心智模式動態變化之研究－物理現象的觀察與詮釋

The Dynamic Processes of Mental Modeling-Observations and interpretations of a physical phenomenon

10.6173/CJSE.200106_9(2).0003

任宗浩(Tsung-Hau Jen)

心智模式 ； 高層次知覺理論 ； 推理 ； 動態過程 ； mental models ； high-level perception theory ； reasoning ； dynamic process

科學教育學刊

9卷2期（2001 / 06 / 01）

147 - 168

繁體中文;英文

本研究探討心智模式的變化過程以及心智模式對於訊息選取和訊息知覺的影響。整個研究包含兩個實驗，實驗一採用晤談的方式進行。六位受試者﹙國三學生、高三學生以及大學一年級的學生各兩名﹚以放聲思考的方式解釋研究者所提供的物理現象，過程中允許受試者操弄實驗。所獲得的口語資料以原案分析的方式進行編碼，兩位編碼者的一致性為93%。結果顯示心智模式可能的改變過程包括：（1）放棄原有的心智模式並以新的模式取代；（2）增加或刪除某些變數或約束條件；（3）增加週邊理論以解釋不同的現象；（4）合併不同的理論。實驗二利用實驗研究法，進一步確證實驗一對於心智模式可能影響知覺和對訊息選取的推論。131位國中三年級的學生經由隨機分配分成對照組（32人）以及三個實驗組（A、B、C，每組33人）。受試者觀察實驗一的物理現象，並紀錄其觀察到的細節。三個實驗組的學生在進行觀察之前，分別閱讀有關該現象不同的解釋模型，對照組的學生則直接進行觀察活動。結果發現：（1）對照組受試學生平均觀察到的細節比實驗組多，且達顯著差異（p<.01）；（2）對照組和不同實驗組的受試者觀察到某些特定現象的人數比率有顯著差異（p<.05），顯示實驗組的學生對於現象的觀察和知覺，受到他們在觀察活動之前所閱讀模型的限制和引導。

This paper explored (1) the dynamic processes of mental modeling from a phenomenological standpoint, and (2) the effects of mental models on the perception of information. The study included two experiments. In experiment 1, six subjects were investigated through interviews. In order to elicit the subjects' mental models, they were required to explain a physical phenomenon by thinking aloud. Two coders analyzed the verbal protocols, and the inter-rater reliability was 0.93. Results indicated that the subjects' mental models could evolve through (1) abandoning the primary models and replacing with other models, (2) adding or deleting variables and constrains, (3) developing branching theories, or (4) reconciling different theories. Experiment 2 confirmed the conclusion in experiment 1, which suggests that mental models might influence the perception of information on top-down processes. One hundred and thirty one students were randomly assigned into a control group (N = 32) and three experimental groups (N = 33 for each). The subjects were asked to observe a physical phenomenon, which was the same as in experiment 1, and to record whatever they saw. Before starting to observe, subjects in each experimental group were asked to read one of the three different readings, which were provided as explanatory models for the observed phenomenon. The subjects in the control group were required to describe what they saw directly without any previous reading. Results indicated that (1) the subjects in the control group recorded significantly more details than those who were in the experimental groups (p < .01), and (2) there was were significant differences between the percentages of subjects from different groups who observed some certain phenomenons (p < .05). The mental models formed by subjects confined and guided their perceptions and selections of information.

