January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...

Chen, C.-H., & She, H.-C. (2012). The Impact of Recurrent On-line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation on Students'
Argumentation and Conceptual Change. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 197–210.
The Impact of Recurrent On-line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation on
Students’ Argumentation and Conceptual Change
Chien-Hsien Chen and Hsiao-Ching She
Institute of Education, National Chiao-Tung University, Taiwan // ptm1122@gmail.com // hcshe@mail.nctu.edu.tw
ABSTRACT
This study reports the impact of Recurrent On-Line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation learning on 8 th grade
students’ scientific argumentation ability and conceptual change involving physical science. The control group
(N=76) were recruited to receive conventional instruction whereas the experimental group (N=74) received the
Recurrent On-Line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation program for about 25 physical science class periods
of 45 minutes each, which is about one third of the physical science class periods in a semester. Results indicate
that the experimental group significantly outperformed the conventional group on the post-Physical Science
Conception Test and the Physical Science Dependent Argumentation Test. The quantity and quality of scientific
arguments that the experimental group’s students generated, in a series of pre- and post-argumentation
questions, all improved across the seven topics. In addition, the experimental group’s students successfully
constructed more correct conceptions from pre- to post-argumentation questions across the seven topics. This
clearly demonstrates that the experimental group’s students’ argumentation ability and conceptual change were
both facilitated through receiving the Recurrent On-Line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation program.
Keywords
Scientific Argumentation, Conceptual Change, On-line Synchronous argumentation, Physical science, Recurrent online
learning, 8 th grade students
Introduction
The need to educate our students and citizens about how we know and why we believe in the scientific worldview
has become increasingly important. It is no longer sufficient to merely deal with what we know (Driver et al., 1996;
Millar & Osborne, 1998). Osborne et al. (2004) further pointed out that such a shift requires a new focus on how
evidence is used in science for the construction of explanations, that is, on the arguments that form the links between
data and the theories that science has constructed. More specifically, the construction of arguments is a core
discursive activity of science (Osborne et al., 2004). Scientific discursive practices such as assessing alternatives,
weighing evidence, interpreting texts, and evaluating the potential validity of scientific claims are all seen as
essential components in constructing scientific arguments, which also are fundamental in the progress of scientific
knowledge (Latour, 1987). In short, argumentation is a collective cognitive development process which involves
using evidence to support or refute a particular claim, coordinating the claims with evidence to make an argument,
forming a judgment of scientific knowledge claims, and identifying reliable and consensual scientific knowledge.
Several studies show that educational support of argumentation may foster students’ argumentation ability (Jiménez-
Aleixandre, & Rodriguez, 2000; Kuhn et al., 1997) and improve scientific knowledge (Zohar & Nemet, 2002).
Most of the argumentation studies were conducted in the classroom for a very short period of time and were not able
to improve students’ argumentation efficiently. The authors feel that it is necessary to provide students with the
opportunity to argue effectively with recurrent opportunities and for a longer period of time in order to improve the
quality of their argumentation. Osborne et al. (2004) suggested that developing argumentation in a scientific context
is far more difficult than enabling argumentation in a socio-scientific context. Students generally considered physical
science to be difficult to learn. Though it is rather difficult to improve argumentation in a science context, we believe
it is important to provide students with the recurrent opportunity to learn and use argumentation in the context of
physical science.
The constructivist view of learning highlights the significance of the individual learner’s prior knowledge in
subsequent learning (Driver & Bell, 1986). Cobern (1993) shares the similar idea of learning as a process wherein an
individual is actively involved in linking new ideas with current ideas and experience. Learning by construction and
involving changes is similar to the idea that the construction of new knowledge takes place at a construction site
consisting of existing structures built on a foundation (Cobern, 1993). The notion of conceptual change involves the
restructuring of relationships among existing concepts and often requires the acquisition of entirely new concepts.
The students who learn something are the ones who understand a new idea, judge its truth value, judge its
ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the
copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies
are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by
others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org.
197