Development of an Online Graph-Oriented Collaborative Argumentation Tool for Middle School Students: A Faculty Expert's Perspective

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Jun 8, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v9i1.23572

Main Article Content

Pi-Sui Hsu
Northern Illinois University
Silvia Ginting
Northern Illinois University
Margot Van Dyke

Abstract

The objective of this design case was to describe the development of an online graph-oriented tool to support the representation of collaborative argumentation for middle school students from a faculty expert’s perspective and discuss the processes that were instrumental in developing the tool. Supported by the professional staff in the Digital Convergence Lab (DCL) at Northern Illinois University, a student team was involved in the development process of such a tool. Based on the design document from the design team, the development team developed a prototype and the faculty expert conducted a series of usability tests with 119 middle school students in the United States. Overall, the results of the usability testing suggested that the prototype is targeted at supporting the representation of scientific argumentation. The student participants also provided suggestions for further improvement of the prototype.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Hsu, P.-S., Ginting, S., & Van Dyke, M. (2018). Development of an Online Graph-Oriented Collaborative Argumentation Tool for Middle School Students: A Faculty Expert’s Perspective. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 9(1), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v9i1.23572
Issue
Vol. 9 No. 1 (2018)
Section
Design Cases

Copyright © 2025 by the International Journal of Designs for Learning, a publication of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), published by Indiana University Libraries Journals. Permission to make digital or hard copies of portions of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee, provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page in print or the first screen in digital media. Except as otherwise noted, the content published by IJDL is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. A simpler version of this statement is available here.

Author Biographies

Silvia Ginting, Northern Illinois University

Silvia Ginting is a Ph.D. candidate in ETRA at Northern Illinois University. She specializes in computer-supported language learning.

Margot Van Dyke

Margot Van Dyke is a Middle School Science Teacher at O’Neill Middle School, Downers Grove. Her research interests focus on instructional design and integration of technology in science teaching and learning.

References

Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776

Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability Evaluation in Industry (pp. 189-194). London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

Hsu, P.-S., Van Dyke, M., Chen, Y., & Smith, T. J. (2016a). The effect of a graph-oriented computer-assisted project-based learning environment on argumentation skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 51-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12118

Hsu, P.-S., Adulseranee, R., Newman, E., Underwood, J., Wills, C., & Van Dyke, M. (2016b). Designing an online collaborative tool for middle school students: A faculty expert’s perspective. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(3), 34-41. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i3.13469

Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306

Kuhn, D., Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2010). Why argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentive discourse. Discourse Processes, 48(1), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638531003653344

Ministry of Education in Taiwan. (2003). Science education [White paper]. Taipei: Ministry of Education.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nielsen, J. (January 4, 2012). Usability 101: Introduction to usability. Retrieved from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html

Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computersupported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x

Soken, N., Reinhart, B., Vora, P., & Metz, S. (1993). Methods for Evaluating Usability (Section 5B). Honeywell International: UK.

Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.007