大学生优秀辩手与非辩手的非形式推理能力比较

心理发展与教育 ›› 2009, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (4): 50-56.

大学生优秀辩手与非辩手的非形式推理能力比较

张奇^1,2, 张黎², 王奕², 张艳君², 马艳苹², 孙宝宏²

1. 北京师范大学发展心理研究所, 北京 100875;
2. 辽宁师范大学教育学院心理系, 大连 116029

出版日期:2009-10-15 发布日期:2009-10-15
通讯作者: 张奇,辽宁师范大学教育学院心理系教授.E-mail:zq55822@163.com E-mail:zq55822@163.com
基金资助:
教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地基金资助(06JJDXLX001)

Informal Reasoning Differences between Excellent College Debaters and Non-debaters

ZHANG Qi^1,2, ZHANG Li², WANG Yi², ZHANG Yan-jun², MA Yan-ping², SUN Bao-hong²

1. Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875;
2. Department of Psychology, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029

Online:2009-10-15 Published:2009-10-15

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为考察大学生优秀辩手与非辩手非形式推理能力的差异,运用"提示访谈法"对大学生中的优秀辩手与非辩手的普通大学生进行了比较研究。结果表明:大多数优秀辩手达到间接反驳推理水平,而多数非辩手处在直接反驳推理水平。优秀辩手不论在功能性和条件性理由的数量上,还是在理由领域广度上都显著优于普通大学生。在反驳式推理过程中,优秀辩手的间接反驳次数显著多于非辩手。研究表明大学生优秀辩手的非形式推理能力显著优于非辩手。

关键词: 大学生, 优秀辩手, 非辩手, 非形式推理

Abstract: This study was designed to investigate informal reasoning differences between college debaters and non-debaters.Two ill-structured problem tests were administered to the participants by argument prompting method.The results showed as follows:(1)most college students achieved refuting reasoning level.The majority of debaters were at the level of indirect refuting reasoning and the majority of non-debaters were at the level of direct refuting reasoning. During my-side and othe-rside reasoning,debaters generated significantly more functional and conditional reasons than non-debaters and there were significant differences in the span of reason field between the debaters and non-debaters; during refuting reasoning,debaters generated significantly more indirect refuting than the non-debaters,so the debaters informal reasoning ability were higher than the non-debaters;(2)The measuring system used in this study can differentiate debaters informal reasoning ability from the non-debaters,so it was an appropriate method to measure students informal reasoning.

Key words: college students, excellent debaters, non-debaters, informal reasonin

中图分类号:

B844.3

张奇, 张黎, 王奕, 张艳君, 马艳苹, 孙宝宏. 大学生优秀辩手与非辩手的非形式推理能力比较[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2009, 25(4): 50-56.

ZHANG Qi, ZHANG Li, WANG Yi, ZHANG Yan-jun, MA Yan-ping, SUN Bao-hong. Informal Reasoning Differences between Excellent College Debaters and Non-debaters[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2009, 25(4): 50-56.

参考文献

[1] Sadler T D,Zeidler D L.Patten of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific Decision-Making.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2005,42:112-138.
[2] Zohar A,Nemet F.Fost ering students knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2002,39:35-62.
[3] Evans J S B T,Thompson V A.informal reasoning:theory and method.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,2004,58(2):69-75.
[4] Mean M L,Voss J F.Who reasons well?Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade,ability,and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction,1996,14(2):139-178.
[5] Larson A A,Britt M A.Improving Students Evaluation of Informal Arguments.The Journal of Experimental Education,2009,77(4):339-365.
[6] Vaille D,Venville G J.High-school students informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology:An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education,2008,30(8):1-25.
[7] Sadler T D,Zeidler D L.The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues:applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues.Science Education,2005,89(1): 71-93.
[8] Wu Y T,Tsai C C.High school students informal reasoning on a Socio-scientific Issue:qualitative and quantitative analyses.International Journal of Science Education,2007,29(9):1163-1187.
[9] Toulmin S E.The uses of argument.Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press,1958.
[10] Kuhn D,U dell W.The development of argument skills.Child Development,2003,74(5):1245-1260.
[11] Neuman Y,Weizman E.the role of text representation in students ability to identify fallacious arguments.The quarterly journal of experimental psychology,2003,56(5):849-864.

相关文章 15

[1]	郭嘉程, 董柔纯, 许放, 徐旋, 牛更枫, 周宗奎. 社会临场感与大学生网络过激行为的关系：双自我意识的并行中介及性别的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 176-186.
[2]	樊香麟, 崔英锦. 客体化身体意识与女大学生限制性饮食行为的关系：外貌负面评价恐惧和社会文化压力的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 122-131.
[3]	张慧如, 张伟达, 傅王倩, 邓敏, 彭苏浩, 李玉. 孤独感对创造性倾向的影响：无聊倾向和焦虑情绪的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 132-141.
[4]	何安明, 张钰睿, 惠秋平. 大学生感恩与社会幸福感的关系:手机冷落行为的中介作用和负性生活事件的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 505-512.
[5]	杜秀芳, 武玉玺, 徐政, 袁晓倩, 陈功香. 金钱启动与道德认同对大学生道德伪善的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 342-349.
[6]	喻昊雪, 李卉, 王福兴. 大学生公正世界信念与学业倦怠的关系:应对方式与无聊倾向的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 391-401.
[7]	曾子豪, 彭丽仪, 詹林, 刘双金, 欧阳晓优, 丁道群, 黎志华, 胡义秋, 方晓义. 儿童期受虐对大学生抑郁症状的影响:主观幸福感的中介和基因的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 276-285.
[8]	曹瑞琳, 梅松丽, 梁磊磊, 李传恩, 张莹. 感恩与大学生网络成瘾的关系:核心自我评价和生命意义感的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 286-294.
[9]	陈子循, 李金文, 王雨萌, 刘霞. 累积环境风险与大学生自伤的关系:情绪调节策略的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(1): 109-120.
[10]	郑爽, 刘红瑞, 李静, 席雨, 姚梅林. 主动性人格与大学生创业准备行为的关系:创业意向的中介效应与创业社会支持的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 813-821.
[11]	王浩, 俞国良. 大学生依恋焦虑与抑郁的关系:恋爱中关系攻击和关系质量的序列中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 879-885.
[12]	朱黎君, 杨强, 叶宝娟, 陈智楠, 张丽. 自然联结对大学生抑郁的影响:有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 886-893.
[13]	张宝生, 李鑫, 李新野, 张庆普. 主观规范对大学生志愿者志愿工作投入的影响机制研究——一个链式双重中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 658-666.
[14]	李松, 陈旭, 冉光明, 张琪. 被动性社交网站使用与社交焦虑：反刍思维和自我建构的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 720-728.
[15]	蔺姝玮, 孙炳海, 黄嘉昕, 肖威龙, 李伟健. 共情对广义互惠的影响：自我-他人重叠的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(4): 475-484.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed