小学儿童假设检验思维策略的发展

采用自创的“固定样例”程序,利用自行设计的两种不同任务的图形推理材料,研究了小学儿童假设检验策略的发展。550名不同年级的被试参加了本研究：结果发现,在该研究条件下：(1)答案存在多种可能性的任务Ⅰ明显难于答案确定的任务Ⅱ;(2)小学儿童假设检验能力随年级提高而增长,但增长的速度因任务不同而不同;(3)随着年级的提高,小学儿童使用的不成功策略逐步下降,成功策略显著上升,但这也受任务不同的影响;(4)固定样例程序较好地克服了变化样例程序所带来的假设检验研究的缺陷。     

幼儿对数的认知及其策略

该研究探查幼儿对基数、数序、运算和解应用题的认知发展过程及其认知策略。着重探查：(1)不同认知任务对幼儿数认知发展的影响;(2)幼儿对基数和数序两者认知发展的顺序;(3)从幼儿主动解决问题的策略探究其认知发展水平。该研究采用定性和定量相结合的研究方法。被试为4、5、6岁城市幼儿园儿童,共92人,男女约各半。全部实验以个别方式进行。主要研究结果表明：(1)幼儿对基数、数序、运算和解应用题的认知成绩均有随年龄发展的趋势,但快速发展的年龄阶段因任务的难度而异;(2)幼儿对基数和数序的认知在4—5岁显示出不同步的发展,对基数的认知成绩优于对数序的认知,而到6岁两者具有同步发展的趋势;(3)幼儿解决问题的策略水平随年龄发展,显示了由外化水平的智力活动向完全内化的智力操作的发展过程,并具有明显的层次性。该研究结果为幼儿数能力的培养和促进提供参考依据。     

媒体多任务的效用：听觉信息干扰和视听信息整合的实验证据

采用心理旋转范式和词汇判断范式,探讨媒体多任务经验不同者在听觉信息干扰和视听信息整合情境下对图形一致性和真假词的判断表现。结果发现：（1）以判断图形一致性为实验任务,在无声和低音干扰条件下,低经验组的正确率均显著高于高经验组,两组的反应时差异均不显著;在高音干扰条件下,高经验组的反应时显著短于低经验组,正确率则没有显著差异。（2）以真假词判断为实验任务,对真词进行判断,在三种听觉条件下,高经验组在语音匹配条件下的反应时最短,与低经验组无显著差异,但正确率显著高于低经验组,与另两种听觉条件没有显著差异;低经验组在语音匹配条件下的反应时显著长于另两种听觉条件,正确率则显著高于无声条件,与不匹配条件差异不显著。对假词的判断,低经验组在三种听觉条件下的反应时均显著短于高经验组,正确率与高经验组均无显著差异。研究表明,媒体多任务经验丰富者相比经验缺乏者受到任务无关的纯短高音干扰的影响要小,在需要视听通道语义整合的加工中具有一定的优势。     

Influence of two types of information trials on the formation of a discrimination-reversal learning set in Japanese monkeys

Abstract: Three groups of male adult Japanese monkeys were trained in 30 discrimination-reversal learning-set (LS) problems using the Wisconsin General Test Apparatus. A control group ( N = 3) was trained in the standard procedure: acquisition of up to 12 consecutive correct responses, reversal to the same criterion, and then shift to a new problem. To the other two groups, three information trials signaling the stimulus value in reversal were given after they reached the criterion in acquisition. Subjects in the positive-stimulus information (PSI) group ( N = 4) were exposed only to the reversal positive stimulus, and a response to it was rewarded. Subjects in the negative-stimulus information (NSI) group ( N = 4) were exposed only to the reversal negative stimulus, and any response to it was not rewarded. Information trials reduced reversal errors and NSI trials were more effective than PSI trials in error reduction ( p < .05). Information trials also aided in acquisition: the NSI and PSI groups learned the acquisition phase of the problems with significantly fewer errors than control group ( p < .01) in the last stage of training. The implications of these results are discussed in relation to strategy learning and attention learning in LS formation.     

题材个体化和问题重述两策略的效果研究

探讨题材个体化和问题重述作为两种解题策略在解决加、减法应用题中的有效性,采用了４种策略类型×３种数学能力水平×２种问题题材×２种题材情境与解题操作关系的四因素混合设计。结论如下：学生基本上能够独立进行题材个体化和问题重述;在本实验条件下,水平高的学生,运用不同策略没有差异;水平中等的学生运用双策略、水平低的学生运用双策略以及题材个体化策略均产生了积极效果;题材个体化策略对于解决不熟悉题材的应用题将产生积极效果,运用以上两策略解决问题情境与解题操作相矛盾的问题没有帮助。除了应用题陈述图式以外,本实验证明还存在着应用题结构图式;可把题材个体化和问题重述作为解题策略教给学生运用。     

学习困难学生语义分类编码策略的研究

通过对３８名学习困难学生与４８名学习优秀学生使用语义编码策略的比较研究,发现学习困难学生不能像学习优秀学生那样自觉地在学习的信息加工过程中使用学习策略;学习困难学生不使用学习策略的机械学习成绩与学习优秀学生无显著差异;教育训练有助于学习困难学生将语义编码之类的活动运用于信息加工过程而促进学习。     

领域知识与自我解释策略间关系的实验研究

从领域知识的个体差异的角度,研究领域知识与自我解释策略之间的关系,探讨自我解释在示例学习中的作用。研究结果表明,（１）在学习示例时,高领域知识组被试倾向于使用发现意义和建立新旧信息间联结的解释策略对示例进行认知加工;低领域知识组被试主要采用句法加工策略对示例进行加工;（２）领域知识对监控活动的制约,主要体现在被试监控到理解失败之后所采取的对策上。高领域知识组被试利用解释策略解决问题,低领域知识组被试利用句法加工策略解决问题。     

Creative reasoning in formal discussion

Systems of formal dialectics articulate methods of conflict resolution. To this end they provide norms to regulate verbal exchanges between the Proponent of a thesis and an Opponent. These regulated exchanges constitute what are known as formal discussions.One may ask what moves, if any, in formal discusions correspond to arguing for or against the thesis. It is claimed that certain moves of the Proponent's are properly designated as arguing for the thesis, and that certain moves of the Opponent purport to criticize the tenability or the relevance of the reasons advanced. Thus the usefulness of formal dialectic systems as models for reasonable argument is vindicated.It is then proposed to make these systems more realistic by incorporating in them a norm of Creative Reasoning that removes the severe restrictions to which the Proponent's arguing was hitherto subject. As a consequence, a certain type of irrelevant reason is no longer automatically excluded. Therefore, it is proposed to extend the Opponent's rights to exert relevance criticism. The new dialectic systems are shown to be strategically equivalent to the original ones. Finally, it is stressed that the Opponent's criticism should not be designated as arguing against the thesis. The Opponent criticizes, but does not argue.