Existing literature has indicated that online asynchronous
discussion has the potential to generate the critical dimensions of
learning found in traditional classrooms (Andresen, 2009); furthermore,
it has the ability to enhance higher cognitive levels of knowledge
construction (Schellens & Valcke, 2005). However, simply putting
students in an asynchronous discussion environment does not necessarily
bring about collaborative interactions and effective outcomes, because
some students may be reluctant to disagree with others (Andriessen,
2006) or will vary in their level of involvement (Veerman, 2003). In
order to promote the effectiveness of asynchronous discussions, pioneers
in collaborative learning examined a variety of strategies. For example,
assigning roles to students at the beginning of discussions resulted in
a significant positive impact on students' level of knowledge
construction (De Wever, Van Keer, & Valcke, 2009); Elaborating on
the meaning of discussion questions promoted balanced argumentation for
all participants, especially for those with less knowledge of the
question (Golanics & Nussbaum, 2008); and engaging students in
reflective interactions such as explaining, justifying, and evaluating
problem solutions has shown a productive learning outcome for physics
modeling tasks (Baker & Lund, 1997). After considering the
strategies recommended by existing literature, we designed an assessment
instrument with competing theories for students to practice evaluative
reflection through asynchronous discussions and examined its impact on
key competencies of educational outcomes- students' conceptual
understanding and argumentation ability (Driver, Newton, & Osborne,
Argumentation in asynchronous discussion environment
Social constructivism theory furthers the idea that learning effect
can be promoted through active interactions and communication among
participants. For social constructivism, knowledge is created and
legitimized by means of social interactions between and among
individuals in a variety of community, societal, and cultural settings
(Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Staver, 1998). When this
theory is appropriately applied in the context of education, students
are encouraged to interact with others to construct individual
understanding and knowledge. It also provides opportunities for students
to reflect on other classmates' comments, suggestions,
presentations, and ways of learning.
In the process of online argumentation, students are encouraged to
actively write, discuss, and debate online using text-based
communication tools. Students make progress in argumentation by
providing evidence-based conclusions, describing why they agree or
disagree with the presented statements, and try to persuade others. In
order to provide quality arguments, students must explain their own
positions, evaluate current arguments, summarize peer comments, and
integrate related information or knowledge. All of these activities seem
to be helpful for students' clarification of conceptual
understanding and improvement of argumentation. More importantly, the
time delays in text-based asynchronous discussions provide opportunities
for students, especially for those who need more time, to reflect and
scrutinize online information (Veerman, Andriessen, & Kanselaar,
2000). In collaborative learning, meaning is produced by examining the
relationship between utterances through social interactions; meaning is
examined and reconstructed as a direct result of conflict or
argumentation in a social context (Jeong & Joung, 2007). For
critical argumentation, students can use "counter-arguments"
to "challenge" other students' statement when they
disagree with the statement (Veerman et al., 2000). The learning of
argumentation is consistent with the development of scientific knowledge
in most science communities. Vigorous discussions, debates, and
peer-review procedures are exchanged among scientists. Scientists then
provide counter-arguments or rebuttals to challenge the data, evidence,
or assertions of other scientists with different theories. For example,
in the eighteenth century, the phlogiston theory was almost universally
accepted at the time and was the basis of the chemistry taught to
college students then. The theory hypothesized that during combustion
the substance of phlogiston was released and combined with air (Conant,
1957; Harre, 1981). However, French scientist Lavoisier provided
empirical evidence of burning mercury and phosphorous to challenge the
phlogiston theory. He found that the result of burning mercury or
phosphorous did not decrease their weights as the theory predicted,
instead, the final weights increased. This rebuttal and more empirical
data from his follow-up experiments (e.g., an experiment collecting the
gas formed after heating the red oxide of mercury) play key roles for
the demise of the phlogiston theory. By reviewing the development of
scientific knowledge and the history of science, we can find that
argumentation plays a central role in the resolution of scientific
controversies (Fuller, 1997).
Similar to the development of scientific knowledge, argumentation
deserves a place in the pedagogy of science. In arguing the use of
argumentation theory in education, Driver et al. (2000) concluded that
helping students to construct coherent arguments and evaluate others are
important skills, especially pertaining to topics reported in the media.
