Socially augmented argumentation tools: Rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 2014, 72 (3), pp. 298 - 319
- Issue Date:
Files in This Item:
|Socially augmented argumentation tools Rationale, design and.pdf||Published Version||3.89 MB|
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Closed Access
This item is closed access and not available.
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 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. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: