The Open UniversitySkip to content
 

Socially-augmented argumentation tools:
rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard

Iandoli, Luca; Quinto, Ivana; De Liddo, Anna and Buckingham Shum, Simon (2014). Socially-augmented argumentation tools:
rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(3) pp. 298–319.

Full text available as:
[img]
Preview
PDF (Accepted Manuscript) - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (2MB) | Preview
DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.006
Google Scholar: Look up in Google Scholar

Abstract

Collaborative Computer-Supported Argument Visualization (CCSAV) is a technical methodology that offers support for online collective deliberation over complex dilemmas. As compared with more traditional conversational technologies, like wikis and forums, CCSAV is designed to promote more critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning, by using representations that highlight conceptual relationships between contributions, and through computational analytics that assess the structural integrity of the network. However, to date, CCSAV tools have achieved adoption primarily in small-scale educational contexts, and only to a limited degree in real world applications. We hypothesise that by reifying conversations as logical maps to address the shortcomings of chronological streams, CCSAV tools underestimate the importance of participation and interaction in enhancing collaborative knowledge-building. We argue, therefore, that CCSAV platforms should be socially augmented in order to improve their mediation capability. Drawing on Clark and Brennan’s influential Common Ground theory, we designed a Debate Dashboard, which augmented a CCSAV tool with a set of widgets that deliver meta-information about participants and the interaction process. An empirical study simulating a moderately sized collective deliberation scenario provides evidence that this experimental version outperformed the control version on a range of indicators, including usability, mutual understanding, quality of perceived collaboration, and accuracy of individual decisions. No evidence was found that the addition of the Debate Dashboard impeded the quality of the argumentation or the richness of content.

Item Type: Journal Item
Copyright Holders: 2013 Elsevier B.V.
ISSN: 1071-5819
Keywords: computer-supported argument visualization; grounding process; common ground; debate dashboard; collective deliberation; visual feedback
Academic Unit/School: Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) > Knowledge Media Institute (KMi)
Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
Interdisciplinary Research Centre: Centre for Research in Computing (CRC)
Related URLs:
Item ID: 38551
Depositing User: Anna De Liddo
Date Deposited: 25 Sep 2013 14:44
Last Modified: 04 Oct 2016 18:16
URI: http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/38551
Share this page:

Altmetrics

Download history for this item

These details should be considered as only a guide to the number of downloads performed manually. Algorithmic methods have been applied in an attempt to remove automated downloads from the displayed statistics but no guarantee can be made as to the accuracy of the figures.

Actions (login may be required)

Policies | Disclaimer

© The Open University   + 44 (0)870 333 4340   general-enquiries@open.ac.uk