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

Constructing a good argument is not a simple task and we believe that guidance and support would help students to
scaffold and build their sense of an effective argument. On-line argumentation provides the advantage of allowing
students to see arguments and counterarguments on the screen, which supports them in refining their argumentation
(Kirschner et al., 2003). Wray and Lewis (1997) have indicated that the use of “writing frames” would support the
process of writing and provide vital clues as to what is needed. Osborne et al. (2004) indicated that stems provide
students with prompts to construct their argument in a coherent manner and within a writing frame, which then can
be used as a structure for producing a written argument. Therefore, we specifically programmed our learning
environment to provide students with writing frames of five argumentation components to scaffold their arguments
in science learning.
The current study specifically designed On-Line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation learning to provide a
recurrent opportunity for middle school students to engage in argumentation for about one third of the physical
science class periods in a semester. The strategy is to provide students with writing frames of five argumentation
components to scaffold their arguments in the On-Line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation learning. We believe
that it is a promising direction, taking consideration of conceptual change aspects into the design of a series of pre-,
experiment-related, and post-argumentation activities.
Research Questions
Three major research questions were examined in the study in order to measure the effectiveness of On-Line
Synchronous Scientific Argumentation learning. The first question explored whether On-Line Synchronous
Scientific Argumentation learning was more effective than conventional instruction in facilitating students’
conceptual change as well as scientific argumentation in physical science. Second, examine the quantity and quality
of scientific arguments that experimental group’s students generated in a series of pre- and post-argumentation
questions across a semester. Third, explore the nature and extent of conceptual change from pre- to postargumentation
question that the experimental group’s students made across a semester. In addition, the relationship
between scientific conceptual change and argumentation ability was examined.
Designs and Characteristics of the Recurrent On-Line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation learning
Recurrent On-Line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation learning is designed to provide recurrent argumentation
opportunities for students learning physical science, replacing the regular physical science in middle school.
Therefore, the five units of seven topics were chosen from the current middle school physical science mandatory
content and standards. The current study reported the effects of implementing seven topics for physical science:
chemical reaction (1 and 2), acid and base (1 and 2), oxidation and reduction, organic substances, and friction. Seven
topics of physical science were used in this study. Each unit generally covers two or three main topics, for instance
unit 1 on chemical reaction covers the influence of the contacting area on the rate of chemical reaction, and the
influence of concentration on the rate of chemical reaction. Each topic is specifically designed a pre-argumentation
question and an experiment-related argumentation question was focused on the core concepts of the preargumentation
question that they argued (figure 1). Students were asked to provide reasons for the argument and
went to an actual laboratory to carry out their experiments based upon their hypothesis and experimental design. The
same post-argumentation question was given for students to argue again after finishing the laboratory work.
Facilitate students’ conceptual change
To facilitate students’ conceptual change, each topic is specifically designed to initiate a pre-argumentation question,
followed by an experiment-related argumentation question, the activity of carrying out the experiment in the
laboratory, and finally a post-argumentation question. Students would be exposed to different ideas which may be
different from their own during the pre-argumentation and experiment-related argumentation question. After they
carry out the experiment and receive the result from the experiment, dissonance is created and they build a plausible
mental structure if the result is different from their prediction. The same post-argumentation question is given for
students to argue again after finishing the laboratory work. Post-argumentation provides them an opportunity to
reconstruct their mental structure according to the experiments they have visualized, arguing with peers, exchanging
199