This is even more so in our contemporary and democratic society, since
there are many public policies relating to science and the public has a
legitimate voice (e.g., use of bio-ethanol as fuel, restriction of
genetically modified foods, and control of air quality) (Newton, Driver,
& Osborne, 1999). Through the practices of posing and evaluating
arguments, students become active participants in the learning community
rather than just passive knowledge receivers. Another potential benefit
of collaborative argumentation in stimulating students' conceptual
understanding and belief revision has been examined (Ravenscroft, 2000).
In the study, the learner adopts the role of an explainer while the
computer system plays a facilitating role; participants collaborate to
develop a shared explanatory model. Ravenscroft found that students
revised their beliefs and improved their explanatory models in a delayed
Despite the emphasis of argumentation ability in science teaching,
it is rarely adopted in typical classroom teaching. Major reasons ranged
from teachers' perception of the difficulty and challenge in
managing group discussions to the time pressure imposed by the need to
cover the national curriculum (Driver et al., 2000; Newton et al.,
1999). The literature review reveals that there are limitations and
constraints for teachers to implement collaborative argumentation or
group discussion in typical classroom teaching practices. On the other
hand, benefits of online asynchronous discussion may make students'
interactions and group discussions more effective than traditional face
to face discussions. For example, it allows slow-paced students more
time to construct arguments and contribute to the discussion (Veerman et
al., 2000); the transcript of the discussion is always available for
participants' reference (Weinberger & Fischer, 2006); and
discussions generally will not be interrupted by a particularly
aggressive participant (Andriessen, 2006). Furthermore, in typical
classroom face to face settings, most of the interactions are generally
dominated by outspoken students. The learning opportunity of practicing
communication or argumentation for students who are either shy or weaker
speakers is unintentionally limited or deprived (Nussbaum &
Jacobson, 2004). Therefore, the discourse of the science classrooms
needs to be more deliberative or dialogic (Simon, Erduran, &
Osborne, 2006). This situation of inequity in learning deserves
attention from teachers and educators. Although there is reason to
hypothesize that an asynchronous discussion could be one of the
effective alternatives to conduct argumentation activities, more
empirical studies focusing on inspiring the practice of reflection and
promoting the highly expected educational outcome of aforementioned
argumentation and conceptual understanding are needed. These studies
should also aim to enable us to better understand what role computers
can play in supporting the classroom teaching that has mostly failed to
promote these higher level cognitive abilities (Webb, Jones, Barker,
& van Schaik, 2004).
The importance of reflective ability
Reflective ability has long been regarded as one of the major goals
for students' learning outcome. Early in 1933, Dewey proposed
reflection as a process of problem solving. Recently, the Organisation
for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD, 2006) officially
identified reflective ability as an important component of scientific,
reading, and mathematical literacy. Based on the OECD's definition,
the competency of reflection is deemed to be essential for an improved
future. Knowing the importance of reflective ability, researchers and
educators have asserted that it can be taught and trained through proper
design of activities (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985; Lee &
Hutchison, 1998). An investigation of teaching effectiveness by
designing a variety of online activities has been conducted. For
example, Chen et al. (2009) used "reflection prompts" to
engage online learners in a reflective learning environment. They found
that the reflection level of those students who had been provided with
"high level prompts" was significantly higher than the level
of those who were not shown these prompts. Review of the literature
above reveals that providing reflective learning opportunities for
students could be fruitful in promoting expected outcomes. Further
examination of current practices of reflective activities found that
most studies mainly focused on the assessment of reflective ability
level (Chen et al., 2009; Guldberg & Pilkington, 2007; Yang, 2009).
A limited number of studies have investigated how reflective activities
influenced learners' key competencies in educational outcomes
(e.g., argumentation or science concept understanding). To this end, we
designed a semester-long online reflective peer assessment and
investigated its impact on students' argumentation and conceptual
Typical assessment vs. Reflective peer assessment
The term of reflective peer assessment means in a collaborative
learning environment, students critically assess each other's
feedback posted online, vigorously discuss various perspectives, and
continuously reflect and elaborate on their own assertions (Veerman et
al., 2000). For typical classroom teaching practices, although inquiry
skills or group discussions can be used to promote student-teacher or
student-student interactions to assess student conceptual understanding
(Van Zee, Iwasyk, Kurose, Simpson, & Wild, 2001), time constraints
or lack of professional ability may prevent instructors from employing
these teaching strategies (Newton et al., 1999; Roth, 1996). In this
study, we propose a reflective peer assessment in an asynchronous
discussion learning environment to promote collaborative learning and
critical argumentation. The details of reflective peer assessment will
be explained with examples in the methodology section.
