LASAD: Flexible representations for computer-based collaborative argumentation

Teaching argumentation is challenging, and the factors of how to effectively support the acquisition of argumentation skills through technology are not fully explored yet. One of the key reasons for that is the lack of comparability between studies. In this article, we describe LASAD, a collaborative argumentation framework that can be flexibly parameterized. We illustrate the flexibility of the framework with respect to visualization, structural definitions and kind of cooperation. Using this framework, this paper presents an evaluation of the impact of using an argumentation system with different argument representations and with collaborative vs. individual use on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. We investigate which combinations of these factors produces the best results concerning argument production and learning outcomes. The results of this controlled lab study with 36 participants showed that the use of simple representational formats is superior compared to highly structured ones. Even though the latter encouraged the provision of additional non-given material, the former is less error-prone. A hypothesized structural guidance provided by more complex formats could not be confirmed. With respect to collaboration, the results highlight that arguing in groups lead to more cluttered argumentation maps, including a higher amount of duplicate elements. An expected peer-reviewing between group members did not occur. Yet, groups also tended to include more points-of-view in their arguments, leading to more elaborated argument maps.

► We introduce a domain-independent argumentation framework.
► We describe how shared visualizations can be applied to the same argument task.
► A lab study comparing individual/collaborative argumentation was conducted.
► A highly structured ontology caused problems for participants.
► Groups provide additional points of views, but no peer review took place.