出版社：Nihon Kyoiku Shinri Gakkai,Japanese Association of Educational Psychology
摘要：The problem of motivation has often been ignored in laboratory studies on human learning. This might be because i) a set of instructions works as a procedure producing quasi-motivation, ii) the effect of motivation can be neglected when E controls Ss' learning activities, and iii) knowledge of results is sufficient to reinforce Ss' responses. But as in classroom learning, where a learner can seek information outside of E's control or has to deal selectively with relevant information, motivation should be considered. On the other hand, traditional motivating procedures used in the classroom have extrinsic in nature, i. e., publicizing performance or letting pupils compete with each other. The concept of intrinsic motivation instigating and rewarding learning without depending on factors other than learning processes themselves has been promoted recently. This symposium was conducted in order to clarify the present state of and future research on cognitive motivation or curiosity, which is “almost a prototype of the intrinsic motive” (Bruner). Inagaki hypothesized two mechanisms of cognitive motivation: diversive curiosity maintaining an optimal level of information processing and speciE curiosity reducing cognitive incongruity or dissonance. She has been concerned with the learning aroused by specific curiosity. She asserted that the following three characteristic behavioral events were observed: i) cognitive curiosity was aroused by incongruity-producing information and this made pupils interested in getting further information, ii) actual information gathering behavior, such as writing a postcard asking questions, was elicited, and iii) one and the same unit or block of information was more effectively acquired, and generalized when it functioned to reduce incongruity than when it didnot. Itakura postulated that scientific knowledge i) can be acquired only by experiments, and ii) is a kind of social knowledge. These basic principles imply that science education can be effective only when each pupil has an intention to explore a certain phenomenon and to share knowledge. He and his co-workers have developed a method of science education called kasetsujikken- jigyo (hypothesis-experiment-instruction). Instead of textbooks and notebooks, pupils and teachers are given “instruction papers” containing problems of appropriate intellectual interest and difficulty, whose correct answers may be demonstrated clearly. Usually a problem has 3 or 4 alternative solutions, each representing a discrete hypothesis. Each pupil must choose an alternative. The teacher surveys the distribution of answers, summarizing it into a table. Some pupils are asked to explain their ground of anticipations. Then the teacher encourages discussion among pupils differing in their anticipations, but no one is forced to speak. Ideally, during the discussion, the child becomes concerned with the underlying process, while retaining his interest in the outcome -that is, he wants to know “why” as well as “what”. Finally, the teacher-conducts the experiment, conclusively demonstratingt he correct solution. Itakura asserted that difficult problems, not amenable to solution by mere common sense, should be presented in the first part, and easy ones requiring application of knowledge later.
其他摘要：The problem of motivation has often been ignored in laboratory studies on human learning. This might be because i) a set of instructions works as a procedure producing quasi-motivation, ii) the effect of motivation can be neglected when E controls Ss' learning activities, and iii) knowledge of results is sufficient to reinforce Ss' responses. But as in classroom learning, where a learner can seek information outside of E's control or has to deal selectively with relevant information, motivation should be considered. On the other hand, traditional motivating procedures used in the classroom have extrinsic in nature, i. e., publicizing performance or letting pupils compete with each other. The concept of intrinsic motivation instigating and rewarding learning without depending on factors other than learning processes themselves has been promoted recently. This symposium was conducted in order to clarify the present state of and future research on cognitive motivation or curiosity, which is “almost a prototype of the intrinsic motive” (Bruner). Inagaki hypothesized two mechanisms of cognitive motivation: diversive curiosity maintaining an optimal level of information processing and speciE curiosity reducing cognitive incongruity or dissonance. She has been concerned with the learning aroused by specific curiosity. She asserted that the following three characteristic behavioral events were observed: i) cognitive curiosity was aroused by incongruity-producing information and this made pupils interested in getting further information, ii) actual information gathering behavior, such as writing a postcard asking questions, was elicited, and iii) one and the same unit or block of information was more effectively acquired, and generalized when it functioned to reduce incongruity than when it didnot. Itakura postulated that scientific knowledge i) can be acquired only by experiments, and ii) is a kind of social knowledge. These basic principles imply that science education can be effective only when each pupil has an intention to explore a certain phenomenon and to share knowledge. He and his co-workers have developed a method of science education called kasetsujikken- jigyo (hypothesis-experiment-instruction). Instead of textbooks and notebooks, pupils and teachers are given “instruction papers” containing problems of appropriate intellectual interest and difficulty, whose correct answers may be demonstrated clearly. Usually a problem has 3 or 4 alternative solutions, each representing a discrete hypothesis. Each pupil must choose an alternative. The teacher surveys the distribution of answers, summarizing it into a table. Some pupils are asked to explain their ground of anticipations. Then the teacher encourages discussion among pupils differing in their anticipations, but no one is forced to speak. Ideally, during the discussion, the child becomes concerned with the underlying process, while retaining his interest in the outcome -that is, he wants to know “why” as well as “what”. Finally, the teacher-conducts the experiment, conclusively demonstratingt he correct solution. Itakura asserted that difficult problems, not amenable to solution by mere common sense, should be presented in the first part, and easy ones requiring application of knowledge later.