Although considerable research has been devoted to computer
supported collaborative learning (CSCL) through the perspectives of
investigating collaborative behaviors (Hsu, Chou, Hwang, & Chou,
2008), identifying strategies and factors related to better
collaboration (De Smet, Van Keer, & Valcke, 2008; Onrubia &
Engel, 2009), and analyzing the effect and the role of peer feedback
(Lai & Lan, 2006; Tseng & Tsai, 2007), rather less attention has
been paid to the systematic integration of key competencies of
educational outcomes in the CSCL environment: reflection, argumentation,
and conceptual understanding.
Purpose of the study
As mentioned earlier, interactions of student learning among the
three variables of reflection, argumentation, and conceptual
understanding have rarely been investigated simultaneously. A literature
review reveals that asynchronous discussions provide opportunities for
students to work collaboratively and have great potential in promoting
learning outcomes, especially when students were encouraged to reflect
on another team's consensual answer and peer arguments and the
reasons why they agree or disagree with the consensual answer. The
purpose of this study is to explore the impact of using reflective peer
assessment in asynchronous discussions on the development of
students' argumentation ability and conceptual understanding.
Specifically, the research questions are as follows:
1. How students progress on the development of their argumentation
ability and conceptual understanding through the six rounds of
reflective peer assessment in asynchronous discussions?
2. Do both science major and non-science major students benefit
from reflective peer assessment over the duration of the study?
This study was conducted in the context of an undergraduate
course--history of science. The reflective peer assessment instrument,
participants, procedure, and data analysis are described as follows:
Reflective peer assessment instrument
The reflective peer assessment instrument contained six open-ended
question items. We developed four items related to gas laws and
buoyancy. The four items were validated by three science educators and
two physical science teachers who were asked to judge each item by the
1. The item examines the conceptual understanding and/or
application of (Boyle's law, Charles's law, atmospheric
pressure, or buoyancy).
2. The item is compatible to the topics that students have
previously studied in high school physical science.
3. The item is clearly phrased.
Two more items were derived from the released item bank of
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2006 (OECD, 2007)
requiring students to provide evidence-based conclusions. The six-item
instrument was pilot tested for one year prior to the study and found to
be reasonably reliable (Cronbach [alpha] = 0.72). In order to check for
students' conceptual development, two items with a similar
difficulty level related to gas laws were selected for comparison--one
was randomly assigned and assessed at the beginning of the semester
while the other item was measured at the end of the course.
In order to promote students' argumentation discussions, we
followed the suggestion of Osborne, Erduran, and Simon (2004) to
integrate competing theories into the assessment items. For each item,
students are asked to make an assertion or take a position and are
encouraged to provide persuasive arguments with appropriate theory,
principle, reasonable data or evidence, and supportive warrant or
backing. Whenever there are disagreements or different positions of the
posted statements, students are encouraged to use rebuttals to challenge
the existing statements. One sample item can be seen in the Appendix.
