臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

長久以來，教導人們如何推理乃是一項重要的教育目標。邏輯課程已經被證明能增進成人的條件推理能力，然而，條件推理教學上最大的問題是：用什麼方法或何種教材才更有效果。本研究嘗試比較兩種不同的邏輯課程中，何者較能有效提升成人的條件推理能力。
本研究以空軍官校四年級的學生為樣本，比較兩種不同實驗教學的受試者之條件推理能力。以準實驗、前後測、配對組的設計下，實驗A組（n＝23）接受形式邏輯課程，實驗B組（n＝23）接受非形式邏輯課程，而控制組（n＝23）則不施予教學處理。以自編Wason選擇作業作為前、後測的工具。本研究的研究問題有四：一、在接受邏輯課程之前，受試者的條件推理能力的概況為何？二、接受形式邏輯課程後，受試者的條件推理能力有何改變？三、接受非形式邏輯課程後，受試者的條件推理能力有何改善？四、在教學處理後，三個不同組別的受試者在條件推理表現上有何差異，及其教學效果之大小？
根據文獻探討和研究問題，本研究提出六項研究假設：一、在前測中，正確答題的比例偏低。二、在前測中，具體題型的答題正確率高於抽象題型，也就是會產生內容效應。三、在前測中，肯定題型的答題正確率優於否定題型。四、在前測中，受試者會產生明顯的配合偏誤。五、形式邏輯課程對於增進受試者條件推理能力沒有太大的助益。六、非形式邏輯課程對於提升受試者條件推理能力較有效果。
除了形式邏輯課程有助於受試者條件推理能力之外，實驗的結論大致上都與研究假設相符。首先，在前測中，受試者在答題上會產生內容效應，以及選答配合偏誤的比率偏高。二、肯定題型比否定題型的正確率高。三、形式與非形式邏輯課程皆有助於增進成人條件推理能力。四、接受非形式邏輯課程的受試者在條件推理能力的改變上，明顯大於接受形式邏輯的受試者。五、在四種不同題型的實驗效果上，除抽象題型外，接受形式邏輯課程的受試者其實驗效果大於控制組，而接受非形式邏輯課程的受試者其實驗效果也大於控制組。
根據本研究的發現，針對成人教育機構、教師教學和未來研究提出若干的建議，希望有助於在成人教育機構中，邏輯課程的發展，教師教學的設計和未來研究的精進。

Teaching people how to reasoning has long been recognized as an important educational goal. Educational training in logic has been shown to improve adults’ ability to conditional reasoning. A major problem in teaching reasoning is what kind of method or programme as the way to teach conditional reasoning does seem to be more effective. This research tried to explore that different logic courses which enhance adults’ conditional reasoning competence.
This study compared the competence of conditional reasoning in two treatment groups of second-semester Chinese Air Force Academy senior students. In a quasi-experimental, pretest/posttest, and matched-group design, the treatment group A (n=23) took formal logic lecture, the treatment group B (n=23) attended informal logic course, and control group (n=23) received no instructional treatment. Each group was given the pretest and posttest for the adapted Wason’s selection task to measure levels of conditional reasoning ability.
The present research asked four questions. First, before logic training, what picture of adults’ conditional reasoning performance will be? Second, do students have different patterns of conditional reasoning competence that can be accounted for by attending formal logic course? Third, do students have different patterns of conditional reasoning ability that can be accounted for by receiving informal logic course? Fourth, after instructional treatment, does the different conditional reasoning performance between three groups exist?
According to literature review and the research problems, the hypotheses investigated in this study were: (1) There will be low correct answer in pretest. (2) In pretest, the correct rate of concrete version is better than abstract version. There will produce content effect. (3) The right answer of affirmative problem is more succeeded than negative one. (4) The matching bias effects are obvious. (5) The formal logic course is little or no use to facilitate adults’ conditional reasoning ability. (6) The informal logic course is helpful to increase adults’ conditional reasoning competence.
Results generally confirmed the original hypotheses despite the formal logic course an apparently opposite outcome. First, there were low correct answer, content effect and strong matching bias. Second, the right answer of affirmative problem was better than negative one. The correct answer of concrete problem was better than abstract one. Third, formal and informal logic course was significant predicator for felicitating adult’s conditional reasoning ability. Fourth, the students who accepted informal logic course were more succeeded than the students who attended formal logic course in increasing conditional reasoning competence. Fifth, with exception of abstract question, the experimental effect for four editions of question, the subjects who received formal logic course or who attended informal logic course were succeeded than the subjects of control group.
In accordance to the findings, this research proposed several recommendations for providers of adult learning, teachers and researchers. It would be useful for provider and teaching of adult learning in the field of conditional reasoning.

