On online collaboration and construction of shared knowledge: Assessing mediation capability in computer supported argument visualization tools

摘要

On Online Collaboration and Construction of SharedKnowledge: Assessing Mediation Capability in ComputerSupported Argument Visualization ToolsLuca IandoliSchool of Systems and Enterprises, Stevens Institute of Technology, Castle Point on Hudson, Hoboken, NJ07030, and Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, 80, Piazzale Tecchio,Naples 80125, Italy. E-mail: liandoli@stevens.edu; iandoli@unina.itIvana QuintoDepartment of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, 80, Piazzale Tecchio, Naples 80125,Italy. E-mail: Ivana.quinto@unina.itAnna De Liddo and Simon Buckingham ShumKnowledge Media Institute, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK. E-mail:anna.deliddo@open.ac.uk; simon.buckingham.shum@open.ac.ukCollaborative Computer-Supported Argument Visualiza-tion (CCSAV) has often been proposed as an alternativeover more conventional, mainstream platforms foronline discussion (e.g., online forums and wikis).CCSAV tools require users to contribute to the creationof a joint artifact (argument map) instead of contributingto a conversation. In this paper we assess empiricallythe effects of this fundamental design choice and showthat the absence of conversational affordances andsocially salient information in representation-centrictools is detrimental to the users’ collaboration experi-ence. We report empirical findings from a study in whichsubjects using different collaborative platforms (aforum, an argumentation platform, and a socially aug-mented argumentation tool) were asked to discuss andpredict the price of a commodity. By comparing users’experience across several metrics we found evidencethat the collaborative performance decreases graduallywhen we remove conversational interaction and othertypes of socially salient information. We interpret thesefindings through theories developed in conversationalanalysis (common ground theory) and communities ofpractice and discuss design implications. In particular,we propose balancing the trade-off between knowledgereification and participation in representation-centrictools with the provision of social feedback and function-alities supporting meaning negotiation