For this item, the scientific claim for the first question should be
"the mercury moves to the left-hand side". For the second
question of the item, reasonable arguments should be similar to the
following explanation containing sound conceptual understanding, basic
comprehension of data (relating variables of volume, temperature, and
pressure), and the backing (with theories or principles) of an argument:
"The air inside the flask enclosed by the mercury is a closed
system. In the beginning status of 25[degrees]C, its pressure is equal
to the surrounding atmospheric pressure. When the set of the flask is
moved to the outdoor 5[degrees]C environment, the surrounding pressure
(i.e., atmospheric pressure) stays the same. Therefore, the volume
inside the closed system decreases as the temperature decreases from
25[degrees]C to 5[degrees] C. This is based on Charles's Law which
states that when pressure is kept constant, a certain amount of gas
volume (V) is proportional to the temperature (T) (i.e., [V.sub.1] /
[T.sub.1] = [V.sub.2] / [T.sub.2])". For this question, high
quality or advanced arguments even provide rebuttals or
counter-arguments to challenge the statements with different claims or
The 30 participants (21 males and 9 females) of the study were
undergraduate students from colleges of art and humanities, sciences,
engineering, management, and social science. They were enrolled in the
course entitled History of Science and invited to participate in the
online asynchronous discussions. Their ages ranged from 20 to 24 years
old. It should be noted that the participants were assumed to have
learned all of the relevant content (i.e., Boyle's law,
Charles's law, atmospheric pressure, greenhouse effect, and
buoyancy) related to the six test items in their high school physical
science course and no further scientific concepts were instructed during
the study. For the purpose of promoting collaborative interactions in
solving a given item, the students were randomly divided into six
groups. One of the six groups was asked to collaboratively discuss the
questions of the given item, reach a consensus, and post their
consensual answer on the web. A screenshot of the discussion system is
shown in Figure 1. The rest of the students were asked to serve as
evaluators for the statement posted by the group.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The role of the evaluator is to reflect on the posted statement,
analyze the level of statement using the model developed by Osborne and
his colleagues (2004), check the correctness of the statement, assign an
appropriate score from 1 to 5 where 1 is the lowest quality while 5
stands for the highest quality of argumentation level for the posted
statement, and explain the details of evaluation, reflection, or
In the beginning weeks of the course, the instructor explained the
difference between scientific arguments and personal opinions, described
the elements of an argument with examples, introduced the role of online
discussions, and assigned the sequence and date for each group of
students to work either as poster (of an item's answer) or as
evaluators. We use Toulmin's argumentation model (Toulmin, 1958) to
introduce the essential elements--data, warrant, backing, and rebuttal
and follow the recommendations of Osborne's research team on the
evaluation of arguments (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004b). In the
fourth week, the first group was asked to respond to item 1 and post
their consensual answer on the web within one week. During the fifth
week, the rest of the students were asked to evaluate the posted answer
individually. The evaluators were free to revise their comments
according other evaluators' feedback--allowing for a dynamic
process of reflection. In the same time, the group members who posted
the answer continued to reflect on the evaluators' feedbacks and
arguments either support or against their answer. At the end of the
fifth week, they were asked to present their final answer and
justification of their position in a class meeting. For each of the rest
of the 5 argumentation items, the procedure was similar to item 1; that
is, in the first week the assigned group was responsible for answering
the item, while the rest of the students served as reflective evaluators
responsible for posting personal comments within the following week. In
total, the asynchronous discussions of reflective peer assessment lasted
for 12 weeks for the six items.
In order to promote students' involvement in argumentation,
all six items asked students justify their position or explain their
reason. In the beginning of the semester, examples of high level
arguments were explained to the students for the purpose of scaffolding
their ability in argumentation. Through analyzing their arguments in six
rounds of reflective peer assessment, we hope to gain insights that
inform subsequent initiatives aimed at a wider application of
asynchronous discussion in the development of high level cognitive
Students' conceptual understandings were examined and analyzed
verbatim based on their reasoning arguments, explanations, and comments.
The number of alternative conceptions, the level of conceptual
understanding, and the quality level of students' arguments were
used as quantitative indicators.
The scoring scheme for students' level of conceptual
understanding is based on our previous studies (Lin, Cheng, &
Lawrenz, 2000; Lin, Hung, & Hung, 2002). The scheme gives 3 points
to the answers with correct statements and use of target scientific
concepts (e.g., for the sample item, appropriately use the key concepts
and identify that in a closed system with constant pressure the gas
volume inside the system would change proportionally with the
surrounding temperature) ; 2 points for those answers with sound
explanations but minor mistakes (e.g., unable to identify any one of the
above key concepts. For instance, fail to explain that the air inside
the flask enclosed by the mercury is a closed system); 1 point for the
statements showing partial misconceptions but indicating some degree of
relevance toward the target concept (e.g., refer to the test item is
related to Boyle's law or Charles' law but fail to explain how
the laws can be used in the item); 0 points for no explanation or
explanations with irrelevant statements or misconceptions.