目次

中文摘要 I
英文摘要 IV
目次 VI
表目次 IX
圖目次 X

第一章 緒論
第一節 問題背景與重要性 1
第二節 研究動機與目的 3
第三節 研究方法 5
第四節 名詞釋義 6
第五節 研究範圍與限制 8
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 邏輯訓練課程的內涵與要義 10
第二節 成人條件推理的意義與成效評量 13
第三節 成人條件推理的相關理論與問題 21
第四節 以邏輯課程增進成人條件推理相關研究的探討 45
第三章 研究設計與實施
第一節 研究架構與研究假設 56
第二節 實驗設計 57
第三節 研究工具 59
第四節 實施過程與資料處理 60
第四章 結果分析與討論
第一節 受試者條件推理的能力之分析 65
第二節 形式邏輯教學對受試者條件推理能力之差異分析 69
第三節 非形式邏輯教學對受試者條件推理能力之差異分析 78
第四節 形式與非形式邏輯教學對受試者條件推理的比較分析 88
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 研究發現 100
第二節 結論 103
第三節 建議 103
參考文獻 108
附錄一 實驗組（A）的教學大綱 115
附錄二 實驗組（B）的教學大綱 116
附錄三 語句邏輯的基本符號和語句邏輯的推論
規則 117
附錄四 自編選擇作業（專家效度用） 120
附錄五 專家效度之專家名單 137
附錄六 預試的選擇作業（再測信度用） 138
附錄七 選擇作業（前測與後測用） 146

表目次
表2-1-1 原子句的真值 12
表2-2-1 條件句的真值 15
表2-2-2　 條件句和雙條件句的可能真假值 16
表2-2-3　 四種條件推論的形 17
表2-3-1　 條件句在日常用語的意 27
表2-3-2　 條件推理的研究綜 37
表2-3-3 否定條件句的的結構與例句 38
表2-3-4 否定條件句的四種推理 39
表2-3-5 選擇作業中不同內容的例舉 43
表2-4-1　 推理訓練後的表現 50
表2-4-2　 問題類型和訓練方式與答對的比率 52
表3-2-1 教學實驗實施表 59
表3-3-1 專家效度評分的平均數與標準差 63
表3-3-2 預試工具的再測信度分析 64
表4-1-1　 受試者在前測中各選項的次數分配 65
表4-1-2　 問題版本與勾選配合偏誤之比例 67
表4-1-3　 具體與抽象題型答對比率的比較 67
表4-1-4　 具體版本問題的答對比率 68
表4-1-5　肯定與否定條件句的答對比率 69
表4-1-6 肯定和否定條件句與勾選配合偏誤之比例 69
表4-2-1　實驗A組前後測無母數符號檢定 70
表4-2-2 實驗A組前、後測答題的差異分 71
表4-2-3　實驗A組在具體題型之前後測差異比較 73
表4-2-4　實驗A組在抽象題型之前後測差異比較 75
表4-2-5　實驗A組在肯定題型之前後測差異比較 76
表4-2-6　實驗A組在否定題型之前後測差異比較 78
表4-3-1　實驗B組前後測無母數符號檢定 79
表4-3-2 實驗B組前、後測答題的差異分析 80
表4-3-3　實驗B組前後測具體題型的無母數符號檢定 81
表4-3-4 實驗B組在具體題型之前後測差異比較 82
表4-3-5　實驗B組在抽象題型之前後測差異比較 84
表4-3-6　實驗B組前後測肯定題型的無母數符號檢 85
表4-3-7 實驗B組在肯定題型之前後測差異比較 86
表4-3-8　實驗B組在否定題型之前後測差異比較 87
表4-4-1　 A、B、C組後測各答題的差異分析 89
表4-4-2　 A、B、C三組在後測的具體題型之比較 91
表4-4-3　 A、B、C三組在後測的抽象題型之比較 92
表4-4-4　 A、B、C三組在後測的肯定題型之差異比較 94
表4-4-5　 A、B、C三組在後測的否定題型之差異比較 95
表4-4-6 A、B、C組敘述統計 97
表4-4-7　不同題型在實施教學實驗後之單因子變異數分析 98

