不同创造性思维水平中学生的工作记忆对类比推理影响的研究
|
摘要
已有的研究表明,创造性思维是影响类比推理的一个重要因素,而工作记忆的子成分的参与有助于类比推理认知活动的完成。但创造性思维和工作记忆共同对类比推理影响国内外研究甚少。本研究将探讨不同创造性思维水平中学生在类比推理能力上的差异,并试图揭示创造性思维水平、工作记忆对类比推理能力的影响。
将参加创造性思维测试后筛选出来的120名初中二年级学生和120名高中二年级的学生为被试,采用双重任务法实验来考察创造性思维、工作记忆对类比推理的影响。研究结果表明:
1.高年级被试无论进行言语类比推理还是图形类比推理,所需要的时间都明显少于低年级被试;无论是言语类比推理还是图形类比推理,不同年级被试在类比推理的正确率方面没有显著差异。
2.初、高中生的类比推理的反应时在创造性思维水平、类比推理和组别上均存在显著的主效应,并且初中生在推理类型和组别之间存在显著的交互作用,高中生在创造性思维和类比推理之间存在显著的交互作用;而类比推理正确率在推理类型、组别上存在显著的主效应,初中学生在创造性思维上还存在显著主效应。
3.初中高创造性思维水平被试无论进行言语类比推理还是图形类比推理,所需要的时间都明显少于低创造性思维水平的被试;初中高、低创造性思维水平被试在图形类比推理的正确率方面有显著差异,但在言语类比推理正确率方面没有显著差异。高中高创造性思维水平被试进行图形类比推理时,所需要的时间明显少于低创造性思维被试,但在进行言语类比推理时,则正确率没有显著差异;而高中高、低创造性思维水平被试在类比推理的正确率方面没有显著差异。
4.初中高、低创造性思维水平被试无论是图形还是言语类比反应时,组别间的差异均非常显著。初中高创造性思维水平被试在图形类比推理正确率上存在显著的组别差异;低创造性思维水平被试无论是图形还是在言语类比推理,组别差异都不显著。高中高、低创造性思维水平被试在言语类比推理反应时上存在显著的组别差异。高中高、低创造性思维被试在图形和言语类比推理正确率上均不存在显著的组别差异。高中高、低创造性思维被试无论是图形还是言语类比推理,组别差异均不显著。
Research has shown that creative thinking is the impact of analogical reasoning an important factor, and the working memory of the sub-components of the involvement of analogical reasoning cognitive activities completed. However, creative thinking and working memory common to analogical reasoning on little impact at home and abroad. This study will explore the different levels of secondary school students in creative thinking analogical reasoning capacity of the differences and tried to reveal the level of creative thinking, working memory capacity on the impact of analogical reasoning.
The study conducts the research combined with the methods of the analogical reasoning test and experiments on the relations among the creative thinking, analogy reasoning and working memory among the students in primary middle school and high middle school. The results were as follows:
(1)whatever linguistic reasoning or picture reasoning are performed, subjects from the high middle school students took less time rather than the students in primary middle school. However, no differences were found in the correction rates between two grade.
(2)The significant main effect lies in the reaction time of analogy reasoning on the level of creative thinking, reasoning types and groups. And in primary middle school students between the groups and types of reasoning there was a significant interactive. And in the high middle school students between the creative thinking and types of reasoning there was a significant interactive. Whereas, the significant main effect lies in the corrections of analogy reasoning of reasoning types and groups.
(3)Whatever linguistic reasoning or picture reasoning are performed by the primary middle school students, subjects from the high level of creative thinking took less time rather than the low level of its counterparts. In the reaction time of picture analogy reasoning, significant differences are obvious between the groups of the primary middle school students, However, no differences were found in the correction rates of linguistic analogy reasoning between two groups. The picture reasoning is performed by the high middle school students, subjects from the high level of creative thinking took less time rather than the low level of its counterparts. However, no differences were found in the correction rates between two groups.
(4)The reaction time of primary middle school students, significant differences are obvious between the groups. So far as the picture analogy reasoning is concerned, the high creative thinking are obviously different. As opposed to the high creative thinking, no differences were found among the groups. The reaction time of primary middle school students,, significant of linguistic reasoning differences are obvious between the groups. In the high middle school students, No differences were found in the correction rates of picture and linguistic analogy reasoning between two groups. The high and low levels creative thinking of the high middle school students, no differences were found among the groups.
