hypothesis.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,6,421-426.
36. Snyder, M.,Swann, W. B., Jr.(1978).Hypothesis-testing in social interaction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,36,1202-1212.
37. St. B.T. Evans, J.(1989).Bias in human reasoning : causes and consequences.London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. Torrance, E. P.(1989).The Nature of creativity as manifest in its testing.The nature of creativity : Contemporary psychological perspectives,Cambridge:
39. Tweney, R. D.,Doherty, M. E.,Worner, W. J.,Pliske, D. B.,Mynatt, C. R.,Gross, K. A.,Arkkelin, D. L.(1980).Strategies of rule discovery in an inference task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,32,109-123.
40. Vosniadous, S.,Brewer, W. F.(1987).Theories of knowledge restructuring in develop-ment.Review of Educational Research,57,51-67.
41. Wason, P. C.(1960).On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,12,129-140.
42. Wharton, C. M.,Cheng, P. W.,Wickens, T. D.(1993).Hypothesis-testing strategies: why two goals are better than one.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,46A,743-758.
43. 吳庭瑜,吳明樺,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(2)，117-136。
44. 宋志雄,林曦,徐順益(1993)。探究國三學生酸與鹼的迷思概念並應用以發展教學診斷工具。科學教育月刊，4，1-23。
45. 洪振方(1996)。科學知識重建的知識取向分析。高雄師大學報，7，293-328。
46. 張川木(1996)。促進概念改變教學法(Ⅱ)。科學教育月刊，186，10-18。
47. 張川木(1995)。促進概念改變教學法(Ⅰ)。科學教育月刊，185，21-27。
48. 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
49. 郭重吉,吳武雄(1989)。國科會專題研究成果報告國科會專題研究成果報告,彰化市:彰化師大。
50. 陳貽照(1998)。台北市，國立台灣大學心理學研究所。
51. 謝志仁,郭重吉(1993)。國中學生化學變化相關概念另有架構之研究。科學教育月刊，4，25-51。

1. 陳彥廷、柳賢(2009)。中學生對代數式中文字符號之語意理解研究：不同管道的探討。科學教育學刊，17(1)，1-25。
2. 黃麗分、黃永昌、洪瑞雲(2004)。系統測試的教導模式對測試行為之影響。應用心理研究，22，121-155。
3. 連韻文、林緯倫、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(3)，211-227。
4. 謝甫佩、洪振方(2008)。以結構方程模式驗證影響國二學生科學思考因素之理論模式。科學教育學刊，16(6)，563-584。
5. 顏妙璇(2012)。客觀與新角度推理能力對科學學習的影響。中等教育，63(1)，146-159。
6. 詹孟琦,梁文瀞,張靖卿(2020)。高中資優生假設驗證能力之探究。資優教育季刊，153，15-28。
7. 莊麗娟(2010)。三〜六歲幼兒的科學性推理：法則的歸納、證據的推衍、問題的驗證。科學教育學刊，18(1)，1-23。