圖目次
圖2-2-1 Wason的選擇作業 19
圖2-3-1　否定結論的偏誤 40
圖2-4-1 橫斷研究受試者答對的比率 54
圖2-4-2 縱貫研究受試者答對的比率 54
圖2-4-3　各學院學生口頭推理增進的比例 54
圖2-4-4　各學院學生統計與方法推理增進比例 55
圖2-4-5　各學院學生條件推理增進的比例 55
圖3-1-1 研究架構圖 57

參考書目
王政建（2000）。條件推理之二成分論。國立中正大學心理研究所碩士論文。
成中英 主編（1983）。近代邏輯暨科學方法基本名詞辭典。台北：聯經。
李素卿 譯（2003），Eysenck, M. W. & Keane, M.T. 著。認知心理學。台北：五南。
洪蘭、曾志朗 合譯（1997），Underwood, J. J. & Shaughnessy, J. J. 著。心理學研究法。台北：遠流。
Barrouillet, O., Grosset, N., & Lecas, J-F. (2000). Conditioal reasoning by mental models: Chronometric and developmental evidence. Cognition, 75, 237-266.
Braine, M. D. S.(1990). The “natural logic” approach to reasoning. In W. F. Overton (Ed.), Reasoning, necessity, and logic: Developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Braine, M. D. S., & O’Brien, D. P. (1991). A theory of if: A lexical entry, reasoning program, and pragmatic principle. Psychological Review, 98, 182-203.
Braine, M. D. S. (1998). Steps toward a mental-predicate logic. In M. D. S. Braine and D. P. O’Brien (Eds.). Mental logic. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Byrne, R. M. T. (1989). Suppressing valid inference with conditionals. Cognition, 39, 71-78.
Cheng, P. W. & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schema. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 391-416.
Cheng, P. W., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Oliver, L. M. (1986). Pragmatic versus syntactic approaches to training deductive reasoning. Cogntive Psychology, 18, 239-328.
Cheng, P. W., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Oliver, L. M. (1993). Pragmatic versus syntactic approaches to training deductive reasoning. In R. E. Nesbett, Rules of reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cheng, P. W. & Nesbett, R. E. (1993). Pragmatic constraints on causal deduction. In R. E. Nesbett (Ed), Rules of reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Copi M. I. & Cohen C. (2002). Introduction to logic. 11th edition, Upper Sanddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? studies with Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187-276.
Dominowski, R. L. (1994). Content effects in Wason’s selection task. In S. E. Newstead and J. St. B. T. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking and reasoning. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dugan, C. M., & Revlin, R. (1990). Response option and presentation format as contributiors to conditional reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A, 829, 948.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1972). Interpretation and “matching bias” in a reasoning task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 193-199.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1977). Linguistic factors in reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 621-635.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1982). The psychology of deductive reasoning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Brooks, P. G. (1981). Competing with reasoning: A test of the working memory hypothesis, Current Psychological research, 1, 139-147.
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Pollard, P. (1990). Belief bias and problem complexity in deductive reasoning. In J. P. Gaverni, J. M. Fabre, & M. Gonzales (Eds.), Cognitive bias. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Evans, J. St. B. T., Over, D. E., and Manktelow, K. I. (1994). Reasoning, decision making and rationality. In P. N. Johnson-Laird and E. Shaffir (Eds.). Reasoning and decision making. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Newstead, S. E. (1995). Creating a psychology of reasoning: The contribution of Peter Wason. In S. E. Newstead & J. St. B. T. Evans(Eds.), Perspectives on thinking and reasoning-Essays in honour of Peter Wason. Hove, Sussex: Lawrence Erlbuam.
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove, Sussex: Psychology Press.
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Twyman-Musgrove, J. (1998). Conditional reasoning with inducement and adivice. Cognition, 69, B11-B16.
Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (1999). Applying educational research: A practical guide. New York: Longman.
Graham, M. J. (2002). Deductive reasoning skill: The effect of prior academic discipline training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
Garnham, A. & Oakhill, J. (1994). Thinking and reasoning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Griggs, R. A. & Cox, J. R. (1992). Permission schemas and the selection task. British Journal of Psychology. 73, 407-420.
Griggs, R. A. & Ransdell, S. E. (1986). Scientists and the selection task. Social Studies of Science, 16, 319-330.
Hoch, S. J. & Tschinrgi, J. E. (1985). Logical knowledge and cue redundancy in deductive reasoning. Memory and Cogintion, 13, 453-462.
Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1993). Deductive reasoning. In A. I. Goldman (Ed), Readings in philosophy and cognitive science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Horn, L. Y. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hurley, P. J. (2003). A concise introduction to loigic. 8th edition, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Jackson, S. L. & Griggs, R. A. (1988). Education and the selection task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 327-330.
Johnson, R. M.(1999). A logic book: Fundamentals of reasoning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Johnson-Laird, P. N.(1983). Mental Models. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N.(1986). Reasoning without logic. In T. Myers, K. Brown, and B. McGorigle(Eds.), Reasoning and discourse processes. London:Academic Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Legrenzi, P., and Legrenzi, M. S. (1972). Reasoning and a sense of reality. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 395-400.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson-Laird P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Models and deductive rationality. In K. Manktelow. & D. Over (Eds.), Models of Rationality. London: Routledge.
Lehman, D. R., Lempert, R. O. & Nisbett, R. E. (1988). The effects of gradute training on reasoning: formal discipline and thinking about everyday life events. American Psychologist, 113, 434-443.
Lehman, D. R. & Nisbett, R. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the effects of undergradute education reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 26, 952-960.
Lehman, D. R., Lempert, R. O. & Nisbett, R. E. (1993). The effects of gradute training on reasoning: formal discipline and thinking about everyday life. In R. E. Nisbett(Ed), Rules for reasoning. Hillsdal, NJ: Erlbaum.
Levi, D. S. (2000). In defense of informal logic. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Acadimic Publishers.
Liu, I. M. (2003). Conditional reasoning and conditionalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4) ,694-709.
Manktelow, K. (1999). Reasoning and thinking. Hove: Psychology Press Ltd.
Morkovits, H. & Barrouillet, P. (2002). The development of conditional reasoning: A mental model account. Developmental Review, 22, 5-36.
Nisbett, R. E., Lehman, D. R., Fong, G. T., & Cheng, P.W. (1993). Teaching reasoning. In R. E. Nisbett(Ed), Rules for reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
O’Brien, D. P. & Dias, M. G. (1998). A case study in the mental-models and mental-logic debate: Conditional syllogism. In M. D. S. Braine and D. P. O’Brien(Eds.), Mental logic. Mchwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Overton, W. F. (1990). Competence and procedure: Contraints on the development of logical reasoning. In W. F. Overton (Ed), Reasoning, necessity, and logic: Developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic books.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1975). The origin of the idea of chance in children. New York: Norton.
Rader, A. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2002). Processing of logically valid and logically invalid conditional inference in discourse comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28(1), 59-68.
Rips, L. J. (1988). Deduction. In R. J. Sternberg & E. E. Smith (Eds.), The Psychology of human thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rips, L. J. (1994). The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human thinking. Cambridge: The MIT press.
Scholnick, E. K. (1990). The three faces of if. In W. F. Overton(Ed), Reasoning, necessity, and logic: Developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, L. (1994). Reasoning model and intellectual development. In A. Demetrioy and A. Efklides(Eds.), Intellingence, mind, reasoning structure and development. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Stanley, M. F. (2002). Logic and controversy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Stein, E.(1996). Without good reason: The rationality debate in philosophy and cognitive science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Thorndike, E. L. (1906). Principle of teaching. New York: A. G. Seiler.
Thorndike, E. L. (1913). The psychology of learning. New York: Mason-Henry.
Turner, D. R. (2000). Fallacies and the concpt of an Argument. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation of University of California. Ann Arbor, MI:UMI.
Valentine, E. R. (1975). Performance on two reasoning tasks in relation to intelligence, divergence, and interference proneness. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45, 198-205
Van der Henst, J-B., Yang, Y. W., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2002). Strategies in sentential reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 425-468.
Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology, Vol. I. Harmondworth: Penguin.
Wason, P. C. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Pychology of reasoning, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Quinn, S. & Markovits, H. (1998). Conditional reasoning causality, and the structure of semantic memory: Strength of association as a predictive factor for content effect. Cognition, 68,B93-B101.