将参加创造性思维测试后筛选出来的120名初中二年级学生和120名高中二年级的学生为被试,采用双重任务法实验来考察创造性思维、工作记忆对类比推理的影响。研究结果表明:
1.高年级被试无论进行言语类比推理还是图形类比推理,所需要的时间都明显少于低年级被试;无论是言语类比推理还是图形类比推理,不同年级被试在类比推理的正确率方面没有显著差异。
2.初、高中生的类比推理的反应时在创造性思维水平、类比推理和组别上均存在显著的主效应,并且初中生在推理类型和组别之间存在显著的交互作用,高中生在创造性思维和类比推理之间存在显著的交互作用;而类比推理正确率在推理类型、组别上存在显著的主效应,初中学生在创造性思维上还存在显著主效应。
3.初中高创造性思维水平被试无论进行言语类比推理还是图形类比推理,所需要的时间都明显少于低创造性思维水平的被试;初中高、低创造性思维水平被试在图形类比推理的正确率方面有显著差异,但在言语类比推理正确率方面没有显著差异。高中高创造性思维水平被试进行图形类比推理时,所需要的时间明显少于低创造性思维被试,但在进行言语类比推理时,则正确率没有显著差异;而高中高、低创造性思维水平被试在类比推理的正确率方面没有显著差异。
4.初中高、低创造性思维水平被试无论是图形还是言语类比反应时,组别间的差异均非常显著。初中高创造性思维水平被试在图形类比推理正确率上存在显著的组别差异;低创造性思维水平被试无论是图形还是在言语类比推理,组别差异都不显著。高中高、低创造性思维水平被试在言语类比推理反应时上存在显著的组别差异。高中高、低创造性思维被试在图形和言语类比推理正确率上均不存在显著的组别差异。高中高、低创造性思维被试无论是图形还是言语类比推理,组别差异均不显著。
Research has shown that creative thinking is the impact of analogical reasoning an important factor, and the working memory of the sub-components of the involvement of analogical reasoning cognitive activities completed. However, creative thinking and working memory common to analogical reasoning on little impact at home and abroad. This study will explore the different levels of secondary school students in creative thinking analogical reasoning capacity of the differences and tried to reveal the level of creative thinking, working memory capacity on the impact of analogical reasoning.
The study conducts the research combined with the methods of the analogical reasoning test and experiments on the relations among the creative thinking, analogy reasoning and working memory among the students in primary middle school and high middle school. The results were as follows:
(1)whatever linguistic reasoning or picture reasoning are performed, subjects from the high middle school students took less time rather than the students in primary middle school. However, no differences were found in the correction rates between two grade.
(2)The significant main effect lies in the reaction time of analogy reasoning on the level of creative thinking, reasoning types and groups. And in primary middle school students between the groups and types of reasoning there was a significant interactive. And in the high middle school students between the creative thinking and types of reasoning there was a significant interactive. Whereas, the significant main effect lies in the corrections of analogy reasoning of reasoning types and groups.
(3)Whatever linguistic reasoning or picture reasoning are performed by the primary middle school students, subjects from the high level of creative thinking took less time rather than the low level of its counterparts. In the reaction time of picture analogy reasoning, significant differences are obvious between the groups of the primary middle school students, However, no differences were found in the correction rates of linguistic analogy reasoning between two groups. The picture reasoning is performed by the high middle school students, subjects from the high level of creative thinking took less time rather than the low level of its counterparts. However, no differences were found in the correction rates between two groups.
(4)The reaction time of primary middle school students, significant differences are obvious between the groups. So far as the picture analogy reasoning is concerned, the high creative thinking are obviously different. As opposed to the high creative thinking, no differences were found among the groups. The reaction time of primary middle school students,, significant of linguistic reasoning differences are obvious between the groups. In the high middle school students, No differences were found in the correction rates of picture and linguistic analogy reasoning between two groups. The high and low levels creative thinking of the high middle school students, no differences were found among the groups.
引文
[1]Connell ke.Buy back programs in commercial fisheries:Efficiency versus transfers Quinn Weninger[J].The Canadian Journal of Economics,2000,33(2):394
[1]Wharton C M,Grafman J,Flitman S S,et al.Toward neuroanatomical models of analogy:A positron emission topography study of analogical reasoning.Cognitive Psychology,2000,40:173-197.