For the scoring scheme on the level of students' arguments, we
follow the method developed by Osborne, Erduran, and Simon (2004), in
which, level 1 arguments are arguments with a simple claim without
containing any other elements (e.g., I thought that they explained it
very well. Without reviewing the rebuttals posted by others, it is
difficult for me to identify the weakness of the answer.); level 2
arguments consist of claims with either data, warrants, or backing but
do not contain any rebuttals (e.g., this group appropriately used
Boyle's law to explain the mercury movement. However, the lack of
real life examples makes it not persuasive); level 3 arguments consist
of a series of claims or counter-claims with either data, warrants or
backings with the occasional weak rebuttal (e.g., I think there is
little difference between the indoor and outdoor air pressure. The major
influence for the mercury's movement should be from the volume
change of the enclosed gas.) ; level 4 arguments consist of a claim with
a clearly identifiable rebuttal (e.g., Moving the whole set from 25oC
indoors to 5oC outdoors at a constant pressure of 1 atm, the mercury
would not move to the right, because Charles' law tells us that at
constant pressure, gas volume would shrink instead of expanding); level
5 arguments contain claims supported by data and warrants with more than
one rebuttal (e.g., using theoretical backgrounds or evidences to refute
the prediction of mercury moving to right).
Two science educators with the domain knowledge of chemistry and
physics evaluated the participants' argumentation content and
statement based on the above scoring scheme. Since item 1 is used as a
practice item for students, answers and comments of this item served as
examples for the two evaluators to discuss the detail of the scoring
procedure. After the discussion, the two evaluators scored items
independently. At the end of the scoring procedure, the two evaluators
discussed the statements which had discrepancies between their scoring
until a consensus was reached. The mean of the two evaluators'
scores was used as the final score for each individual student's
score of the target item.
The first research question of the study was intended to
investigate student argumentation ability and conceptual understanding
in an asynchronous discussion environment. Meanwhile, the second
research question attempted to check the "equity" of the
educational opportunity and learning environment provided by the
Students' performance of argumentation and conceptual
understanding in an asynchronous discussion environment
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the
participants' performance on the five assessment items. Since item
1 was used as practice item for students to be familiar with the
procedure of asynchronous discussions, it was not evaluated for data
analysis. It can be seen from Table 1 that students made gradual
progress on their argumentation ability from a mean score of 2.58 for
item 2 to a mean score of 3.86 for item 6. It should also be noted that
the standard deviations decreased from 1.04 to 0.33, which suggests that
in the beginning, students' argumentation ability was much more
diversified than it was at the end of the study. In other words, the
participants' argumentation ability had gradually become more
homogeneous. The pattern of students' progress on their conceptual
understanding is similar to the progress pattern of argumentation. The
mean score improved from 1.98 for item 2 to 2.83 for item 6, while the
standard deviation decreased from 0.67 to 0.34.
Readers may doubt that the difference of each item's
difficulty level and the variability of content knowledge could affect
students' performance. In order to avoid ambiguity, an attempt was
made in designing the study to control the similarity of difficulty
level and content knowledge of the assessment items. Three of the five
items with similar difficulty level relating to gas laws are randomly
assigned as items 2, 3, and 6. Item 2 was assessed in the beginning
while item 6 was measured at the end of the study. The statistical
analysis of pair-wised t test was conducted to compare students'
performance on the same content knowledge of gas laws. It can be seen
from Table 2 that both of students' argumentation ability and
conceptual understanding significantly improved (p< .001).
Did both science major and non-science major students benefit from
the reflective peer assessment over the duration of the study?
In order to check the equity issue of educational opportunity and
learning environment, we investigated the progress pattern and gap
difference between science major sand non-science majors performance of
argumentation and conceptual understanding. The science major students
(n=15) were from colleges of science, engineering, and marine science
while the non-science major students (n=15) were from colleges of
humanity and art, management, and social science. It can be seen from
Table 3 that both groups made progress not only on argumentation ability
but also on conceptual understanding. The gap of argumentation ability
between the two groups starts from a mean difference of 0.70 (2.93 vs.
2.23) in item 2 to a mean difference of 0.03 (3.85 vs. 3.88) in item 6.
On the other hand, at the beginning of the asynchronous discussion the
conceptual understanding mean scores of the two groups (2.27 vs. 1.68)
were significantly different (p<.05) for item 2 and for item 3
(p<.01), but the difference gets smaller and gradually disappears
week by week. There is no significant difference between the two group
students' conceptual understanding starting from item 4 to item 6.