1. Bloch, N.(1981).Imagery.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
2. Borgman, C.(1986).The user's mental model of an information retrieval system: An experiment on a prototype online catalog.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies,24,47-64.
3. Braine, M. D. S.(1990).natural logic” approach to reasoning.Reasoning, necessity, and logic: Developmental perspectives,Hillsdale, NJ:
4. Bransford, J. D.,Brown, A. L.,Cocking, R. R.(1999).How people learning: Brain, mind, experience and school.Washington:National Academy Press.
5. Chalmers, D.,French, R.,Hofstadter, D.(1992).High-level perception, representation, and analogy: A critique of artificial-intelligence methodology.The Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence,4(3),185-211.
6. Chi, M. T. H.,Feltovich, P. J.,Glaser, R.(1981).Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognitive Science,5,121.
7. Chinn, C. A.,Brewer, W. F.(1993).The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction.Review of Educational Research,63,1-49.
8. Clancey, W. J.(1986).Qualitative student models.Annual reviews of computer science,Palo Alto, CA:
9. Clement, J.(1983).Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving.Amherst, MA:University of Massachusetts.
10. Craik, K. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11. Davison, J. E.,Sternberg, R. J.(1984).The role of insight in intellectual giftedness.Gifted Child Quarterly,28,58-64.
12. Evans, J. St. B. T.,Barston, J. I.,Polland, P.(1983).On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning.Memory and cognition,3(11),295-306.
13. Fodor, J. A.(1983).The modularity of mind.Cambridge, MA:Bradford Books /MIT Press.
14. Gott, S. P.,Bennett, W.,Gillet, W.(1986).Models of technical competence for intelligent tutoring systems.Journal of Computer-based Instruction,13(2),43-46.
15. Grosslight, L,Unger, C.,Jay, E.,Smith, C.(1991).Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,28,799-822.
16. Harision, A. G.,Treagust, D. F.(1996).Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry.Science Education,80(5),509-534.
17. Hitch, G. J.,Baddeley, A. D.(1976).Verbal Reasoning and working memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,28,603-621.
18. Hofstadter, D.(1995).Fluid concepts and creative analogies.New York:Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.
19. Hofstadter, D.,Mitchell, M.(1993).The Copycat project: A model of mental fluidity and analogy-making.Advences in connectionist and neural computation theory,Norwood, NJ:
20. Holland, J. H.,Holyoak, K. J.,Nisbett, R. E.,Thagard, P. R.(1986).Induction: Processes of inference, learning and discovery.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
21. Jagacinski, R. J.,Miller, R. A.(1978).Describing the human operator's internal model of a synamic system.Human Factors,30,425.
22. Johnson-Laird, P. N.(1999).Formal rules versus mental models in reasoning.The nature of cognition,Cambridge, MA:
23. Johnson-Laird, P. N.(1993).Human and machine thinking.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Johnson-Laird, P. N.(1983).Mental models.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
25. Johnson-Laird, P. N.(1989).Mental Models.Foundations of cognitive science,Cambridge, MA:
26. Kintsch, W.(1988).The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction- integration model.Psychological Review,95,163-182.
27. Mayer, V.,Mamaeva, E.(1985).Magic with Physics.Physics in your kitchen lab,Mosco:
28. McNamara, T. P.(1994).Knowledge Representation.Handbook of perception and cognition
29. Mitchell, M.(1993).Analogy-making as perception.Cambridge, MA:Bradford Books/MIT Press.
30. Noman, D. A.(1983).Some observations on mental models.Mental models,Hillsdale, NJ:
31. Pylyshyn, Z.(1980).Cognition and computation.Behavioral and Brain Science,3,111-132.
32. Redish, E. F.(1994).The implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics.American Journal of Physics,62(6),796-803.
33. Rips, L. J.(1994).The psychology of proof.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
34. Schlager, M.,Means, B.,Roth, C.(1988).Cognitive analysis of expert knowledge: Input into design of training.annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New Orleans, LA:
35. Schumacher, R.,Czerwinski, M.(1992).Mental models and the acquisition of expert knowledge.The psychology of expertise,New York:
36. Senge, P.(1990).The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.New York:Doubleday/Currency.
37. Simon, H. A.(1957).Administrative behavior.Totowa, NJ:Littlefield, Adams.
38. Sloman, S. A.(1999).Rational versus arational models of thought.The nature of cognition,Cambridge, MA:
39. Sternberg, R. J.(1996).Cognitive psychology.Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
40. Stevens, A. L.,Collins, A.(1980).Multiple conceptual models of a complex system.Aptitude, learning and instruction,Hillsdale, NJ:
41. Strike, K. A.,Posner G. J.(1992).A revisionist theory of conceptual change.Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice,New York:
42. Thagard, P.(1992).The structure of concepture revolutions.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
43. Tversky, A.,Kahneman, D.(1983).Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgement.Psychology Review,90(4),293-315.
44. Tversky, A.,Kahneman, D.(1971).Belief in the law of small numbers.Psychological Bulletin,76(2),105-110.
45. Vosniadou, S.(1994).Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change.Learning and Instruction,4,45-69.
46. White, B.,Frederiksen, J.(1985).Qualitative models and intelligent learning environments.Artifical intelligence and education,Norwood, NJ:
47. 邱美虹,翁雪琴(1995)。國三學生「四季成因」之心智模式與推論歷程之探討。科學教育學刊，3(1)，23-68。
48. 張敬宜(2000)。大台北地區國小學童對空氣概念認知之研究。科學教育學刊，8(2)，141-156。

1. 洪振方、林振欽(2008)。國中學生電腦模擬單擺建模歷程個案研究。高雄師大學報，25(3)，1-24。
2. (2010)。應用視覺隱喻抽取法（ZMET）建構學習感知心智地圖 劉熒潔 朝陽科技大學資訊管理系 林昌正 朝陽科技大學資訊管理系 中。朝陽人文社會學刊，8(2)，217-242。