• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
A Debate Dashboard to Support the Adoption of Online Knowledge Mapping Tools
 

A Debate Dashboard to Support the Adoption of Online Knowledge Mapping Tools

on

  • 1,094 views

Several web tools, also known as argument mapping tools, have been developed so far, which apply an organizational and visualization approach based on argument mapping. An argument map is a ...

Several web tools, also known as argument mapping tools, have been developed so far, which apply an organizational and visualization approach based on argument mapping. An argument map is a representation of reasoning in which the evidential relationships among claims are made wholly explicit using graphical or other non-verbal techniques. Argument mapping provides a logical rather than time-based debate representation of users’ contributions. This representation model has proved to provide users with several advantages, such as: i. encouraging evidence-based reasoning and critical thinking; ii. improving the understanding of wide amount of knowledge; iii. driving conversation toward effective deliberation; iv. expanding our capacity to grasp more complex discussions.
Nevertheless those technologies still do not have widespread diffusion and the level of adoption is low.
The aim of my PhD thesis is to investigate new technological solutions to support the adoption of argument mapping tools.
The main barrier to the adoption of mapping tools is the existence of constraints to the conversation that force users to respect pre-established communication formats and rules. Moreover, the literature suggests that the loss of information and feedback during conversation represents another important barrier to the adoption of mapping tools.
Therefore, the loss of immediacy, due to the formalization, coupled with the lack of information about users, interaction processes, and generated content, entails the users a higher cognitive effort and time consuming to learn how to use the tool. This makes the benefit/cost ratio too low for the average user, thus causing limited adoption (Davis, 1989).
To tackle this problem, we propose a Debate dashboard in order to provide users with visual feedback about the interaction between users and the content generated by them. This feedback aims at reducing cognitive efforts and making the benefits associated with using of arguments maps more evident. The dashboard will be composed of visualization tools which deliver such feedback.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,094
Views on SlideShare
1,065
Embed Views
29

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
20
Comments
3

2 Embeds 29

http://cloudworks.ac.uk 28
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

13 of 3 previous next Post a comment

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Thanks Ivana!
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Now you can :-), thanks a lot
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • I especially love slide 5 -- plotting low vs. high in formal knowledge representation, and low vs. high in scale. I'd love to use a copy of that, if you allow download in the future.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    A Debate Dashboard to Support the Adoption of Online Knowledge Mapping Tools A Debate Dashboard to Support the Adoption of Online Knowledge Mapping Tools Presentation Transcript

