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.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. THE CHALLENGE:
Formal Knowledge Representation
CAN ARGUMENTATION SCALE?
Mapping tools
?
High
Prediction market
E-voting
Low
wiki blog
forum
5
Small Large
Scale

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. CHAT CIRCLES
20

21. COMMENT FLOW
21

22. EXHIBIT
22

23. PEOPLEGARDEN
23

24. WORDLE
24

25. Analysis of Cohere user interface to integrate selected
visualization tools.
Preliminary results: Mock-up of Cohere user interface
with selected visualization tools.
25

26. THE MOCK- UP OF THE DEBATE
DASHBOARD
Dataportrait People online
26

27. 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

28. NEXT STEPS
Evaluation of the Debate Dashboard
Analysis of results/Data
Improvement of the Debate Dashboard
Implementation of the Debate Dashboard
28

29. Thank you for the attention
(any questions and comments are
welcome)
29