[[abstract]]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.
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.