Search

This study investigated how the different discussion approaches in Facebook influenced students' scientific knowledge acquisition and the nature of science (NOS) views. Two eighth- and two ninth-grade classes in a Taiwanese junior high school participated in the study. In two of the classes students engaged in synchronous discussion, and in the other two classes they engaged in asynchronous discussion. The 83 participating students discussed scientific news that had been posted on Facebook, with a total of seven news stories. Three instruments -- a general NOS views questionnaire, a content-related NOS views questionnaire, and a science knowledge test -- were administered before, immediately after, and three weeks after the intervention. In addition, student responses to each news story were collected and analyzed. The results demonstrated that regardless of which online discussion group they participated in, students improved their science content knowledge, general NOS views, and NOS analyses of scientific news. Especially, synchronous discussion proved more effective than asynchronous discussion at helping students to develop science content knowledge and increase their view of community aspects of content-related NOS. These findings demonstrated the advantages of quick feedback and responses in synchronous discussion facilitated communication and cognitive development about subject and subject-related nature of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined whether or not on-line learning (on-line as compared to classroom) influenced the progression of scientific concept construction and analogical reasoning ability; and the degree to which different analogical reasoning (surface and relational salience) contributes to the progression of scientific concept construction and analogical reasoning ability. A total of 190 5th grade students were assigned to three different conditions: surface salience analogical reasoning without the use of on-line learning (condition 1), the same surface salience analogical reasoning with on-line learning (condition 2), and relational salience analogical reasoning with on-line learning (condition 3). Results indicate that condition 2 significantly outperformed condition 1, regardless of the progression of scientific concept construction and analogical reasoning. Condition 2 performed at the same level that condition 3 did, regardless of the progression of scientific concept construction and analogical reasoning. The stepwise regression indicated that the best predictor for scientific concept construction is analogical reasoning followed by scientific reasoning. This study highlights the idea that on-line learning benefits students more than classroom learning, surface salience analogical reasoning is as efficient as relational salience analogical reasoning, and analogical reasoning can better predict scientific concept construction than can scientific reasoning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study reports the impacts of the Scientific Concept Construction and Reconstruction (SCCR) digital learning system on eighth grade students' concept construction, conceptual change, and scientific reasoning involving the topic of "atoms". A two-factorial experimental design was carried out to investigate the effects of the approach of instruction and students' level of scientific reasoning on their pre-, post-, and retention-Atomic Achievement Test, Atomic Dependent Reasoning Test, and Scientific Reasoning Test. The control group (N=100) received conventional instruction whereas the experimental group (N=111) received an SCCR Web-based course. Results indicate that the experimental group significantly outperformed the conventional group on post- and retention-Atomic Achievement Test and Atomic Dependent Reasoning Test scores, and retention- Scientific Reasoning Test scores. Moreover, students with a higher level of scientific reasoning significantly performed better than students with a lower level of scientific reasoning, regardless of their scores on post- and retention-Atomic Achievement Test and Atomic Dependent Reasoning Test. This study successfully demonstrates that the experimental group students outperformed the conventional group students in the domains of concept construction, conceptual change and scientific reasoning. Moreover, students with a higher level of scientific reasoning were more able to successfully change their alternative conceptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]