類比的檢索與對應

The Mapping and Retrieval of Analogy

10.6173/CJSE.199803_6(1).0003

高淑芬(Su-Fan Gau)；邱美虹(Mei-Hung Chiu)

類比 ； 對應 ； 檢索 ； analogy ； mapping ； retrieval

科學教育學刊

6卷1期（1998 / 03 / 01）

63 - 80

繁體中文;英文

類比是科學三大思考技巧（演譯、歸納、類比）中最具創造力，同時也是最無跡可尋，最難以捉摸的技巧（李靜、宋立軍和張大松，1994）。類比不似演譯或歸納有旣定的步驟或程序，因此在日常生活中雖然我們常使用類比，但卻不了解類比是如何被（檢索）（retrieved）的，又是如何產生對應（mapping）。在目前科學教育領域對類比的研究亦是如此，很少論及檢索和對應這兩步驟。本文的目的即在介紹三套有關於檢索和對應步驟的理論，希望藉由對檢索和對應機制的了解，幫助科學教師和學習者更能有效率地使用類比。

Among three scientific thinking techniques (deduction, induction, analogy), analogy is the most creative and intangible. Unlike deduction and induction, an analogical reasoning does not have a definite and clear procedure. Though analogies are used in daily life, but frequently the source is not known. The mapping and retrieval of analogies are rarely mentioned in the science education research literature. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to introduce three theories about retrieval and mapping. By means of exploring these theories about retrieval and mapping, we hope that this study will help science teachers and student understand analogies and how they can be used more effectively.

1. Brown, D. E.(1992).Using examples and analogies to remediate misconcep tions in physics: factors influencing conceptual change.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,29(1),17-34.
2. Dagher, Z. R.(1995).Review of studies on the effectiveness of instruc tional analogies in science education.Science Education,79(3),295-312.
3. Dagher, Z. R.(1995).Analysis of analogies used by science teachers.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,32(3),259-270.
4. Dagher, Z. R.(1994).Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change?.Science Education,78(6),601-614.
5. Duit, R.(1991).On the role of analo gies and metaphors in learning science.Science Education,75(6),649-672.
6. Falkenhainer, B.,Forbus, K, D.,Gentner, D.(1989).The structure mapping engine: Algorithm and example.Artificial Intelligence,41,1-63.
7. Flick, L.(1991).Where concepts meet precepts: Stimulating analogical thought in children.Science Education,75(2),215-230.
8. Forbus, K. D.,Gentner, D.,Law, K.(1994).MAC/FAC: A model of simi larity-based retrieval.Cognitive Science,19,141-205.
9. Gentner, D.(1983).Structure-Mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science,7,155-170.
10. Gentner, D.(1989).The mechanisms of analogical learning.Similarity and analogical reasoning,London:
11. Gentner, D.,Rattermann, M. J.,Forbus, K. D.(1993).The roles of similarity in transfer: separating retrievability from inferential soundness.Cognitive Psychology,25,524-575.
12. Gentner, D.,Toupin, C.(1986).Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy.Cognitive Science,10,277-300.
13. Glynn, S., M.,Britton, B. K.,Semrud Clikeman, M.,Muth, K. D.(1989).Analogical reasoning and problem solving in the textbooks.Handbook of Creativity: Assess ment, Theory, and Research,New York:
14. Hall, R.(1989).Computational approaches to analogical reasoning: A comparative analysis.Artificial Intelligence,39,39-120.
15. Helman, D. H.(Ed.)(1988).Analogical Reasoning.Dordrecht, Holland:Kluwer.
16. Holyoak, K. J.,Koh, K.(1987).Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer.Memory & Cognition,15(4),332-340.
17. Holyoak, K. J.,Thagard(1989).A computational model of analogical problem solving.Similarity and analogical reasoning,London:
18. Holyoak, K. J.,Thagard, P.(1989).Analogical mapping by constrain satisfaction.Cognitive Science,13,295-355.
19. Holyoak, K. J.,Thagard, P.(1990).A constraint-satisfaction approach to analogue retrieval and mapping.Lines of thinking: Reflections on the psychology of thought,New York:
20. Keane, M. T..What makes an analogy difficult?: The effects of order and causal structure on analogical mapping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition
21. Keane, M. T.(1988).Analogicalproblem solving.Chichester:Ellis Horwood.
22. Keane, M. T.(1990).Incremental analogizing: Theory and model.Lines of thinking: Reflections on the psychology of thought,New York:
23. Keane, M. T.(1997).Keane, M. T.(1997). Personal email communication..
24. Keane, M. T.(1996).On adaptation in analogy: Tests of pragmatic impor tance and adaptability in analogical problem solving.The Quarterly Jour nal of Experimental Psychology,49A(4),1062-1085.
25. Keane, M. T.,Ledgeway, T.,Duff, S.(1994).Constraints on analogical mapping: A comparison comparison of three models.Cognitive Science,18,387-438.
26. Palmer, S. E.(1989).Levels of description in information processing theories of analogy.Similarity and analogical reasoning,London:
27. Thagard, P.,Holyoak, K. J.,Neloson, G.,Gochfeld, D.(1990).Analog retrieval by constraint satisfaction.Artificial Intelligence,46,259-310.
28. Thiele, R. B.,Treagust, D. F.(1994).The nature and extent of analogies in secondary chemistry text books.Instructional Science,13,99-117.
29. Thiele, R. B.,Treagust, D. F.(1994).An interpretive examination of high school chemistry teacher's analogical explanations.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,31(3),227-242.
30. Treagust, D. F.,Harrison, A. G.(1993).Teaching with analogies: a in grade-10 optics.Journal case study of Research in Science Teaching,30(10),1291-1307.
31. Venville, G. J.,Treagust, D. F.(1996).The role of analogies in promoting conceptual change in biology.Instructional Science,24,295-320.
32. Wong, E. D.(1993).Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,30(4),367-380.
33. 王建東,朱梧檟,肖奕安,陳松燦,張東摩(1996)。通過從平面幾何到立體幾何的類比進行數學發現的計算模擬。數學物理學報，16(4)，377-384。
34. 李靜,宋立軍,張大松(1994).科學思術維的推理藝術.臺北:淑馨.
35. 高淑芬(1997)。國立臺灣師範大學。
36. 郭人仲(1994)。國立彰化師範大學。
37. 陳恆迪(1993)。國立彰化師範大學。
38. 黃幸美(1995)。類比推理思考及其在教學上之應用。敎育研究資訊，3(3)，128-142。
39. 龐能一(1995)。國立臺灣師範大學。

1. 高慧蓮、何偉雲(2006)。用變量判別量數分析二階段測驗。科學教育學刊，14(2)，149-162。