[2]Holyoak K J.The pragmatics of analogical transfer.In:GH Bower(Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation.New york:A-cademicpress.1985.
[3]Piaget J,Montangero J,Billeter J.Les Correlats.In J.Piaget(Ed.),L'Abstraction R eflechissante.Pairs:Presses Universitaires de Franc,1977.
[1]Sternberg J,Nigro G.Development patterns in the solution of verb-analogies.Child Development,1980,51:27-38.
[1]沃建中,心理加工速度发展的研究进展[J],心理学动态,2001,9(4):311-318
[2]Salthouse TA,Aging and measures of processing speed.Biological Psychology,2002,54:35-54
[3]Brigman S,Cherry K E,Age,speed of information processing,recall,and fluid intelligence.Intelligence,1995,20:229-248.
[4]Salthouse TA,The processing speed theory of adult age differences in cognition.Psychological Review,1996,103(3):403-428
[1]Wilhelm O,Schulze R.The relation of speeded and unspeeded reasoning with mental speed.Intelligence,2002,30:537-55
[2]Halpern D F,Hanson C&Riefer D.Analogies as an aid to understanding and memory.Journal of Educational Psycholigy,1990,82(2):298-305.
[3]Keane M T.What makes an analogy difficult?The effects of order and causal structure on analogical mapping.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Leatning,Memory,and Cognition,1997,23(4):946-967
[4]Kubose T T,Holyoak K J,Hummel J E.The role of textual coherence in incremental analogical mapping.Journal of Memory & Language,2002,47(3):407-435.
[1]Gentner D,Markman AB.Structure mapping in analogy and similarity,American Psychologist,1997,52:45-56
[2]Wharton C M,Holyoak K J,Lange T E,Remote analogical reminding,Memory & Cognition,1996,23:629-643
[3]Yanowitz K L,The effects of similarity of theme and instantiation in analogical reasoning.American Journal of Psychology,2001114(4):547-567
[4]Chen Z.Children's Analogical Problem Solving:The Effects Superficial,Structural,and Procedual similarity.Journal of Experimental child Psychology,1996,62:410-431.
[5]Brown A L,Analogical Learning and Transfer:Whar Developing?In:S Vosnidou & A,Ortony.Similiarity and Analogical Reasoning.London:Cambridge University Press,1989《369-412.
[6]Yanowitz KL,Transfer of structure-related and arbitrary information in analogical reasoning.The Psychological Record,2001,51:357-379.
[1]Barnett H G.Innovation:the Basis of Cultural change.McGrow-Hill Book Company,Inc.Princeton,etc,1963.
[2]曲衍立、张梅玲,类比迁移研究综述[J],心理学动态,2000.2
[3]吴文丽,初中生创造性思维加工策略及其测试研究,湖南师范大学硕士论文,2003.4
[1]张景焕,中学生创造性思维发展特点研究[J],当代教育科学,2004.5
[2]张林,青少年工作记忆的年龄差异:脑事件相关电位研究,南京师范大学硕士论文,2005.4
[3]贾谊峰,中学生类比推理发展特点的实验研究,西南师范大学硕士论文,2005.4
[1]郑日昌、肖蓓玲,创造思维测验手册[M],北京:北京师范大学出版社,1993
[1]Mehmet Bahar,Mike H Hansell.The relationship between some psychological factors and their effect on theperformance of grid questions and word association tests.Educational Psychology.Dorchester-on-Thames:Sep 2000.Vol.20.Iss.3:P349(16 PAGES)
[1]Chihiro yokoyama,Hideo Tsukada,Yasuyoshi Watanabe,Hirotaka Onoe.A Dynamic Shift of Neural Network Activity before and after learning-set Formation.Cerebral Cortex.Newyork:Jun 2005.Vol.15.Iss.6:p.796.
[1]Dan Chiappe,kevin MacDonald.The Evolution of Domain-General Mechanisms in Intellifence and learning.The Journal of General Psychology.Provincetown:Jan 2005.Vol.132,Iss.1;p.5(36)
[2]Franck Carpentier,Paul M Smeets,Dermot Barnes-Holmes,lan Stewart.Matching derived functionally-same stimulus relations:equivalence-equivalence and classical analogies The psychological Record.Gambier:Spring 2004.Vol.54.Iss.2:p255(19 pages).
