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（II）

Abstract

本研究的目的在將去年對科學知識探索技能的研究延伸至科技領域，探討論辯方式（個人、兩人）、論辯立場（正方、反方）對科技知識的探索技能與認識論的影響。科技知識是應用基礎科學的發現來創造出有用的工具。科技知識的建構有賴科技思考技能的運用與對科技知識本質的認識。科技認識論的核心在於瞭解科技是人建構出來的，不是最終的真理，也不是唯一的解。科技知識須有合理的理論解釋與證據。科技學者透過論辯相互詰問，無法被證偽的知識才會被保留下來，論辯因此是科技思考的核心技能。研究中136位大學生被隨機指派至論辯方式（個人、兩人）X論辯立場（正方、反方）的4個情境中對一科技議題進行論辯練習，再以另一科技議題檢測論辯練習的效果。參與者在後測的論辯表現與無論辯練習的控制組比較後發現，雙人正方論辯的練習可提升參與者論辯時的整體反應量與評論量，主要是他們可發現較多議題中證據與論證邏輯的缺失。雙人反方的表現與雙人正方組接近，但有最高的駁斥反應；單人正方則僅在全部證據量上表現較佳，單人反方表現雖比單人正方略佳，但差異不顯著。這些發現與前一年在科學領域的發現不同，顯示人在處理科學與科技議題時知識探索的重點有差異。

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. Argumentation is an important skill in scientific inquiry because it incorporates both theory/explanation and evidence in examination of a claim. A claim can be retained only if it remains intact after vigorous argumentation. We predicted that argumentation practice is an effective method for enhancing students’ knowledge inquiry skills and also enhancing their understanding of scientific epistemology. In our previous study, we examined this hypothesis with science issues. In the present study, we extended the study to technological issues. One hundred and thirty-six college students were randomly assigned to one of argument stand (proponent vs. opponent), argument method (individual vs. dyad) condition to practice argumentation with one technological issue. The effects of argumentation practice were tested with another technological issue. Data showed that relative to control group, practicing argumentation in dyad can enhance one’s knowledge inquiry skills in terms of total number of arguments and criticisms. The findings are quite different from our previous study using science issues, suggesting that there are differences in scientific inquiry skills and epistemology between these two domains of knowledge.