A DEBATE DASHBOARD TO

SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF

ONLINE KNOWLEDGEONLINE KNOWLEDGE

MAPPING TOOLS

Ivana Quinto 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

1

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 newweb-mediatedplatformin order to support more structured conversations knownas mapping tools

These tools allowcollectives to create, navigate and share cognitivemaps.

?Issue

Idea

Con

Pro

Respond to

Support

Against

3

BENEFETIS OF ARGUMENT MAPPING TOOLS

This representation model has proved to provide users with severaladvantages in knowledge sharing and deliberation, such as:

A. encouraging evidence-based reasoning and critical thinking(BuckinghamShumand 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:CAN ARGUMENTATION SCALE?

Mapping tools

For

mal

Kno

wle

dge

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

Hig

h ??

For

mal

Kno

wle

dge

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

ScaleSmall Large

Low

wiki blog

E-voting

forum

Prediction market

5

ARGUMENT MAP VS CONVERSATION

The main barriers in adopting the argument mapping tools are:

� Argument vs conversation:

� argument maps are impersonal knowedge object

� unnaturalcommunicationformats� unnaturalcommunicationformats

� 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 computertechnology.

He identifiedtwo mainfactorsthataffectbenefits/costs ratio:He identifiedtwo mainfactorsthataffectbenefits/costs ratio:

� Perceived usefulness

� Perceived ease of use

7

Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989)

perceived benefits: provide an overview(Hair, 1991; Louiet al., 1997) and improve the exploration of large argumentmaps, speedup the researchprocess, developea senseof

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

maps, speedup the researchprocess, developea senseofmembership (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 thegrounding process people try to update their sharedinformation(commonground)in aconversationinformation(commonground)in aconversation

9

Feedback

Principle of least collaborative effort: in a conversationparticipants try to minimize their cognitive effort to ground whatthe speakers have said.

Groundingis harderto achievewhen conversationsaremediated

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Groundingis harderto achievewhen conversationsaremediatedby a technology.

Clark and Brennan individualize ten constraints that a mediumcanimpose on communication between two people in order toreduce ambiguity in conversation.

10

THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDAffordance Clark et al.’s definition Our adapted defi nition

Audibility Participants hear other users and sound inthe physical environment

Participants hear other users and sound inthe virtual environment

Copresence Users share the same physical environment Participants are mutually aware that theyshare a virtual environment

Cotemporality B receives at roughly the same time as Aproduces

Participant receives the message at roughlythe same time as the other produces (in realtime)

Mobility Users can move around physical space People can move around in a shared virtual

11

Mobility Users can move around physical space People can move around in a shared virtualenvironment

Reviewability B can review A’s message Message do not fade over time but can bereviewed

Revisability B can revise message for A Message can be revised before being sent

Simultaneity A and B can send and receive at once andsimultaneously.

Participants can send and receive messagesat once and simultaneously

Sequentiality A’s and B’s turns cannot get out ofsequence.

Participants can understand and see the replystructure

Tangibility Participants can touch other people andobjects in the physical environment

Participants can touch other people andobject in the virtual environment

Visibility A and B are visible to each other Participants see the actions of the othersuser in the shared virtual environment

ACCEPTANCE MODEL FOR ARGUMENT MAPPING TOOL

is reduced

by

Absorptionfeedback

Copresence

Cotemporality

Contextualization

Structuring

RelevanceWHAT?

HOW?Grounding

costs

is reduced

by

is reduced

by

Interactionfeedback

Community feedback

Cotemporality

Mobility

Sequentiality

Simultaneity

Visibility

Profile

Social/Organizational

structure

HOW?

WHO?

12

HOW TO DELIVER EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK WITHIN

ARGUMENT MAPS?AUGMENTED MAPPING TOOLS

“A dashboard is avisual display of the most important informationneeded to achieve one or more objectives, consolidated and arrangedon a single screen so the information can be monitored at a glance”(Few,2004)(Few,2004)

Information visualization offers the unique means that enablesusers to handle abstract information by taking advantage of theirvisual perception capabilities (Nguyen & Zhang, 2006).

13

Analysis and selection of

Set up of a mock -up of

Implementation Evaluation test of Debate

HOW TO DELIVER EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK WITHIN

ARGUMENT MAPS?AUGMENTED MAPPING TOOLS

selection of visualization tools

mock -up of Debate Dashboard

Implementation of Debate Dashboard

test of Debate Dashboard

14

THE DESIGN OF AUGMENTED MAPPING TOOLS

FEEDBACK

VISUAL.TOOLS

Bubble BulB ChangeTreeMap

Chat Circles

Chat Circles II

ChatScape

CommentFlow

CommentTree

Copresence X X X XCotemporality X X XMobility XSimultaneity X X XSequentiality Sequentiality

Visibility X X XRelevance

Structuring XContextualization

Profile

Social/organizationalstructure

X X

15

THE DESIGN OF THE DEBATE DASHBOARD

FEEDBACK

VISUAL.TOOLS

CommunicationGarden System

ConversationMap

Coterie Email Map Exhibit Flowergarden

ForumRedear

Copresence XCotemporality XMobility

Simultaneity XSequentialitySequentiality

Visibility XRelevance XStructuring XContextualization XProfile XSocial/organizationalstructure

X X

16

THE DESIGN OF THE DEBATE DASHBOARD

FEEDBACK

VISUAL.TOOLS

HistoryFlow

Loom NewsGroupCrowd and

AuthorLines

PeopleGarden

PostHistoryand

Fragments

SocialAction TagCloud

Copresence

Cotemporality

Mobility

Simultaneity

Sequentiality X XSequentiality X XVisibility

Relevance XStructuring

Contextualization

Profile

Social/organizationalstructure

X X17

THE DESIGN OF THE DEBATE DASHBOARD

FEEDBACK

VISUAL.TOOLS

TheMail ThemeRiver

TimeLine

TimePlot TimeVis TreeMap WikiDashboard Wordle

Copresence

Cotemporality

Mobility

Simultaneity

SequentialitySequentiality

Visibility

Relevance X X XStructuring XContextualization

Profile

Social/organizationalstructure

X

18

THE DESIGN OF THE DEBATE DASHBOARD

FEEDBACK

VISUAL.TOOLS

Chat Circles II

CommentFlow

ConversationMap Exhibit PeopleGarden

Wordle

Copresence XCotemporality XMobility XSimultaneity XSequentiality XVisibility XRelevance XStructuring XContextualization XProfile XSocial/organizationalstructure

X19

CHAT CIRCLES

20

COMMENT FLOW

21

EXHIBIT

22

PEOPLEGARDEN

23

WORDLE

24

Analysis of Cohere user interface to integrate selectedvisualization tools.

Preliminary results: Mock-up of Cohere user interfacewith selectedvisualizationtools.with selectedvisualizationtools.

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 throughenhancement of social interaction among users

o Performance improvemento 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