兒童의 類目-包括에 관한 一硏究

Abstract

本 硏究는 學童期의 아동을 대상으로 한 연구로서 첫째, 類目 - 包括能力이 適正水準에 達하는 年齡을 알아 보고 둘째, 類目 - 包括項目의 제시방법을 변화시킴으로써 나타나는 효과 중 言語促進效果를 檢證하고 셋째, 類目 - 包括修行의 失敗의 원인을 立證하고자 하였다. 本 實驗에는 180명의 국민학교 학생이 참가했다. 그들은 1, 3, 5학년 각각 60명씩 男女同數로서 학급內의 성적 순위기 중위권이었다. 實驗條件은 冬日한 10쌍의 類目을 他色 - 視覺的 提示, 同色 - 視覺的 提示와 聽覺的 提示로 失恃하되 각 조건 중 5쌍의 類目에는 類目 - 包括質問前에 "이 중 어느 한 개가 없어진다면"라는 節을 提示했다. 아동은 세 조건에 無選區劃配定되었다. 한 아동은 세 실험조건 중 한 조건으로 10쌍의 類目 각각에 대한 一連의 질문을 받는다. 類目 - 包括質問은 아동에게 提示된 한 쌍의 類目 중 하나와 그에 對應하는 上位類目 間의 量的 比較를 요구한다. 그 질문에서 아동이 相對的으로 많다고 생각하는 類目을 答하면 "그것이 여기에 몇 개 있느냐"고 附加質問을 했다. 類目 - 包括質問에 대한 아동의 對答을 變量分析한 결과 年齡과 課題가 有義한 主效果를 나타냈다. 즉, 아동의 연령이 증가할수록 類目 - 초括修行이 向上되었다. 本 硏究에서 類目 - 包括이 適正水準에 達하는 年齡은 11세로 나타났다. 課題의 提示條件에 의한 效果는 他色 - 視覺的 提示를 기준으로 할 때 同色 - 視覺的 提示와 聽覺的 提示 順이었으며, 同色 - 視覺的 提示가 聽覺的 提示보다 有義한 效果를 나타냈다. 그러므로, 本 硏究에서 言語促進效果는 微弱했다. 그리고, 類目 - 包括質問에 對한 아동의 答을 分析한 結果 類目 - 包括修行의 失敗는 提示된 한 쌍의 類目 중 한 類目과 그에 對應하는 上位類目의 比較를 요구하는 條件에서 아동이 任意로, 提示된 한 쌍의 下位類目 사이의 比較 즉 個別的 比較를 행하기 때문인 것으로 밝혀졌다.;The previous literatures regarding the relation between age and class-inclusion have shown discrepancies since Piaget(1964) reported that class-inclusion develops by approximately nine years of age, ages at which other concrete operational skills are mastered. In a study that stimulated much additional research, Wohlwill(1968) showed that class-inclusion questions presented in a purely verbal manner, that is, without any pictures or concrete objects, were less difficult than typical questions that made reference to pictures. Those additional research showed discrepancies in the Wohlwill's(1968) verbal facilitation effect. But Wohlwill's findings still present Piaget's theory with some difficulty. The present study was made, under controlling agewise and social class of subjects, to examine, first, the age at which class-inclusion develops, second, verbal facilitation effect and nother effect due to variant types of modality, third, the cause of class-inclusion failures. This study was made on the hypotheses that the age, at which class-inclusion develops is approximately nine, and that verbal facilitation effect is more significant than another effect caused by different types of modality, and that the cause of class-inclusion failures is treating a collective comparison as a distributive one as Shipley(1979) contended. It was supposed in the present study, as Winer(1980) did, that discrepancies in the results of previous experiments would be fundamentally due to the absence of control of the agewise of subjects, the content and the structure of class-inclusion questions, and the pretest procedures. It was also supposed that verbal facilitation effect was due to the absence or removal of distracting perceptual cues, as Wohlwill(1968) maintained. The subjects were 180 children from two schools in Seoul. They were said to be ordinary students in the first, third, and firth grades. Each grade was represented by sixty children, equally divided between the sexes. Their agewise was controlled by their teachers. They were assigned by blocked randomization to the three experimental conditions: pictures of different color condition, pictures of same color condition, and purely verbal condition. There are ten class-inclusion questions for each condition. Five of them are the same as the other five except that they include an if-clause; "If one of them is taken away," Each question is followed by an additional question; "How many of the class that you said are here?" The analysis of variance was carried out on the subjects' answers to the question. The result of the experiment is that the inclusion of that if-clause did make no significant difference. And the age, at which class-inclusion develops was approximately eleven. This result does not support Piaget's report(1964) on the age, at which class-inclusion develops. The two variables, the age and the type of modality showed significant interaction between them. The verbal facilitation effect was less significant than another effect based on variance of modality. So Wohlwill(1968) made mistakes of assigning no control group and another varianc-e of modality. And the verbal facilitation effect claimed by Wohlwill is no problem to Piaget's theory. Class-inclusion failures in children were due to distributive comparison. Because of field dependency and lack of knowledge of the world, children tend to choose distributive comparison rather than collective comparison. So present study suggests that additional research should consider the relation between field dependency, impulsivity and class-inclusion failures.