| 作成者 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 本文言語 |
|
| 出版者 |
|
|
|
| 発行日 |
|
| 収録物名 |
|
| 巻 |
|
| 開始ページ |
|
| 終了ページ |
|
| 出版タイプ |
|
| アクセス権 |
|
| JaLC DOI |
|
| 関連DOI |
|
|
|
| 関連URI |
|
|
|
| 関連情報 |
|
|
|
| 概要 |
The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) To investigate differences in strategies for scientific reasoning or verification between discussion groups where members share one naive theory (or explanat...ion) for the differences of behaviors between two dogs and those where they do not, and (2) to identify and characterize the functions of metacognitive speeches (e.g., “Well...”“Um...”“Let see...”“But...), which are covert or overt “uttcrance”, observed under the reflective or critical thinking in action when subjects often try to clarify their own ideas and to examine evidence for or against their theory from a new perspective, and pose a question and try to give an alternative idea in evaluating other ideas or theories. To investigate college student's naive theories for the difference between the reactions of two dogs to a stranger, we asked them, in a preliminary study, to write down their possible explanation (s) for it. Based upon the explanations (or naive theories) which students gave in this preliminary study, the following 3 groups were formed: Condition A groups where group members commonly held one naivc theory to he true; Condition B groups where menbers commonly held one naive theory to be untrue, and finally, Condition C groups where all member held different theories from one another. One group consisted of 4-5 students, and they were asked to engage in discussion for 30 minutes, under the following instruction: “Please discuss your explanation (naive theory) by evaluating all possible proofs/evidence and decide whether or not it can be concluded to be a valid explanation.”Main findings were as follows. (1) Condition A groups were more likely to use “proving” strategies by pointing out the evidence/proofs that demonstrate their theory's plausibility. (2) Condition B groups were more likely to use “disproving”strategies by pointing out the evidence/disproofs that undermine the theory, (3) metacognitive speeches occurred in the two situations: One situation where each member engaged in reflective thinking in action and here covert or overt “utterance”was directed toward oneself, and the other situation where one member posed a question or gave an alternative idea in evaluating other ideas or theories and here covert or overt “utterance”was directed toward other members instead, and (4) five functions of metacognitive speeches were identified and characterized: To show one's consent, to show disagreement, to indicate possible problems (by reviewing the line of discussions that have taken place), to organize one's own understanding, and to create a new idea/perspective or propose an alternative idea/perspective.続きを見る
|
Mendeley出力
KJ00000048916-00001