    • A DEBATE DASHBOARD TO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF ONLINE KNOWLEDGE MAPPING TOOLS Ivana Quinto 1 PhD Student in Science and Technology Management Department of Business and Management Engineering University of Naples Federico II MARCH 31ST, 2010, KMI, THE OPEN UNIVERSITY
    • THE WEAKNESSES OF LARGE SCALE WEB 2.0 TOOLS Notwithstanding the widespread adoption of web 2.0 technologies (wikis, forums, blogs..) they have proved to be not successful at: • Managing conflicting point of views • Structuring knowledge • Identifying relevant information • Leading groups to consensus • Evaluating contents quality. 2
    • AN ALTERNATIVE: COLLABORATIVE MAPPING TOOLS Recently some researchers have proposed a new web-mediated platform in order to support more structured conversations known as mapping tools These tools allow collectives to create, navigate and share cognitive maps. Pro Issue Support ? Idea Respond to Against Con 3
    • BENEFETIS OF ARGUMENT MAPPING TOOLS This representation model has proved to provide users with several advantages in knowledge sharing and deliberation, such as: A. encouraging evidence-based reasoning and critical thinking (Buckingham Shum and Hammond, 2004) B. improving the understanding of wide amount of knowledge C. driving conversation toward effective deliberation (van Gelder, 2003) D. expanding our capacity to grasp more complex discussions (Conklin, 2006). 4
    • THE CHALLENGE: Formal Knowledge Representation CAN ARGUMENTATION SCALE? Mapping tools ? High Prediction market E-voting Low wiki blog forum 5 Small Large Scale
    • ARGUMENT MAP VS CONVERSATION The main barriers in adopting the argument mapping tools are: Argument vs conversation: argument maps are impersonal knowedge object unnatural communication formats Steep learning curve in absence of immediate benefits 6
    • METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH Davis (1989) introduced the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) for explaining and predicting user acceptance of computer technology. He identified two main factors that affect benefits/costs ratio: Perceived usefulness Perceived ease of use 7
    • METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) perceived benefits: provide an overview (Hair, 1991; Loui et al., 1997) and improve the exploration of large argument maps, speed up the research process, develope a sense of membership (Kim, 2000; Mohamed et al., 2002); perceived costs: grounding costs (Clark and Brennan, 1991). 8
    • THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Common ground is defined as mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions (Clark & Carlson, 1982; Clark & Marshall, 1981; Lewis, 1969; Schelling, 1960). Through the grounding process people try to update their shared information (common ground) in a conversation Feedback 9
    • THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Principle of least collaborative effort: in a conversation participants try to minimize their cognitive effort to ground what the speakers have said. Grounding is harder to achieve when conversations are mediated by a technology. Clark and Brennan individualize ten constraints that a medium can impose on communication between two people in order to reduce ambiguity in conversation. 10
    • THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Affordance Clark et al.’s definition Our adapted definition Audibility Participants hear other users and sound in Participants hear other users and sound in the physical environment the virtual environment Copresence Users share the same physical environment Participants are mutually aware that they share a virtual environment Cotemporality B receives at roughly the same time as A Participant receives the message at roughly produces the same time as the other produces (in real time) Mobility Users can move around physical space People can move around in a shared virtual environment Reviewability B can review A’s message Message do not fade over time but can be reviewed Revisability B can revise message for A Message can be revised before being sent Simultaneity A and B can send and receive at once and Participants can send and receive messages simultaneously. at once and simultaneously Sequentiality A’s and B’s turns cannot get out of Participants can understand and see the reply sequence. structure Tangibility Participants can touch other people and Participants can touch other people and objects in the physical environment object in the virtual environment Visibility A and B are visible to each other Participants see the actions of the others 11 user in the shared virtual environment
    • ACCEPTANCE MODEL FOR ARGUMENT MAPPING TOOL Relevance WHAT? Absorption Structuring feedback Contextualization is reduced by Copresence Cotemporality is HOW? Grounding reduced Interaction feedback Mobility costs by Sequentiality Simultaneity is Visibility reduced by WHO? Community Profile feedback Social/ 12 Organizational structure
    • HOW TO DELIVER EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK WITHIN ARGUMENT MAPS? AUGMENTED MAPPING TOOLS “A dashboard is a visual display of the most important information needed to achieve one or more objectives, consolidated and arranged on a single screen so the information can be monitored at a glance” (Few, 2004) Information visualization offers the unique means that enables users to handle abstract information by taking advantage of their visual perception capabilities (Nguyen & Zhang, 2006). 13
    • HOW TO DELIVER EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK WITHIN ARGUMENT MAPS? AUGMENTED MAPPING TOOLS Analysis and Set up of a Implementation Evaluation selection of mock-up of of Debate test of Debate visualization Debate Dashboard Dashboard tools Dashboard 14
    • THE DESIGN OF AUGMENTED MAPPING TOOLS FEEDBACK Bubble BulB Change Chat Chat Chat Comment Comment TreeMap Circles Circles II Scape Flow Tree VISUAL.TOOLS Copresence X X X X Cotemporality X X X Mobility X Simultaneity X X X Sequentiality Visibility X X X Relevance Structuring X Contextualization Profile Social/ X X organizational structure 15
    • THE DESIGN OF THE DEBATE DASHBOARD FEEDBACK Communication Conversation Coterie Email Map Exhibit Flower Forum Garden System Map garden Redear VISUAL.TOOLS Copresence X Cotemporality X Mobility Simultaneity X Sequentiality Visibility X Relevance X Structuring X Contextualization X Profile X Social/ X X organizational structure 16
    • THE DESIGN OF THE DEBATE DASHBOARD FEEDBACK History Loom NewsGroup People PostHistory SocialAction TagCloud Flow Crowd and Garden and VISUAL.TOOLS AuthorLines Fragments Copresence Cotemporality Mobility Simultaneity Sequentiality X X Visibility Relevance X Structuring Contextualization Profile Social/ X X organizational 17 structure
    • THE DESIGN OF THE DEBATE DASHBOARD FEEDBACK TheMail Theme Time TimePlot TimeVis TreeMap WikiDashboard Wordle River Line VISUAL.TOOLS Copresence Cotemporality Mobility Simultaneity Sequentiality Visibility Relevance X X X Structuring X Contextualization Profile Social/ X organizational structure 18
    • THE DESIGN OF THE DEBATE DASHBOARD FEEDBACK Chat Comment ConversationMap Exhibit People Wordle Circles II Flow Garden VISUAL.TOOLS Copresence X Cotemporality X Mobility X Simultaneity X Sequentiality X Visibility X Relevance X Structuring X Contextualization X Profile X Social/ X organizational 19 structure
    • CHAT CIRCLES 20
    • COMMENT FLOW 21
    • EXHIBIT 22
    • PEOPLEGARDEN 23
    • WORDLE 24
    • Analysis of Cohere user interface to integrate selected visualization tools. Preliminary results: Mock-up of Cohere user interface with selected visualization tools. 25
    • THE MOCK- UP OF THE DEBATE DASHBOARD Dataportrait People online 26
    • EXPECTED RESULTS We expect that augmented online mapping tools will: o Support the adoption of online mapping tools through enhancement of social interaction among users o Performance improvement • Decrease of misunderstanding • Reduction of cognitive effort required to use mapping tools • Improvement of the exploration and the analysis of the maps • ...... 27
    • NEXT STEPS Evaluation of the Debate Dashboard Analysis of results/Data Improvement of the Debate Dashboard Implementation of the Debate Dashboard 28
    • Thank you for the attention (any questions and comments are welcome) 29