本研究的目的為研究國中九年級學生在學習機率單元前後，對於機率概念的了解與代表性偏誤、可利用性偏誤Kahneman＆Tversky(1974)）及結果取向判斷偏誤(Konold1989)的異同。主要採量的分析，以自訂的問卷評量工具對受試者進行筆試。研究之樣本為學過國小簡單機率的國中九年級學生，問卷實施的方式為筆試，研究過程設計了前測、後測兩份試卷，並在施測前進行預試來評估試題信度、效度。前測問卷施測目的在探討學生在教學前利用常識、直觀來解題所可能造成的機率偏誤。教學過後也進行後測問卷的施測，並利用前後兩次施測的結果，探討國中生在教學前後機率判斷偏誤上的差異性。本研究之對象為中學九年級學生，共148位學生來進行施測，研究者依學生數學分組教學之成績，分為高分群、中間群、低分群，依據性別和分群兩個變項來進行分析。分析結果發現： 1.性別變項無顯著差異，故教學過程中不用特別考慮性別差異。 2.分群分析結果如下： (1)結果取向 在一次投擲問題中，前、後測問卷分析結果發現，中、高分群前後測整體表現皆無偏誤的比例較低分群來的少。 (2)代表性偏誤 在代表性偏誤中的正時近效應與負時近效應的問題中，低分群在前、後測仍犯有偏誤比中、高分群前後測都犯有偏誤的比例來的高。而改變樣本空間問題中，中、高分群在前、後測皆沒有偏誤的比比例較低分群高。複合樣本問題中探討代表性偏誤，低分群在前、後測仍然有偏誤的比例較中、高分群前、後測犯有偏誤高。 (3)可利用性偏誤 三群在前、後測的綜合表現並無顯著差異。 / The study aims to explore the differences of judgmental heuristic and biases on representativeness, availability (Kahneman &Tversky, 1974) and outcome approach (Konold, 1989) in terms of comprehension of probability concepts by ninth graders before and after studying the subject. The results are based on a quantitative analysis of the data collected from two sets of paper-and-pencil self-designed questionnaires. Pre-test questionnaire is meant to explore students’ potential probability biases when they work out the problems based on their previous knowledge and intuition prior to any instruction, while post-test questionnaire is conducted after instruction. The subjects in our experiment are composed of one hundred and forty-eight ninth graders who have only learned some basic probability concepts in primary school, and are classified into high-, mid- and low-scorer groups based on their previous academic performance. The findings suggest that: 1. Gender effect is not significantly different, so there is no need to pay attention to the gender difference in teaching process. 2. The results of analyses for different groups are listed in what follows. (1) Outcome approach: In the problem of tossing a coin, the results of pre-test and post-test indicate that the proportion of subjects who are without biases is higher in mid- and high-scorers than that of low-scorers. (2) Representativeness bias: In the problem of positive recency effect and negative recency effect, the proportion of committing biases is higher in low-scorers than that of mid- and high-scorers in both pre- and post-tests. In the problem of changes in sample spaces, the proportion of lack of biases is higher in mid- and high-scorers than that of low-scorers. In the composite-event problem that deals with representative biases, the proportion of committing biases among low-scorers is higher than that of mid- and high-scorers in both pre- and post-tests. (3) Availability bias: There is no significant difference in the overall performance of pre- and post-tests among the three groups.

