Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
that users post their contributions through a spe-
cific argumentative format. By its very nature,
argumentation should encourage critical thinking
and evidence-based reasoning through the use of
claims, rebuttals, pros and cons, explicit opinions,
facts and figures. We expect that after the learn-
ing process needed to become confident with the
IBIS logic and intense use of the platform, users
will improve their critical thinking skills. In order
to test this hypothesis users can be given, before
and after the experiment, a critical thinking test
aimed at measuring if critical thinking skills have
improved. A possibility is to use existing stan-
dard critical thinking tests, like those employed
for graduate program admission or recruitment
purposes, consisting of a set of multiple-choice
questions that evaluate if users are able to recog-
nize valid arguments and reasoning fallacies and
produce correct deductions.
knowledge before and after the experiment.
H3:
The level of participation of users decreases
compared to forums and wikis due to the difficul-
ties of using argumentation rules to post their
contributions.
Previous studies with the IBIS logic show
that people encounter difficulties in using the
argumentation format, especially if they lack
previous experience and specific skills (Conklin,
2003). At the small scale this problem is solved
by human facilitators who are charged with the
task of identifying arguments in the discussion
and “coding” them into an argument map. On the
other hand, forums and wikis pose no constraints
to the way people wish to express their ideas.
Consequently, we expect that, on average, less
experienced and occasional users may be discour-
aged from participating. User participation can be
measured by several quantitative indicators such
as number of log-ins, number and kind of posts,
number of post revisions, number of feedback
comments given to other users, etc.
H2:
The deliberatorium supports users in gaining
and developing greater knowledge of the discus-
sion topic compared to forum and wikis.
On-line argumentation should foster debate
through internet-enabled “mass conversations”
made up of arguments, endorsements and at-
tacks, and should favor the emergence of the most
plausible, convincing and widely-shared conclu-
sions about a given topic. To correctly post their
contribution, users are required to understand the
structure of the discussion with the help of the
argument map and other knowledge visualiza-
tion facilities, to read other users' contributions
which are properly located in the current debate,
look for additional information to improve, attack
or endorse existing arguments and ideas, and/
or create new ones. Even for passive users, the
mere browsing of a well organized argument map
should help them to develop at least a basic, but
critical, understanding of the main issues related
to the topic. In order to test this hypothesis we will
develop, with the help of experts of the field, a
structured multiple-choice test to evaluate topical
Quality and Quantity of Knowledge
Contents
H4:
The quality of the contents posted by users of
the deliberatorium will be higher than in forums
and wikis
While on one hand the argumentation formal-
ism can represent an obstacle to participation, on
the other hand committed users together with
a handful of moderators endowed with above-
average argument mapping skills should increase
the quality and organization of the contents.
Content quality and proper knowledge organiza-
tion would, in turn, increase the pay-off for new
users in terms of the knowledge they gain from
using the system, so, in the long term, the level of
participation could recover. Measuring contribu-
tion quality is definitely critical. Content quality
Search WWH ::
Custom Search