Discussion and implication for education
Previous studies found that problem-based learning in an
asynchronous discussion environment were not successful for courses in
physics (Kortemeyer, 2006) and in statistics (Hong, Lai, & Holton,
2003). Contrarily, in this study, we found that the participants made
significant progress (p < 0.001) on their conceptual understanding
and application in open-ended problem solving items. Possible reasons
for the progress may be attributed to the learning opportunities gained
by analyzing the quality level of the online answer statements and
reflecting on other students' posted comments. Through the constant
practices of these high level cognitive processes (e.g., analyzing and
reflecting) and the continuous involvement in a specific learning topic
such as gas laws, students were exposed to a learning environment that
enabled them to formulate their own distinct opinion when they receive
other students' rebuttals and criticism. Students integrated
plausible content knowledge while contemplating different explanations
of others' and finally constructing their own conceptual
understanding and ways of applying these concepts in solving the next
test item containing similar content knowledge but in a different
context. In typical face-to-face classroom teaching, students are rarely
afforded a long time to check and reflect on their own conceptual
understanding and application of knowledge when solving problems. It is
even harder to compare their own ideas with the ideas of others. The
above finding led us to propose the approach of using reflective peer
assessment in an online asynchronous environment for students to explore
their misconceptions or misunderstandings and further construct
understanding of scientific concepts. It is no surprise to us to find
that the students made progress on their argumentation ability, since
they were taught how to construct persuasive arguments. However, we are
impressed by the improvement of the students' conceptual
understanding and problem solving ability in the test items relating to
gas laws-considering that they were not given further tutorial on the
concepts related to gas laws in the study other then their high school
physical science course.
Although additional studies are needed to confirm the practical
utility, the initial finding of the diminished difference of conceptual
understanding between science majors and non-science majors provides an
indicator that the approach of reflective peer assessment has the
potential to support student learning, particularly for those who have
greater room for improvement (e.g., low achieving or non-science major
students). However, this is not to say that this approach is not
beneficial to high achieving or capable students. This study also found
that students' majoring in science made progress in their
conceptual understanding, as illustrated in Table 3. In total, the
reflective peer assessment approach is likely to make positive
contribution toward equitable distribution in learning outcome, and not
at the expense of capable students. We suspect that the use of
reflective peer assessment in asynchronous discussion provides
opportunities for students to identify and discuss their alternative
conceptions explicitly and publicly, which is helpful and constructive
for students' conceptual understanding (Eryilmaz, 2002). This
learning opportunity is rarely seen in traditional classroom teaching.
In addition, when students work together collaboratively as a small
group to answer the test items, it provides a working environment for
them with less pressure than individual written tests. As Frenzel et al.
(2007) indicated from their study of 1623 students, there was a close
relationship between environmental variables and students'
emotional experiences. Furthermore, higher learning achievement was
related to higher enjoyment and lower anxiety. If the conclusion of the
above literature is persuasive, then educators and teachers are strongly
encouraged to provide a learning environment that allows students to
publicly and explicitly discuss their understanding in their own words
without any unnecessary pressure. Meanwhile, opportunities should be
provided to students to work in interactive, cooperative, and
The initial findings of the study shed additional light on the
potential benefit of asynchronous discussions in promoting the
development of high level cognitive abilities. In using the term
"reflective peer assessment," we intend to highlight the
importance of providing opportunities for students to practice
"reflective evaluation" and "evaluative reflection"
in which the instructor assigns the roles as De Wever et al. (2008)
recommends to students who take turns to serve as "answer
provider" or "reflective evaluator." The answer providers
are encouraged to work collaboratively within their groups to reach a
consensual conclusion in an assessment item with competing theories. In
order to construct a persuasive conclusion, the students have to provide
data and evidence and use warrants and backings to support their
conclusions based on Toulmin's model (Toulmin, 1958) that was
introduced to them in the beginning of the class. In addition, each
evaluator is responsible to exercise reflective evaluation, assign a
score, and provide personal comments to the posted answer using the
scoring scheme of Osborne et al. (2004). With the practice of assigning
a score and writing comments, each student is exposed to the learning
environment of practicing "reflective evaluation" (i.e.,
reflecting on the answer and then executing the evaluation). They are
expected to learn how to provide counterarguments or rebuttals that
disagree with existing arguments, or learn how to explain why they
support a certain conclusion. Meanwhile, the asynchronous learning
environment provides opportunities for students to review and reflect on
other evaluators' comments. Being evaluators, they are allowed to
revise their comments and the original scores they assigned to the
answer provider. In this stage, they are encouraged to practice
"evaluative reflection" (i.e., evaluating other students'
comments and reflecting on their own comments). The evaluative
reflection encourages students to observe others' comments and
critics. Based on McKendree's (1998) assertion, observing a
dialogue is beneficial for learning, especially when it is combined with
Despite the fact that the initial finding of the study is
impressive and encouraging, readers are reminded that the sample size is
relatively small. Therefore, caution should be taken in inferences of
its quantitative results. In addition, care must be taken by making
inferences from the research design of one group pretest and post-test
which is not a true experimental design. In this study, since the
participants have learned the content of gas laws in their high school
years, no further gas law concepts were taught. The treatment was mainly
used to help students clarify alternative conceptions and apply
appropriate scientific concepts in contextual problem-solving situations
through reflective analysis and criticism of peer answers and argument.
