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

consistency with other ideas, and are willing to change their minds to accept it. It is recognized that learning does not
take place in a social vacuum (Driver, 1995). Driver (1995) indicated that whether or not an individual’s ideas are
affirmed and shared by others in classroom exchanges affects how the knowledge construction process is shaped.
The nature of argumentation has the potential to contribute to the collective development and judgment of scientific
knowledge claims and the identification of reliable and consensual descriptions of nature (Kolsto & Ratcliffe, 2008,
p.117). Much effort and many studies have focused on fostering students’ conceptual change from the constructivist
viewpoint (She, 2004; She & Lee, 2008; She & Liao, 2010; Hewson & Hewson, 1988; Venville & Treagust, 1998).
However, none of them have tried to include argumentation in fostering conceptual change.
Obviously, argumentation has great potential for fostering students’ communication skills in order to interchange
perspectives and meanings. Assessing alternatives, weighing evidence, interpreting texts, and evaluating the potential
validity of scientific claims are all seen as essential components in constructing scientific arguments. But how can
argumentation successfully foster students’ conceptual change? According to the previous conceptual change studies,
the following major characteristics are important for successful conceptual change: (1) Creating dissonance, which
can raise students’ awareness about their own conceptions and provide an opportunity for them to experience the
dissonance and become further dissatisfied with their own conceptions (She, 2004; Posner et al., 1982). (2)
Challenging students’ beliefs about science conceptions (She, 2004; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1987). (3) Providing
plausible mental structures for students to reconstruct more scientific conceptions (She, 2004). (4) Actively engaging
students in the process of conceptual change (Hewson & Hewson, 1983; She, 2004). (5) Actively involving students
in group discussions to shape their knowledge construction process and changing conceptions (Driver, 1995;
Venville & Treagust, 1998). Therefore, the ideas of successful conceptual change described above were taken into
consideration during our design of argumentation activity in order to optimize scientific learning.
Though there is a substantial body of research showing that instructors tend to adopt their conventional instruction
into online courses, however, Scagnoli, et al. (2009) suggested that simply changing face-to-face courses to an online
environment can’t confirm the same success. Additionally, consensus has not been reached regarding whether online
learning is more effective than conventional instruction on students’ academic achievement. Many studies
suggest no difference in academic achievement scores following on-line learning and conventional courses (Delfino
& Persico, 2007; Russell, et al. 2009). Larson and Sung (2009) further demonstrated that there are no significant
differences on exam scores when comparing online, blended and face-to-face instruction. On the other hand, the
majority of articles reported that online learning is better than traditional learning with the focus on the perspectives
of engagement or social situations, pedagogical characteristics, and satisfaction (Larson & Sung, 2009; Menchaca,
2008; Wuensch et al., 2009) instead of focusing on students’ learning outcome. One study demonstrated that, for a
wellness course, the online learning group’s levels of achievement were significantly higher than those of the
traditional face-to-face learning group (Lim et al., 2008). Kirtman (2009) reported a contrary result that students who
received traditional instruction performed significantly better than the students who received online instruction, in
both mid-term and final exams. Salcedo (2010) further demonstrated that students who received traditional
instruction for foreign language classes performed better on three out of four assessments than did the students who
received online instruction. As the consensus still remains unclear, we are interested in exploring whether or not
students receiving the on-line scientific argumentation course perform better than the conventional group. From the
point of view of science educators, we claim that it is very difficult to bring about conceptual change and
argumentation unless the instructional design is based on well-developed conceptual change and argumentation
theories and models (Yeh & She, 2010). Though a few studies have proposed their on-line argumentative learning
environment for promoting students conceptual development and conceptual change (Ravenscroft, 2000, 2007), they
lack empirical evidences to prove their effectiveness. Thus, this study attempts to explore whether or not students
who received the On-Line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation learning would outperform a conventionally
educated group of students in their conceptual change and scientific argumentation.
Sandoval and Reiser (2004) suggest that online learning environments can provide excellent support for students
constructing their scientific explanations and knowledge negotiation process in argumentative writing. Synchronous
communication can deliver a higher degree of elaboration and construction of arguments as students work on a
common shared artifact (De Vries et al., 2002; Janssen et al., 2006). Our study specifically designed a synchronous
argumentation Web-based learning environment to provide students with the opportunity to argue with their group in
real time and to create a higher degree of elaboration and construction of arguments.
198