領域、論辯立場與論辯方式對知識探究技能與科學認識論的影響

Abstract

Construction of scientific knowledge relies critically on the application of a set of knowledge inquiry skills and the understanding of scientific epistemology. Central to scientific epistemology is the understanding that all knowledge is constructed by humans and is subject to multiple interpretations and errors, and consequently, method of knowing is critical to account for the validity of knowledge constructed. Scientific method is, so far, considered the most reliable method for obtaining reliable knowledge because in scientific inquires, one’s theory must be falsifiable, and the method to falsify a theory is by appealing to counter-evidences. Argumentation is therefore an important skill in scientific inquiry. Argumentation requires that one must take a position regarding a controversial issue, examine theories and evidences in accordance to one’s own position, and examine theories and evidences that are inconsistent with one’s position and respond to them. A claim can be retained only if it can remain intact after vigorous argumentation. Because argumentation involves coordination of evidence and theory, and refutation and falsification between proponent’s view and opponent’s view, we predict that argumentation practice can be an effective method for enhancing students’ knowledge inquiry skills and also enhancing their understanding of scientific epistemology. In the present study, we will manipulate college students’ argument stand (proponent vs. opponent), argument method (individual vs. dyad), and domain (science vs. technology) in argumentation practice to see which kinds of argumentation design are effective for enhancing knowledge inquiry skills and scientific epistemology. Our prediction is that, practicing argumentation under dyad condition while taking an opponent stand will put people in a falsification task so that they have to be critical about the certainty of the claim posited in a science or technology issue, it therefore would lead to greater effect in enhancing participants’ knowledge inquiry skills and scientific epistemology, relative to other design. The study will be divided into 3 separate experiments and will be completed in 3 years.