During this period of time, the participants were not likely to have
other learning resources in the specific topic of gas laws except the
treatment. Therefore, the major potential threats of internal and
external validity of this design can be reasonably avoided by selecting
a learning topic where students (even some science teachers) have
deep-rooted alternative conceptions (i.e., resistant to conceptual
change) (Authors, 2000). Additionally, a longer period of interactive
and collaborative dialogical reflections and argumentation would allow
students to explicitly discuss and find the conflict between their own
alternative conceptions and scientific argument. Further research
studies focusing on different topics or subject matters of content
knowledge with bigger sample sizes are strongly recommended.
Appendix: Sample item of the assessment instrument
As shown in the following figure, an empty flask is sealed with a
rubber stopper which includes a glass tube. At the end of the glass
tube, there is a drop of mercury. When the flask is immersed in a beaker
filled with water of 3[degrees]C, the mercury will move to left. On the
other hand, when the flask is immersed into a beaker filled with water
of 80[degrees]C, the mercury moves to the right. If the whole set in the
figure (not including the beaker) is moved from an indoor temperature of
25[degrees]C to an outdoor one of 5[degrees]C, can you predict and
explain the movement of the mercury?
Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: success
factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology
& Society, 12(1), 249-257.
Andriessen, J. (2006). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In
A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver & D. Erkens (Eds.),
Collaborative Learning, Reasoning, and Technology (pp. 197-230). Mahwah,
Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions
in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13,
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). What is reflection in
learning? In D. Boud, R. Keogh & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection:
Turning experience into learning. (pp. 7-17). London: Kogan Page.
Chen, N. S., Wei, C. W., Wu, K. T., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects
of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners'
reflection levels. Computers & Education, 52(2), 283-291.
Conant, J. B., & Nash, L. K. (1957). Harvard case histories in
experimental science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Blending
asynchronous discussion groups and peer tutoring in higher education: An
exploratory study of online peer tutoring behaviour. Computers &
Education, 50(1), 207-223.
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring
asynchronous discussion groups: the impact of role assignment and
self-assessment on students' level of knowledge construction
through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25,
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young
people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the
norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignment and
conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and
achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015.
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Perceived
learning environment and students' emotional experiences: A
multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction,
17, 478-493. Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University
Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online
collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal
instruction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 167-180.
Guldberg, K., & Pilkington, R. (2007). Tutor roles in
facilitating reflection on practice through online discussion.
educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 61-72.
Harre, R. (1981). Great scientific experiments. Oxford: Phaidon
Hong, K. S., Lai, K. W., & Holton, D. (2003). Students'
satisfaction and perceived learning with a Web-based course. Educational
Technology & Society, 6(1), 116-124.
Hsu, J. L., Chou, H. W., Hwang, W. Y., & Chou, S. B. (2008). A
Two-Dimension Process in Explaining Learners' Collaborative
Behaviors in CSCL. educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 66-80.
Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative
argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and
message labels. Computers & Education, 48, 427-445.