在現代化與全球化的背景之下，在採取集中式違憲審查體制而區分憲法法院（大法官）和專業法院的我國，專業法院應承擔如何的角色功能──其與大法官之間應有如何的內部分工關係？又應如何與大法官共同行使「司法權」，以形塑司法部門與政治部門之間的憲政關係？專業法院的憲法及法律解釋，在方法上應如何因應現代化與全球化的挑戰？角色功能的定位又如何體現於解釋方法的運用？簡言之，現代化與全球化的影響之下，專業法院的角色功能以及解釋方法的運用，二個元素如何互動，乃是本文的核心關懷。 本文第二章首先回顧大陸法系在現代化和全球化的過程，以法典化為「動力核心」的法釋義學，面臨了價值趨於多元與社會快速變遷的挑戰，而立法者面對福利、管制和風險，因為沒有能力具體回應，結果把更沈重的職責託付給司法者。另一方面，歐陸法釋義學在價值法學的輝煌成果之上，亟待強化與社會事實對話的能力，故本文整理有關「結果取向的解釋方法」的文獻，蓋其有作為事實與規範之間對話介面的功能。基於前述，司法者由於法律適用範圍的擴張而介入政治、經濟與社會事務，形成「政治的司法化(judicialization of politics)」，乃是各國法治無法避免的共通現象。但從歐美法治在循序漸進的發展之中，其司法者具有足夠的自主性，而在給付實質正義時維持一定的中立性，不成為特定政治或社會利益的工具。但我國司法尚未浸淫於成熟的法治文化，驟然面對法規範體系的變化和政策形成機能的賦與，「透明」的方法論有防範司法脫序風險的功能，並形成司法決策正當性的基礎。 第三章則進入憲法法院體制之下，司法內部分權的分析。首先，介紹Stone Sweet教授的理論模型，使本文得以嘗試暫時拋棄現有制度的成見，探討以憲法裁決者為中心的司法權力，如何與政治部門形成「憲法對話(constitutional dialogue)」的互動模式。接著，回顧憲法法院的理念發展以及憲法訴訟的制度功能，說明憲法法院無可取代的核心角色功能，乃是基於人權保障的理念，作為憲法對話的樞紐：包括與政治部門的對話關係，以及對專業法院的控制關係。同採集中式違憲審查的我國、韓國或義大利，憲法法院都在衝突與磨合中建立了與專業法院的分工與對話關係。在這樣的對話架構之中，面對現代化與全球化的法制環境，則需要合憲解釋方法的進一步深化，使兩種法院角色功能的扮演更為適切。 有鑑於此，第四章探討二者對於合憲解釋方法的不同操作模式。參考韓國與義大利的經驗，可知合憲解釋方法的操作，實反映了不同的歷史、制度背景以及民主進展階段之中，司法內部的不同（憲法）對話模式，進一步確認了本文認為解釋方法作為憲法對話工具的觀點：專業法院同時受憲法（含大法官解釋）與法律拘束，其主要職責不在於非難立法者的政治意志，而係透過法律的解析，在憲法的框架秩序之下，最大程度上實現立法者的付託。從而，合憲法律解釋雖是大法官和專業法院的共同工具，但事實面的結果取向是專業法院的主要任務，專業法院應側重法律中概括條款的合憲法律解釋，強化事實面的論證品質，以具體化立法者所揭櫫的價值與政策方向。 從專業法院的角色功能觀之，概括條款的具體化對於其角色功能的適切扮演，具有重要意義。同時，行政法院面對行政機關基於立法者的概括授權所為的行政行為，使得行政法中概括條款的操作和民、刑法又呈現不同的樣貌，成為第五章的主題。比較分析美國行政法關於「恣意專斷」和「實質證據」標準的經典案例後，本文指出值得我國行政法院努力的審查模式：從立法者藉由概括條款揭櫫的政策目標出發，形成事實與證據基礎的審查方向與審查範圍，從而透過檢視行政行為的「合理性」，以確保其「合法性」。在此，透過概括條款的具體化，法律解釋成為規範與事實的互動平台，法院透過其與各種法律以外專業的對話能力，檢視行政行為所涉的事實及政策結果，實為結果取向方法的體現。 / This research is about the role and function of specialized courts, in contrast with those of the constitutional court, focusing on the method of constitutional and statutory interpretation. Closely related with this topic is the division of functions among the courts, determining their roles and functions, which in turn influences their methodology of interpretation, against the background of modernization and globalization. Chapter 2 analyzes the challenge facing doctrinal analysis, or legal dogmatics, developed in the civil law tradition. Due to diversification of values and fast change of modern society, with which the lawmakers have been unable to cope, more power is delegated, with responsibility, to the judiciary. As a result, the legal dogmatics, which has been relatively mature for problems of values, still needs some advance in tools dealing with social issues concerning facts, especially the “outcome-oriented interpretation” introduced in this chapter; it serves as a platform on which the fact and the norm about the issue interacts. Through utilizing the methodology, the “transparency” of legal interpretation and process is enhanced, and the judicial power expanding into various social, economic and political affairs, a universal phenomenon known as “judicialization of