透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.209.31.38
  • 學位論文

從認識論的觀點探究大學生論證思考之能力與模式

Investigating Undergraduates' Skills and Models of Argumentation from the Perspective of Epistemology

指導教授 : 邱美虹 博士
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


本研究旨在以認識論的觀點探討大學生之論證思考能力與論證模式之差異性,其中所採用的認識論觀點包括:藉由拉卡扥斯之科學研究綱領理論作為分析學生論證模式的基礎架構,並以邏輯經驗主義與進化認識論的觀點分析學生科學判準之依據,進一步探討持有不同科學判準觀點之學生其論證思考能力與論證模式之差異性。 總共有70位受試者參與本論文之研究,其中40位科學主修之受試者,來自桃園縣某私立醫學大學的大學生;30位非科學主修之受試者,來自台北縣某國立藝術大學的大學生。本研究以六個社會科學相關具爭議性的開放性議題為主要工具,進一步藉由受試者的寫作報告分析受試者的論證思考能力、論證模式、與科學判準依據,最後,以小組討論方式探討論證改變的條件。資料分析的部份是以質化與量化兩種分析方式進行。量化的資料部份,是以Excel(Microsoft軟體)、獨立T檢定和MANOVA(SPSS 10.0版)分析不同主修背景、不同科學判準依據、與不同論證能力之受試者其論證思考能力指標表現、論證模式、與理由來源類別的差異性。 本研究結果顯示,以科學研究綱領作為分析論證思考的架構是可行的,但是,所有受試者只有9位受試者可以呈現出完整的科學研究綱領之論證思考模式。研究顯示,進一步可以事實型模式、價值型模式、與政策型模式作為論證思考的硬核模式:科學主修、高論證能力與持進化認識論者在核心概念屬性為「未知有害性」與「已知有害性」時,皆是以事實型模式為硬核之主張;而非科學主修、低論證能力與持邏輯經驗主義者在核心概念屬性為「未知有害性」時,是以價值型模式為硬核之主張,在核心概念屬性為「已知有害性」時是以事實型模式為硬核之主張。科學主修與持有進化認識論之受試者其論證能力總分顯著高於非科學修與持邏輯經驗主義之受試者,進一步分析論證能力指標顯示,在支持理由來源類別數目與正面啟示法兩項論證能力指標有顯著的差異性,而所有受試者的理由來源類別多來自個人經驗與科學信念。就論證改變的研究結果,顯示論證改變與否和受試者的主修背景、論證能力是沒有關係的,並且只有在可理解的、與合理的條件之下論證改變才有可能發生。

關鍵字

認識論 論證思考 能力 模式

並列摘要


The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences of undergraduates’ skills and models of argumentation via the viewpoints of epistemology. On one hand, the researcher used Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as the basic framework to analyze students’ models of argumentation. On the other hand, the researcher analyzed students’ scientific justification according to the viewpoints from logical empiricism and evolutionary epistemology, and investigated the differences of skills and models of argumentation from students who held different scientific justification. Total seventy subjects from two different universities participated this study. There were 40 science-major students from a medical university in Taoyuan county, and the other 30 nonscience-major students from an art university in Taipei county. The main instrument of this study was open-ended questions of six socioscientific and controversial issues. The researcher analyzed students’ skills, models of argumentation, and viewpoints of scientific justification via their writing reports based on the six issues. In the end, the researcher conducted group discussions for exploring the conditions of the change of arguments. The researcher used qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the data. Excel, Independent T test and MANOVA were adopted to investigate the differences of skills and models of argumentation and sources of supporting reasons from students who had different total scores of skills, majored in different subjects, and held different viewpoints of scientific justification. From the results of this study, the researcher found using scientific research programmes as a framework to analyze argumentation was workable, but only nine students could present the whole model of argumentation. Furthermore, the researcher classified students’ hard core into three models, which were factual model, value model and policy model. Students from three groups of science-major, with higher skill of argumentation, and held evolutionary epistemology used factual model as the claim of hard core while they dealt with issues, no matter their harm to life is known or unknown. However, students from another three groups of nonscience-major, with lower skill of argumentation, and held logical empiricism used value model as the hard core while met the issues which is harmless to life so far. On the contrary, these three groups of students adopted factual model to cope with the issues which have been known their dangerous to life. Moreover, the performance on skills of argumentation was better in the two groups of students from science-major and holding the viewpoints of epistemology than the other two groups of nonscience-major and holding the viewpoints of logical empiricism. In addition, the researcher analyzed the performance on the indicators of skills and found the numbers of sources regarding supporting reasons, and positive heuristic were at significant level difference. In detail, the supporting reasons came most from personal experiences and science belief in all groups of subjects. In the end, in terms of the change of arguments, the researcher found students’ background and skills of argumentation were both not related to the change of arguments. Besides, intelligible and reasonable conditions were the two main factors to change student’s arguments.

並列關鍵字

Epistemology Argumentation Skills Models

參考文獻


胡瑞萍與林陳涌(2002):寫作與科學學習。科學教育月刊,第253期, 2-18。
邱美虹(2000)︰概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊,第8卷,第1期, 1-34。
Angeles, P. A. (1999). The harper collins dictionary of philosophy.New York: Harper Collins.
Burgess, T., & Swann, J. (2003). The rejectability of karl popper: Why popper's ideas have had so little influence on social practice. Higher Education Review, 35(2), 57-65.
Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children's arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 135-167.

被引用紀錄


吳佳蓮(2005)。科學探究活動中國小五年級學童科學解釋能力及認識論之研究〔碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0021-2004200718053748
李亭誼(2011)。探討不同科學認識觀的八年級學生在社會性科學議題上論證能力的表現〔碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0021-1610201315222045

延伸閱讀