Tackling Cognitively-Complex Collaboration with CoPe_it!

Karacapilidis, Nikos; Tzagarakis, Manolis; Καρούσος, Νίκος; Gkotsis, George; Kallistros, Vassilis; Christodoulou, Spyros; Mettouris, Christos

doi:10.4018/jwbltt.2009090802

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Examples include DebateGraph (http:// www.debategraph.org), which offers a graph style and a threaded textual representation, Araucaria, which allows the user to switch between three representational notations that differ in terms of layout and ontology, and CoPe_it! (Karacapilidis et al 2009), which offers views that differ in terms of formality and available actions to support different argumentation phases (e.g., brainstorming versus decision making).…”

Section: Argument Representationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art

Scheuer

Loll

Pinkwart

et al. 2010

Computer Supported Learning

308

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation is an important skill to learn. It is valuable not only in many professional contexts, such as the law, science, politics, and business, but also in everyday life. However, not many people are good arguers. In response to this, researchers and practitioners over the past 15-20 years have developed software tools both to support and teach argumentation. Some of these tools are used in individual fashion, to present students with the "rules" of argumentation in a particular domain and give them an opportunity to practice, while other tools are used in collaborative fashion, to facilitate communication and argumentation between multiple, and perhaps distant, participants. In this paper, we review the extensive literature on argumentation systems, both individual and collaborative, and both supportive and educational, with an eye toward particular aspects of the past work. More specifically, we review the types of argument representations that have been used, the various types of interaction design and ontologies that have been employed, and the system architecture issues that have been addressed. In addition, we discuss intelligent and automated features that have been imbued in past systems, such as automatically analyzing the quality of arguments and providing intelligent feedback to support and/or tutor argumentation. We also discuss a variety of empirical studies that have been done with argumentation systems, including, among other aspects, studies that have evaluated the effect of argument diagrams (e.g., textual versus graphical), different representations, and adaptive feedback on learning argumentation. Finally, we conclude by summarizing the "lessons learned" from this large and impressive body of work, particularly focusing on lessons for the CSCL research community and its ongoing efforts to develop computermediated collaborative argumentation systems.

show abstract

Section: Argument Representationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art

Scheuer

Loll

Pinkwart

et al. 2010

Computer Supported Learning

308

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers developed many argumentation models and tools (Kunz and Rittel 1970;Conklin and Begeman 1988;Gordon and Karacapilidis 1997;Kraus, Sycara, and Evenchik 1998 Karacapilidis et al 2009;Vesic, Ianchuk, and Rubtsov 2012). We will review a list of examples of argumentation systems in the context of social interactions for collaborative decision support to make it relevant.…”

Section: Argumentation Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polarisation assessment in an intelligent argumentation system using fuzzy clustering algorithm for collaborative decision support

Arvapally¹,

Liu²

2013

Argument & Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We developed an on-line intelligent argumentation system which facilitates stakeholders in exchanging dialogues. It provides decision support by capturing stakeholders' rationale through arguments. As part of the argumentation process, stakeholders tend to both polarise their opinions and form polarisation groups. The challenging issue of assessing argumentation polarisation had not been addressed in argumentation systems until recently. Arvapally, Liu, and Jiang [(2012), 'Identification of Faction Groups and Leaders in Web-Based Intelligent Argumentation System for Collaborative Decision Support', in Proceedings of International Conference on Collaborative Technologies and Systems] earlier developed a method to identify polarisation groups. These groups, however, tend to overlap to a certain degree; each stakeholder may be a member of multiple polarisation groups to varied degrees. Quantifying stakeholders' membership in multiple polarisation groups is an important issue in the argumentation for collaborative decision-making, which is not addressed earlier. We present a novel approach using fuzzy clustering algorithm to address this issue in this article. The method is evaluated using data sets produced from the discussions of 24 stakeholders. Experimental results indicate that our method is effective for both identifying polarisation groups and quantifying stakeholders' degree of membership in each polarisation group.

show abstract

“…[19] • Debategraph [20] • Deliberatorium [21] • LASAD [22] • Rationale and bCisive [23] The reviews were based on the literature about the tools and personal communication with the relevant tool developers. The reviews focused on consideration of the drivers for the AVT tool as described previously and the specific requirements of the IMPACT project.…”

Section: State Of the Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument Visualization for eParticipation: Towards a Research Agenda and Prototype Tool

Benn

Macintosh

2011

Electronic Participation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Part 2: Visualising ArgumentsInternational audienceThis paper describes research that aims to develop an argument visualization tool and associated method for supporting eParticipation and online deliberation. Based on the state-of-the-art in the field of computer-supported argument visualization, the tool will support the work of relevant eParticipation actors by enabling them to navigate through arguments contained in relevant consultation and policy documents. This tool will form the core of our investigation into the mediating role that large, Web-based argument maps can play in eParticipation scenarios. In particular, we intend to investigate the method and practice of how various eParticipation actors use the tool in the policy-making process. To this end, this paper sets out a clear research agenda for research at the intersection of eParticipation and computer-supported argument visualization

show abstract

Tackling Cognitively-Complex Collaboration with CoPe_it!

Cited by 28 publications

References 24 publications

Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art

Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art

Polarisation assessment in an intelligent argumentation system using fuzzy clustering algorithm for collaborative decision support

Argument Visualization for eParticipation: Towards a Research Agenda and Prototype Tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About