[1]韦特海默著、林宗基译,创造性思维[M].北京:教育科学出版社,1987年第一版。
[2]郑日昌、肖蓓玲,创造思维测验手册[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1993。
[3]沃建中,心理加工速度发展的研究进展[J],心理学动态,2001,9(4):311-318。
[4]颜峰、罗尧成,创造力研究的新进展及其对人才培养的启示[J].湖南商学院学报,2001 8(6):94-950
[5]陈彩琦,华南师范大学学报(社科版)[J],2004(6):114-1200
[6]刘昌,人类工作记忆的某些神经影像研究[J],心理学报,2002,34(6):634-642.
[7]沈德立、白学军著,实验儿童心理学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2004年7月第一版。
[8]鲁忠义、杜建政著,记忆心理学[M].北京:人民教育出版社,2005年11月第一版。
[9]张文新、谷传华著,创造力发展心理学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2004年11月第一版。
[10]林崇德著,发展心理学[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社,2002年5月第一版。
[11]罗伯特.J.斯滕博格主编、施建农等译,创造力手册[M].北京:北京理工大学出版社,2005年9月第一版。
[12]唐慧琳、刘昌,工作记忆对类比推理的影响[J].心理学探新,2006(4)26-31.
[13]蔡笑岳、朱雨洁,中小学生创造性倾向、智力及学业成绩的相关研究[J].心理发展与教育,2007(2):36-41。
[14]周丹、施建农,从信息加工角度看创造力过程[J].心理科学进展,2005(13)6:721-727。
[15]冯廷勇、李红,类比推理发展理论述评[J].西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002.28(4):49-470
[16]伍景玉著,类比推理专项突破[M].京华出版社,2005年11月。
[17]卢又燃、耿道颖,工作记忆的功能磁共振研究进展[J],国外医学,临床放射学 分册,2005(4)
[18]俞国良.创造力心理学.浙江人民出版社,1996:59.
[19]林幸台,王木荣.威廉斯创造力测验.心理出版社,1994.
[20]唐慧琳、刘昌,类比推理的影响因素及脑生理基础研究[J],心理科学进展,2004,12(2):193-200
[21]张向葵、徐国庆,有关类比推理过程中的图式归纳研究综述[J],心理科学,2003,26(5)
[22]冯廷勇、李红,类比推理发展理论述评[J],西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002,7(4)
[23]杨静,类比推理与创造性思维刍议[J],泰安师专学报,2001,5
[24]贾谊峰,中学生类比推理发展特点的实验研究,西南师大硕士学位论文,2005,4
[25]张晓光,国内类比推理研究综述[J],哲学动态,2000,5
[26]唐慧琳,工作记忆、加工速度对类比推理的影响,南京师大硕士学位论文,2004,4
[27]张景焕,中学生创造性思维发展特点研究[J],当代教育科学,2004.5
[28]张林,青少年工作记忆的年龄差异:脑事件相关电位研究,南京师范大学硕士论文,2005.4
[29]李德明、刘昌等,加工速度和工作记忆在认知毕生发展过程中的作用[J],南京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2004,1:81-87
[30]陈英和,认知发展心理学[M],杭州:浙江人民出版社,1996
[1] John E.Fisk.Age and probabilistic reasoning:Biases in conjunctive,disjunctive and Bayesian judgments in early and late adulthood.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,Chichester:Jan 2005.Vol.18,Iss.1:P.55(28)
[2] Franzis Preckel, Heinz Holling, Michaela Wiese. Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 159-170.
[3] Sterberg R J,Rifkin B.The development of analogical reasoning processes.Journal of Experiment Child Psychology, 1979,27:195-232.
[4] Goldman S R,Pellegrino J W,Parseghian P,et al.Decelopment and individual differences in verbal analogical ressonging. Child Development, 1982,52:550-559.
[5] SUB H M,Oberauer K,Wittmann W W,etal.Working-memory capacity explains reason ability and a little bit more.Intelligence,2002,30:261 -288.
[6] Usha Goswami. Analogical reasoning in children. Hove: Lowrence Erlbaum Associates 1992:1-3, 17-23. 49-57.
[7] Ortony A. Why metaphors are necessary and not justice. Educational Theory,1985. 25, 43-53.
[8] Wharton C M, Grafman J, Flitman S S, et al. Toward neuroanatomical models of analogy: A positron emission topography study of analogical reasoning.Cognitive Psychology, 2000, 40:173-197.
