科學與科技研究的知識探索技能之差異性研究

Abstract

本研究的目的是探討在科學與科技研究上，人的知識探究行為是否有差異，以及主修知識領域與專業訓練時間對科學與科技知識探究行為的影響。研究中以議題（科學議題、科技議題）、主修領域（科學領域、科技領域）、專業程度（大學生、研究生）三個方式來檢視人們在科學與科技研究上知識探究行為的差異。94名主修科學與科技背景的大學生與研究生被要求審查一個科學和一個科技研究計劃書。知識探索技能是由評論內容中所反應的論證結構（研究價值、解釋、證據、研究方法、反駁方式、異例的偵測）來衡量。結果發現，大學程度以上的學生對科學與科技研究的知識探究行為在論證結構上差異不大，但論證的重點不同，在科學研究，他們較著重學術價值、解釋的完整性、解釋是否存在另有主張、證據的有效性、研究方法的內在效度與外在效度等，且會以另有主張來質疑研究中主張，也會由證據中是否存在異例來探索是否有其他可能的原因。在科技研究，他們著重的是新技術相對於舊技術的實務價值、成本效益、技術可行性，並以主張的解釋品質進行評論。但接受科技教育的參與者，對於證據的要求會因訓練的時間加長而下降。對異例的偵測方面，參與者對科學議題中異例的偵測高於科技議題，但科技背景的研究生偵測到異例的比例偏低；不過他們批評科學議題中未對異例加以解釋的比例卻是最高的，但此批評並不全然正確，顯示隨著科技教育訓練時間增加，學生對證據中的異例的敏感度下降。整體而言，科技研究在對知識正確性的驗證要求上較科學研究低。

The purpose of the study was to investigate the differences between science and technology in knowledge inquiry skills. Ninety-four undergraduate and graduate students majoring in science or technology were asked to review and comment on two research proposals, one in science and one in technology. Their responses were content-analyzed in terms of argument structure (value, explanation, evidence, research method), method of refutation, and anomaly detection. Results showed that participants adopted similar argument structures when examining science and technology. But compared to the technological issue, they would demand more academic contribution, thorough explanation, evidence, and internal and external validity of research methodology when reviewing the scientific issue. Further, they tended to search for alternative explanations as a method of refutation, and detected more anomaly in data. In contrast, participants would demand more practical contribution, technical feasibility, and cost and benefit analysis when reviewing technology research. The assertion-based refutation was the most common way to refute a technological issue. In addition, the sensitivity to evidence and anomaly seemed to diminish for engineering students as their level of training increased. The results suggest that there are epistemological differences in people’s conception of knowledge construction and validation in science and technology, and this difference may be more evident for those with more engineering training.