{"id":3327,"date":"2015-06-02T12:21:48","date_gmt":"2015-06-02T04:21:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.appliedpsyj.org\/journal\/?p=3327"},"modified":"2015-06-02T12:21:58","modified_gmt":"2015-06-02T04:21:58","slug":"behind-the-rule-discovery-the-role-of-collaboration-and-explanation-on-scientific-reasoning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.appliedpsyj.org.tw\/journal\/?p=3327","title":{"rendered":"Behind the Rule Discovery: The Role of Collaboration and Explanation on Scientific Reasoning"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ruey-Yun Horng<\/strong>
\nDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management\u00a0National Chiao Tung University
\nTing-Yu Wu<\/strong>
\nDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management\u00a0Ming-Hsin Institute of Technology<\/p>\n

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\u2019s reasoning during rule discovery. The data were written protocals produced by 114 college students during hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing in Wu, Wu, & Horng\u2019s 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\u2019s hypothesis-testing strategy.<\/p>\n

Keywords\uff1a scientific reasoning, rule discovery, confirmation bias,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ruey-Yun Horng Department of Industrial Engineering and …<\/span> Read More →<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[104],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-104"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t