[9] Holyoak K J. The pragmatics of analogical transfer. In: GH Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: A-cademicPress.1985.
[10] Piaget J, Montangero J, Billeter J. Les Correlats. In J. Piaget (Ed.), L' Abstraction Reflechissante. Pairs: Presses Universitaires de Franc. 1977.
[11] Kolodner J L, Narayanan H, Hmelo C. Problem-based learning meets cased-reasoning. In E. Domesshek&D. Eddeelman(Eds.).Proceedings of the 1996 international Conference of the learning Sciences (P. 188-195) VA:American Association for Computers in Education, 1996.
[12] Brown A L,Analogical Psychology, Kane M J, Long C. Analogical transfer as tools for communication and exposition.in young children: Applied Cognitivel989, 3: 275-293.
[13]Keil F C, Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.
[14] Salthouse T A, Aging and measures of processing speed.BiologicalPsychology,2002, 54: 35-54.
[15] Brigman S, Cherry K E,.Age, speed of information processing, recall and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 1995,20: 229-248.
[16] Salthouse T A. The processing speed theory of adult age differences in cognition Psychological Review, 1996. 103(3):403-428
[17] Wilhelm O, Schulze R. The relation of speeded and unspeeded reasoning with mental speed. Intelligence, 2002, 30: 537-554.
[18] Halpern D F, Hanson C&Riefer D. Analogies as an aid to understanding and memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1990, 82 (2): 298-305.
[19] Gentner D, Markman A B. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 1997,52: 45-56.
[20] Wharton C M, Holyoak K J, Lange T E. Remote analogical reminding. Memory and Cognition, 1996, 24: 629-643.
[21] Yanowitz K L. The effects of similarity of theme and instantiation in analogical reasoning. American Journal of Psychology.2001, 114(4):547-567.
[22] Chen Z. Children's Analogical Problem Solving: The Effects Superficial,Structural, and Procedual similarity.Journal of Experimental child Psychology, 1996. 62: 410-431
[23] Brown AL.Analogical Learning and Transfer: What Developing? In:S Vosnidou and A Ortony. Similiarity and Analogical Ressoning. London:Cambridge University Press. 1989: 369-412.
[24] Yanowitz K L. Transfer of structure-related and arbitrary information in analogical reasoning. The Psychological Record, 2001,51:357-379.
[25] Baddeley AD. Hitchi GJ. Working memory [A].In:Bower GA. I n:Bower GA The Psychology of learning and Motivation[M].New York: Academic Press 1974:47-89.
[26] Baddeley AD. The episodic buffer:A new component of working memory? [J]Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2000, 4:417-423
[27] Copeland D E, Radvanskv G A.WOrking memory and svlloaislic reasoning.Quarlerlv Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 2004, 57(8):1437 — 1457.
[28] Markovi Ls H. Down C. Simoneau M. Individual dilTerences in working memory and conditional reasoninn with concrete and abstract content. Thinking and Reasoning. 2002, 8( 2):97-107.
[29] Arthur B Markman Dedre Gentner. Thinking. Annual Review of Psychology.Palo Alto: 2001.Vol. 52;p.223.
[30] Miyake A. Working memory: The past ,the present,and the future [A]. In: Osaka N. The brain and working memory[M].Kyoto: Kyoto University Press 200:311-329.
[31] Wim D.Walter S. Gerv D.Working memory and everyday condilional reasoning: Retrieval and inhihilion of stored counterex-amples. Thinkinn and Reasoninn, 2005, 11( 4):349- 381
[32] Engle RW.Working memory capacity as executive attention[J].Current Directions in psychological Science,2002,11(1): 19-23
[33] Arthur B Markman,Dedre Gentner.Thinking.Annual Review of Psychology.Palo A vol.52:p.223(25)
[34] Dan Chiappe,kevin MacDonald.The Evolution of Domain-General Mechanisms in Intellifence and learning.The Journal of General Psychology.Provincetown:Jan 2005.Vol.132,Iss.1;p.5(36)
[35] Gentner D,Metaphor as structure mapping:The relational shift.Chid Development, 1988,59:47-59
[36] Kubose T T,Holyoak K J,Hummel J E.The role of textual coherence in incremental analogical mapping.Journal of Memory & Language,2002,47(3):407-435.
[1]Wharton C M,Grafman J,Flitman S S,et al.Toward neuroanatomical models of analogy:A positron emission topography study of analogical reasoning.Cognitive Psychology,2000,40:173-197.
