判別過程における理論構造の影響

This study attempts to investigate the fundamental acts organized into the "Algorithm" which will prescrive a discriminative judgement. The fundamental acts are at least as follows: (1) Perception of some distinctive features which belong to an object. (2) Confirmation of the object synthetically by combinational operation to those features. (3) Identification of the object with a category in comparison with a definition, or a logical statements. If the perceptual acts are not carried out enough, through carelessness or due to ignorance of analytical method, the confirmation of the object will be wrong. In this case, how Mill a judgement be made in comparison with the case in which perceptual acts are prescribed. Secondarily, if the feature is a covert or a negative one, ambiguity may be occured in the process of recognition or synthetic identification. Third problem is to investigate the relationships between the logical structure of discriminative judgement and the development of logical operations. And it may be probably assumed that the logical complexity of a task will provoke particurally subjects located in the lower stage of logical operation to a misjudgement, although the perception is carried out enough. Lastly, in relation to the acts to foresee the final judgement at the several steps, the advantage of the case in which the whole scope of a discriminative procedure is given to Subjects (A-Group) is examined in comparison with the case in which the procedure is indicated successively to Subjects (B-Group). Experimental Procedure 1. Subjects: 51 4th-graders, 59 6th-graders, and 45 8th-graders (2nd graders in Junior High School) 2. Task: to judge the nature of solution by the three kinds of test. 3. Three homogeneous groups set up in intelectual ability. A-Group: Given the whole scope of confirmation through VTR, then asked to reproduce the distinctive procedure. B-Group: Asked to practice actually prescribed acts step by step which are showed through VTR. C-Group: Given only the task and experimental materials, therefore, ought to search for the way of judgement independently. Findings: (1) C-Group attempts to operate the combinational system for the identification of solution, in contrast with A and B groups. (2) Subjects in A and B groups can reproduce or percept the procedure. But it is very difficult for them to judge appropriately at each step. (3) It is much more difficult for them to judge the nature of solution with negative traits and subsumptional relation. (4) Subjects who made correct judgement at final step show dominant positions significantly in foreseeing. (5) A-Group is better than B-Group particulary in foreseeing.