Kortemeyer, G. (2006). An analysis of asynchronous online homework
discussions in introductory physics courses. American Journal of
Physics, 74(6), 526-536.
Lai, K. R., & Lan, C. H. (2006). Modeling peer assessment as
agent negotiation in a computer supported collaborative learning
environment. educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 16-26.
Lee, A. Y., & Hutchison, L. (1998). Improving learning from
examples through reflection. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 4(3), 187-210.
Lin, H. S., Cheng, H. J., & Lawrenz, F. (2000). The assessment
of students and teachers' understanding of gas laws. Journal of
Chemical Education, 77(2), 235-238.
Lin, H. S., Hung, J. Y., & Hung, S. C. (2002). Using the
history of science to promote students' problem-solving ability.
International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 453-464.
McKendree, J., Stenning, K., Mayes, T., Lee, J., & Cox, R.
(1998). Why observing a dialogue may benefit learning. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 110-119.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of
argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal
of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Jacobson, T. (2004). Reasons that students
avoid intellectual arguments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Psychological Association.
OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading, and mathematical
literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow's
world. Paris: OECD.
Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative
writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments.
Computers & Education, 53(4), 1256-1265.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, evidence
and argument in science [In-service Training Pack, Resource Pack and
Video]. London: Nuffield Foundation.
Ravenscroft, A. (2000). Designing argumentation for conceptual
development. Computers & Education, 34, 241-255.
Roth, M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning
environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 709-736.
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in
asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive
processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957-975.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach
argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom.
International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating
the practice of science and science teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 35(5), 501-520.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge
Tseng, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and
the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course.
Computers & Education, 49(4), 1161-1174.
Van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J.
(2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159-190.
Veerman, A. L. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic
dialogue. In J. andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to
Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning environments (pp. 117- 143). Boston: Kluwer.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000).
Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers &
Education, 34, 269-290.
Webb, E., Jones, A., Barker, P., & van Schaik, P. (2004). Using
e-learning dialogues in higher education. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 41(1), 93-103.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze
argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative
learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71-95.
Yang, S. H. (2009). Using Blogs to Enhance Critical Reflection and
Community of Practice. educational Technology & Society, 12(2),
Huann-shyang Lin (1), Zuway-R Hong (2), Hsin-Hui Wang (2) and
Sung-Tao Lee (3)
(1) Center for General Education, National Sun Yat-sen University,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan // institute of Education, National Sun Yat-sen
University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan // (3) Department of Applied Science,
Naval Academy, Kaohsiung, Taiwan // firstname.lastname@example.org //
email@example.com // firstname.lastname@example.org //
Table 1. Mean and sd of student performance
Item mean of mean of
(a) # argument sd conception sd
2 2.58 1.04 1.98 0.67
3 2.87 0.97 2.40 0.50
4 3.69 0.47 2.91 0.29
5 3.36 0.49 2.81 0.40
6 3.86 0.33 2.83 0.34
(a): Since item 1 was used as a practice item for students, it is
not used for statistical analysis.
Table 2. Pair-wised t test result
Assessment pre-test post-test t
mean (sd) mean (sd)
Argumentation 2.50(1.15) 3.88(0.33) 5.22 ***
Conceptual understanding 1.94(0.68) 2.82(0.35) 5.00 ***
Table 3. Comparisons between science and non-science major students
Variable group mean(sd) t
Argument 2 science major 2.93(0.86) 1.92
non-science major 2.23(1.12)
Argument 3 science major 3.06(1.00) 1.19
non-science major 2.64(0.93)
Argument 4 science major 3.80(0.41) 1.34
non-science major 3.55(0.52)
Argument 5 science major 3.46(0.52) 0.86
non-science major 3.27(0.47)
Argument 6 science major 3.85(0.34) -0.15
non-science major 3.88(0.35)
concept 2 science major 2.27(0.62) 2.57 *
non-science major 1.68(0.61)
concept 3 science major 2.60(0.51) 3.04 **
non-science major 2.10(0.32)
concept 4 science major 3.00(0.00) 1.51
non-science major 2.78(0.44)
concept 5 science major 2.88(0.35) 0.61
non-science major 2.75(0.46)
concept 6 science major 2.90(0.21) 0.85
non-science major 2.75(0.46)
*: p< .05.