[2]Holyoak K J.The pragmatics of analogical transfer.In:GH Bower(Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation.New york:A-cademicpress.1985.
[3]Piaget J,Montangero J,Billeter J.Les Correlats.In J.Piaget(Ed.),L'Abstraction R eflechissante.Pairs:Presses Universitaires de Franc,1977.
[1]Sternberg J,Nigro G.Development patterns in the solution of verb-analogies.Child Development,1980,51:27-38.
[1]沃建中,心理加工速度发展的研究进展[J],心理学动态,2001,9(4):311-318
[2]Salthouse TA,Aging and measures of processing speed.Biological Psychology,2002,54:35-54
[3]Brigman S,Cherry K E,Age,speed of information processing,recall,and fluid intelligence.Intelligence,1995,20:229-248.
[4]Salthouse TA,The processing speed theory of adult age differences in cognition.Psychological Review,1996,103(3):403-428
[1]Wilhelm O,Schulze R.The relation of speeded and unspeeded reasoning with mental speed.Intelligence,2002,30:537-55
[2]Halpern D F,Hanson C&Riefer D.Analogies as an aid to understanding and memory.Journal of Educational Psycholigy,1990,82(2):298-305.
[3]Keane M T.What makes an analogy difficult?The effects of order and causal structure on analogical mapping.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Leatning,Memory,and Cognition,1997,23(4):946-967
[4]Kubose T T,Holyoak K J,Hummel J E.The role of textual coherence in incremental analogical mapping.Journal of Memory & Language,2002,47(3):407-435.
[1]Gentner D,Markman AB.Structure mapping in analogy and similarity,American Psychologist,1997,52:45-56
[2]Wharton C M,Holyoak K J,Lange T E,Remote analogical reminding,Memory & Cognition,1996,23:629-643
[3]Yanowitz K L,The effects of similarity of theme and instantiation in analogical reasoning.American Journal of Psychology,2001114(4):547-567
[4]Chen Z.Children's Analogical Problem Solving:The Effects Superficial,Structural,and Procedual similarity.Journal of Experimental child Psychology,1996,62:410-431.
[5]Brown A L,Analogical Learning and Transfer:Whar Developing?In:S Vosnidou & A,Ortony.Similiarity and Analogical Reasoning.London:Cambridge University Press,1989《369-412.
[6]Yanowitz KL,Transfer of structure-related and arbitrary information in analogical reasoning.The Psychological Record,2001,51:357-379.
[1]Barnett H G.Innovation:the Basis of Cultural change.McGrow-Hill Book Company,Inc.Princeton,etc,1963.
[2]曲衍立、张梅玲,类比迁移研究综述[J],心理学动态,2000.2
[3]吴文丽,初中生创造性思维加工策略及其测试研究,湖南师范大学硕士论文,2003.4
[1]张景焕,中学生创造性思维发展特点研究[J],当代教育科学,2004.5
[2]张林,青少年工作记忆的年龄差异:脑事件相关电位研究,南京师范大学硕士论文,2005.4
[3]贾谊峰,中学生类比推理发展特点的实验研究,西南师范大学硕士论文,2005.4
[1]郑日昌、肖蓓玲,创造思维测验手册[M],北京:北京师范大学出版社,1993
[1]Mehmet Bahar,Mike H Hansell.The relationship between some psychological factors and their effect on theperformance of grid questions and word association tests.Educational Psychology.Dorchester-on-Thames:Sep 2000.Vol.20.Iss.3:P349(16 PAGES)
[1]Chihiro yokoyama,Hideo Tsukada,Yasuyoshi Watanabe,Hirotaka Onoe.A Dynamic Shift of Neural Network Activity before and after learning-set Formation.Cerebral Cortex.Newyork:Jun 2005.Vol.15.Iss.6:p.796.
[1]Dan Chiappe,kevin MacDonald.The Evolution of Domain-General Mechanisms in Intellifence and learning.The Journal of General Psychology.Provincetown:Jan 2005.Vol.132,Iss.1;p.5(36)
[2]Franck Carpentier,Paul M Smeets,Dermot Barnes-Holmes,lan Stewart.Matching derived functionally-same stimulus relations:equivalence-equivalence and classical analogies The psychological Record.Gambier:Spring 2004.Vol.54.Iss.2:p255(19 pages).
