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

without the sources of specific knowledge or relevant scientific evidence. It implies that students who hold less
alternative conceptions are more likely to perform better in the post-Physical Science Dependent Argumentation
Test.
Acknowledgements
This research is based in work supported and funded by the National Science Council (NSC 95-2522-S-009-001-
MY3), Taiwan, R.O.C.
References
Cobern, W. W. (1993). Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science. In K. Tobin
(Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 51-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Delfino, M., & Persico, D. (2007). Online or face-to-face? Experimenting with different techniques in teacher training. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 351-365.
De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles
for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63-103.
Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science learning. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp.
385-400). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67(6),
443-456.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Hewson, M., & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students' prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on
science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731-743.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1988). An appropriate conception of teaching science: A view from studies of science
learning. Science Education, 72(5), 597-614.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2006). Visualization participation to facilitate argumentation. Paper presented at the 7th
International Conference of the Learning Sciences June/July, Bloomington, IN.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Rodriguez, A. B. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: argument in high school genetics.
Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (2003). Visualizing Argumentatio: Software Tools for Collaborative and
Educational Sense-Making. London: Springer Verlag.
Kirtman, L. (2009). Online versus in-class courses: An examination of differences in learning outcomes. Issues in Teacher
Education, 18(2), 103-116.
Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.),
Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.114-133). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction,
15(3), 287-315.
Larson, D. K., & Sung, C. H. (2009) Comparing Student Performance: Online versus Blended versus Face-to-Face. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 31-42.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Liao, Y.W. & She, H.C. (2009). Enhancing Eight Grade Students’ Scientific Conceptual Change and Scientific Reasoning
through a Web-based Learning Program. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 228-240.
Lim, J., Kim, M., Chen, S. S., & Ryder, C. E. (2008). An empirical investigation of student achievement and satisfaction in
different learning environments. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(2), 113-119.
Menchaca, M. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231-252.
209