以合作的方式進行法則發現作業可以提高正確法則被發現的機會,在推理過程中對自己的思考活動進行解釋,或是要求合作的伙伴解釋其行為、想法也有同樣的效果(吳庭瑜、吳明樺、洪瑞雲,1988)。本研究的目的在探討究竟合作與解釋的經驗如何影響一個人由有限的案例中導出正確法則。本研究的資料係上引研究中114個大學進行法則發現作業時在假設産生與假設檢定過程中記錄下來的書面文字資料。經分析後發現,在兩人實際合作的情形下修訂假設時使用的策略會較符合Bruner等人(1956)所稱之理想的假設測試策略。但此策略在事後單獨解題時並不會再出現,顯示合作對測試策略的獲得缺乏效果。然而,先前合作的經驗仍有助於正確法則的發現,此可能和合作可以豐富個人的領域知識有關。相較之下,解釋雖也可提昇法則發現的次數,但與合作最大的不同之處在於解釋的效果是展現在由案例中萃取出較多屬性、産生較多樣的假設與假設修訂策略。此結果顯示解釋極可能是塑造、獲得假設産生與測試策略的因素。
Collaboration can improve the rule discovery performance. Self- explanation or asking the collaborator for explanations can also increase the number of rules discovered (Wu, Wu, & Horng, 1998). The purpose of the present study was to investigate how collaboration and explanation work to affect one's reasoning during rule discovery. The data were written protocals produced by 114 college students during hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing in Wu, Wu, & Horng's study. Results showed that working in dyad may increase the likelihood of using a strategy closer to the ideal hypothesis testing strategy proposed by Bruner, Goodnaw and Austin (1956). However, there was no sign of transfer in the subsequent testing session when participants were working alone. Nevertheless, the collaborative experience still had an effect on the number of rules correctly discovered. The effect of collaboration is very likely due to knowledge sharing between the collaborators. The instruction to engage in explanatory activity may increase the number of rules correctly discovered as well. Moreover, with practice, explanation appears to enable one to extract more features from the observed instances and come up with various approaches to modify a hypothesis when confronted with negative testing results. Thus, explanation appears to implicitly shape one's hypothesis-testing strategy.