[1]韦特海默著、林宗基译,创造性思维[M].北京:教育科学出版社,1987年第一版。
[2]郑日昌、肖蓓玲,创造思维测验手册[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1993。
[3]沃建中,心理加工速度发展的研究进展[J],心理学动态,2001,9(4):311-318。
[4]颜峰、罗尧成,创造力研究的新进展及其对人才培养的启示[J].湖南商学院学报,2001 8(6):94-950
[5]陈彩琦,华南师范大学学报(社科版)[J],2004(6):114-1200
[6]刘昌,人类工作记忆的某些神经影像研究[J],心理学报,2002,34(6):634-642.
[7]沈德立、白学军著,实验儿童心理学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2004年7月第一版。
[8]鲁忠义、杜建政著,记忆心理学[M].北京:人民教育出版社,2005年11月第一版。
[9]张文新、谷传华著,创造力发展心理学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2004年11月第一版。
[10]林崇德著,发展心理学[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社,2002年5月第一版。
[11]罗伯特.J.斯滕博格主编、施建农等译,创造力手册[M].北京:北京理工大学出版社,2005年9月第一版。
[12]唐慧琳、刘昌,工作记忆对类比推理的影响[J].心理学探新,2006(4)26-31.
[13]蔡笑岳、朱雨洁,中小学生创造性倾向、智力及学业成绩的相关研究[J].心理发展与教育,2007(2):36-41。
[14]周丹、施建农,从信息加工角度看创造力过程[J].心理科学进展,2005(13)6:721-727。
[15]冯廷勇、李红,类比推理发展理论述评[J].西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002.28(4):49-470
[16]伍景玉著,类比推理专项突破[M].京华出版社,2005年11月。
[17]卢又燃、耿道颖,工作记忆的功能磁共振研究进展[J],国外医学,临床放射学 分册,2005(4)
[18]俞国良.创造力心理学.浙江人民出版社,1996:59.
[19]林幸台,王木荣.威廉斯创造力测验.心理出版社,1994.
[20]唐慧琳、刘昌,类比推理的影响因素及脑生理基础研究[J],心理科学进展,2004,12(2):193-200
[21]张向葵、徐国庆,有关类比推理过程中的图式归纳研究综述[J],心理科学,2003,26(5)
[22]冯廷勇、李红,类比推理发展理论述评[J],西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002,7(4)
[23]杨静,类比推理与创造性思维刍议[J],泰安师专学报,2001,5
[24]贾谊峰,中学生类比推理发展特点的实验研究,西南师大硕士学位论文,2005,4
[25]张晓光,国内类比推理研究综述[J],哲学动态,2000,5
[26]唐慧琳,工作记忆、加工速度对类比推理的影响,南京师大硕士学位论文,2004,4
[27]张景焕,中学生创造性思维发展特点研究[J],当代教育科学,2004.5
[28]张林,青少年工作记忆的年龄差异:脑事件相关电位研究,南京师范大学硕士论文,2005.4
[29]李德明、刘昌等,加工速度和工作记忆在认知毕生发展过程中的作用[J],南京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2004,1:81-87
[30]陈英和,认知发展心理学[M],杭州:浙江人民出版社,1996
[1] John E.Fisk.Age and probabilistic reasoning:Biases in conjunctive,disjunctive and Bayesian judgments in early and late adulthood.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,Chichester:Jan 2005.Vol.18,Iss.1:P.55(28)
[2] Franzis Preckel, Heinz Holling, Michaela Wiese. Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 159-170.
[3] Sterberg R J,Rifkin B.The development of analogical reasoning processes.Journal of Experiment Child Psychology, 1979,27:195-232.
[4] Goldman S R,Pellegrino J W,Parseghian P,et al.Decelopment and individual differences in verbal analogical ressonging. Child Development, 1982,52:550-559.
[5] SUB H M,Oberauer K,Wittmann W W,etal.Working-memory capacity explains reason ability and a little bit more.Intelligence,2002,30:261 -288.
[6] Usha Goswami. Analogical reasoning in children. Hove: Lowrence Erlbaum Associates 1992:1-3, 17-23. 49-57.
[7] Ortony A. Why metaphors are necessary and not justice. Educational Theory,1985. 25, 43-53.
