以“建構論”與“最小量論”試探不同工作記憶廣度學生閱讀推論歷程之表現

The On-Line Inference Processes of the Differences in Working Memory in Students for Constructivism and Minimalism

林慧芳(Hui-Fang Lin)

《新竹教育大學教育學報》 25卷2期 (2008/12) Pp. 95-128

https://doi.org/10.7044/NHCUEA.200812.0095

摘要

本研究旨在探討個體推論產出歷程與工作記憶差異性間的相關性。爲達成本研究目的，本研究首先向臺中縣與臺中市各一所國中隨機選取6班共403名新生，進行「閱讀廣度測驗」之測試，以篩選出41名工作記憶組及40名低工作記憶組學生。其次，研究者依據「建構論」與「最小量」爲理論基礎，自編「推論能力測驗」，接著向此81名研究對象進行施測，以瞭解工作記憶的限制如何解釋推論產出歷程的不同。研究結果顯示，工作記憶的容量限制的確是造成個體間在文本閱讀時，線上推論產出量與質的重要認知機制，且高工作記憶組學生的線上推論歷程較符合建構論的立場，而低工作記憶組學生對推論作業的反應則與最小量論的理論基礎具有一致性，至於造成此差異現象的主要因素則可能來自於個體間對於訊息在工作記憶運作過程中，能否「自動化」的處理有關。藉此，研究者提出相關教學方向做爲未來研究之建議。

關鍵字

工作記憶 ； 推論能力 ； 建構論 ； 最小量論

並列摘要

The study selected 403 freshmen in junior high school with a reading span task to be high-working memory students and low-working memory students as samples, and tested the inference task in terms of Constructivism and Minimalism. The aim of the article is to understand how the limitation of working memory affects the generation of inference on-line. The results from the experiment show the limitation of working memory capacity is the important cognitive mechanism causing individual differences in inference for on-line generation during reading. Besides, high-working memory students' performances are consistent with Constructivism, and low-working memory students' performances are consistent with Minimalism. Researchers calculate the factor resulting in individual differences is related to information automatic processing in working memory. Finally, we offer these results as suggestions for teaching methods for the advanced research.

並列關鍵字

constructivism ； inference ability ； minimalism ； working memory

參考文獻

Albrecht, J. E.,Myers, J. L.(1995).Role of context in accessing distant information during reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.21,1459-1468.

Conway, A. R. A.,Kane, M. J.,Bunting, M. F.,Hambrick, D. Z.,Wilhelm, O.Engle, R. W.(2005).Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.12(5),769-786.

Daneman, M., Carpenter, P. A.(1980).Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior.19,450-466.

Endres, C.,Wood, D. K.(2004).Motivating student interest with the imagine, laborate, predict, and confirm (IEPC) strategy.The Reading Teacher.58(4),346-357.

Gathercole, S. E.,Alloway, T. P.,Willis, C.,Adams, A. M.(2006).Working emory in children with reading disabilities.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology.93,265-281.