politics”, is to some extent legitimized. Chapter 3 probes into the division of power in the judicial regime with a constitutional court. Firstly introduced is a model of constitutional dialogue between the judicial and the political power, theorized by professor Stone Sweet. Secondly, the core function and purpose of constitutional court in the dialogue is depicted: the pivotal role in political-judicial dialogue and the within-judicial dialogue, in order to protect and promote human rights. Then a comparison with Korean and Italian experiences demonstrates that the dialogue relations are created through conflicts and accommodations between the powers, and that a more advanced methodology of “interpretation in conformity with the constitution” would assist in performing judicial roles and functions. Chapter 4 further discusses the different application of “interpretation in conformity with the constitution.” The Korean and Italian experience shows that it reflects the historical and institutional contexts, and the phases of democratic progress. This research then confirms that specialized courts, with the interpretative methods as the tool for constitutional dialogue, should interpret statutes, specifically the abstract clauses in the statute, to conform with the constitution and fulfill legislative aims. And throughout this interpretation, the main focus should be clarification and argumentation concerning factual issues. As far as the role and function of specialized courts is concerned, the concretization of abstract clauses in statutes is of fundamental importance, and chapter 5 is about its application by the administrative court, which is carried out differently from those by civil and criminal courts. After a comparative law analysis with American practice, it is suggested that abstract clauses, with the legislative goals clarified, be interpreted to specify the direction and scope of the evidential and factual support required by the reviewing court. In the process of review and interpretation, the court has to communicate with non-legal professions to check the factual and policy effects of administrative decisions, an exercise of the “outcome-oriented interpretation.”

行政、立法、司法三權在功能界定上向來有「行政＝現代人」「立法＝未來人」「司法＝過去人」的說法。換言之，司法者如能將已發生的既存事實與爭議釐清其法律關係，任務即可算是達成。不過，隨著科技爆炸性進步，高品質生活背後卻代表了新型態的危害往往發生得又急又快，造成損害的規模或是嚴重性更鉅，回復也高度困難，避免危害的發生可能比事後追究責任歸屬更為重要。因此，不論行政、立法甚至司法者行使職權，將目光投射至「未來」恐怕皆無法避免。就此而言，司法者解釋與適用法令時取向於未來的後果，正是呼應上述主張，如此操作思維本文即稱為「結果取向」。 問題在於，目前對於結果取向方法的完整討論仍不算多，「結果取向」一詞在理解上十分模糊，如果界定為取向於「結果」的方法，那麼「結果」又是何指？具體操作步驟為何？與傳統法律解釋方法的關係為何？並且追根究底，取向於未來後果之司法裁判與政治部門的政策決定活動相似，司法者採取是種方法是否仍具有正當性？另外，如果把結果取向方法投入個別法律領域運用，特別在憲法領域，正當性議題以及具體操作上又有何應注意之處？ 循此，本文試著先劃定出結果取向方法較為清楚的輪廓並且探討正當性的議題；接著以憲法領域為核心，考量到憲法獨特的規範特性、規範結構以及大法官任務定位等因素，重新檢視結果取向觀點運用在憲法解釋與適用活動時之正當性以及操作上應所調整之處；最後再把焦點拉回我國大法官解釋實務，從過往釋憲實務中，試著找出幾號採取結果取向觀點的解釋，另外，若是大法官在往後要繼續採用結果取向觀點，本文從程序建制如何配套的面向上提出一些建議。