[8] Wharton C M, Grafman J, Flitman S S, et al. Toward neuroanatomical models of analogy: A positron emission topography study of analogical reasoning.Cognitive Psychology, 2000, 40:173-197.
[9] Holyoak K J. The pragmatics of analogical transfer. In: GH Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: A-cademicPress.1985.
[10] Piaget J, Montangero J, Billeter J. Les Correlats. In J. Piaget (Ed.), L' Abstraction Reflechissante. Pairs: Presses Universitaires de Franc. 1977.
[11] Kolodner J L, Narayanan H, Hmelo C. Problem-based learning meets cased-reasoning. In E. Domesshek&D. Eddeelman(Eds.).Proceedings of the 1996 international Conference of the learning Sciences (P. 188-195) VA:American Association for Computers in Education, 1996.
[12] Brown A L,Analogical Psychology, Kane M J, Long C. Analogical transfer as tools for communication and exposition.in young children: Applied Cognitivel989, 3: 275-293.
[13]Keil F C, Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.
[14] Salthouse T A, Aging and measures of processing speed.BiologicalPsychology,2002, 54: 35-54.
[15] Brigman S, Cherry K E,.Age, speed of information processing, recall and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 1995,20: 229-248.
[16] Salthouse T A. The processing speed theory of adult age differences in cognition Psychological Review, 1996. 103(3):403-428
[17] Wilhelm O, Schulze R. The relation of speeded and unspeeded reasoning with mental speed. Intelligence, 2002, 30: 537-554.
[18] Halpern D F, Hanson C&Riefer D. Analogies as an aid to understanding and memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1990, 82 (2): 298-305.
[19] Gentner D, Markman A B. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 1997,52: 45-56.
[20] Wharton C M, Holyoak K J, Lange T E. Remote analogical reminding. Memory and Cognition, 1996, 24: 629-643.
[21] Yanowitz K L. The effects of similarity of theme and instantiation in analogical reasoning. American Journal of Psychology.2001, 114(4):547-567.
[22] Chen Z. Children's Analogical Problem Solving: The Effects Superficial,Structural, and Procedual similarity.Journal of Experimental child Psychology, 1996. 62: 410-431
[23] Brown AL.Analogical Learning and Transfer: What Developing? In:S Vosnidou and A Ortony. Similiarity and Analogical Ressoning. London:Cambridge University Press. 1989: 369-412.
[24] Yanowitz K L. Transfer of structure-related and arbitrary information in analogical reasoning. The Psychological Record, 2001,51:357-379.
[25] Baddeley AD. Hitchi GJ. Working memory [A].In:Bower GA. I n:Bower GA The Psychology of learning and Motivation[M].New York: Academic Press 1974:47-89.
[26] Baddeley AD. The episodic buffer:A new component of working memory? [J]Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2000, 4:417-423
[27] Copeland D E, Radvanskv G A.WOrking memory and svlloaislic reasoning.Quarlerlv Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 2004, 57(8):1437 — 1457.
[28] Markovi Ls H. Down C. Simoneau M. Individual dilTerences in working memory and conditional reasoninn with concrete and abstract content. Thinking and Reasoning. 2002, 8( 2):97-107.
[29] Arthur B Markman Dedre Gentner. Thinking. Annual Review of Psychology.Palo Alto: 2001.Vol. 52;p.223.
[30] Miyake A. Working memory: The past ,the present,and the future [A]. In: Osaka N. The brain and working memory[M].Kyoto: Kyoto University Press 200:311-329.
[31] Wim D.Walter S. Gerv D.Working memory and everyday condilional reasoning: Retrieval and inhihilion of stored counterex-amples. Thinkinn and Reasoninn, 2005, 11( 4):349- 381
[32] Engle RW.Working memory capacity as executive attention[J].Current Directions in psychological Science,2002,11(1): 19-23
[33] Arthur B Markman,Dedre Gentner.Thinking.Annual Review of Psychology.Palo A vol.52:p.223(25)
[34] Dan Chiappe,kevin MacDonald.The Evolution of Domain-General Mechanisms in Intellifence and learning.The Journal of General Psychology.Provincetown:Jan 2005.Vol.132,Iss.1;p.5(36)
[35] Gentner D,Metaphor as structure mapping:The relational shift.Chid Development, 1988,59:47-59
[36] Kubose T T,Holyoak K J,Hummel J E.The role of textual coherence in incremental analogical mapping.Journal of Memory & Language,2002,47(3):407-435.