Paper Prototype Study

A paper prototype was developed to investigate the following research questions3.

RQ1: How should argument representations look like in order to be comprehensible and at the same time support learners in creating arguments?

RQ2: Do learners sequence their arguments sufficiently when they are instructed accordingly?

The paper prototype consisted of a table which was covered with a table-sized piece of paper (see Figure 4.2, left). On the table there were different stacks of cardboards, which could be used to note down keywords to summarize an argument. To examine RQ1, we designed three argument representations that were printed on the paper cards. (1) In the ’triangular design’ three boxes named ’claim’, ’grounds’ and ’qualification’ were arranged in a triangle (see Figure 4.3, left).

3 _{The study research questions RQ1, RQ2, ... are renumerated in each study, which means the numbers are only}

valid within the study they are reported in. The study research questions are not to be confused with the global thesis questions RQI and RQII as explained in section 3.6.

68 4 Choosing a Display (Environment)

Figure 4.2: Setup in the paper prototype study (left) and grouping of arguments (right).

This design is similar to the collaboration script implemented by Stegmann et al. (2007a), which successfully supported the construction of single arguments in asynchronous online discussions. (2) The ’linear design’ showed three boxes that were connected by the clause openers ’because’ and ’unless’ (see Figure 4.3, center). To be consistent to the sequential structure of the sentence, the boxes and clause openers were vertically arranged. (3) Finally, the ’free design’ was an empty paper card, which was provided to allow learners to use their own layouts or design their own argument representations (Figure 4.3, right). Each of the three designs was available in different colors (red, green, yellow and white) to allow distinctions between different kinds of arguments (e.g. pro, con and integration).

1 each available in the colors: red yellow green white because ! unless ! 2 Claim Grounds Qualification 3 I think that ! each available in the colors: red yellow green white

Figure 4.3: Three design alternatives used in the paper prototype, each available in red, yellow, green and white: (1) triangular, (2) linear and (3) free.

Our second goal was to facilitate argument sequencing. A traditional classroom approach would be instructing the learners to sequence their arguments and providing means to do so (e.g. pens for drawing links between arguments). This case study was intended to investigate whether this approach sufficiently supports argument sequencing (RQ2). Argument sequences could be built in two ways. First, connecting lines could be drawn on the large background paper. Second, flex- ible spiraled wires could be attached to two paper cards to establish a link between them. While drawing lines may be easier, the wires allow for rearranging the cardboards without breaking the links.

4.1 Iterative Design of the ArgueTable 69

Method

To examine the research questions, a paper prototype study was conducted. Overall N=12 learn- ers in groups of two or three participated in the paper prototype study. 58% of the participants were female. Four of them were graduate students, the remaining eight were doctoral students. Altogether five groups were built, three dyads and two groups of three. The participants were asked to imagine they took a course called ‘Learning how to argue’. In the beginning a short introduction was given, in which the structure of arguments was explained. Each learner was assigned a position (e.g. pro or con a given statement). Learners were instructed to create argu- ments consisting of claim, grounds and qualification, to provide pros and cons, to build argument sequences by relating their own arguments to their learning partner’s arguments, and finally to draw a conclusion. The participants were told that in the end the content of the table should rep- resent the course of discussion. There was no time limit to ensure that all groups would be able to reach a conclusion. After the groups had finished their argumentation, there was an open discus- sion on the paper prototype, which the experimenter started by asking why the according design alternatives were chosen. Later, more general feedback was collected and finally the group was asked to agree on their favorite design.

The discussions were videotaped. The videos were later analyzed to investigate which design alternatives were chosen as argument representations and whether argument sequences were built sufficiently.

Results

With regard to the argument representation, seven participants chose the triangular design, four chose the linear and one person the free design. All participants stuck to the design they ini- tially chose. Only for the conclusion three of the five groups switched to the free design. When asked about the reasons for choosing the triangular design, the answer was always that the layout creates a good overview of the argument components. One participant mentioned that the linear design suggests a hierarchy that he did not like. In addition, some participants complained about the structure of the sentence, which is imposed on the learners. At the same time, the sentence structure was the main argument named by all participants who chose the linear design. A com- promise that was agreed on in several groups was to keep the layout of the triangular design and replace the text by the three clause openers ‘I think that ...’, ‘because ...’ and ‘unless ...’. Furthermore, it was suggested to add a field for a keyword that summarizes the argument. Concerning the argument sequencing, two of the five groups used the wires to link arguments in the beginning of the discussion. Both of them decided to draw lines after a while. The remaining three groups only used pens. However, arguments were rarely directly related to previous argu- ments. Consequently, hardly any argument sequences were built. The common approach was to present arguments without relating them to one another, and in the end structuring the collected arguments. The result of the structuring process was mostly groups of related arguments (Figure 4.2, right) rather than sequences. During the final discussion the participants were asked why they did not/rarely sequence their arguments. The main reason was that finding a direct relationship between arguments was much more difficult than grouping them.

70 4 Choosing a Display (Environment)

Apart from the two research questions there were some other interesting observations. We ex- pected learners to (spontaneously) discuss the given topic and along the way note down their arguments on the cardboards. Although the instructions were given accordingly, none of the groups immediately started with the discussion. All participants started to silently brainstorm for arguments that supported their position. The arguments were noted down on cardboards but not presented until all group members were finished with the brainstorming. In other words, the learners automatically inserted an individual phase prior to the discussion. Moreover, we ob- served a seeming correlation between the positioning of argument representations and the num- ber of sequences built. Some groups moved ‘active’ arguments (arguments that are currently discussed) to the center to show them to the discussion partners. In the other groups, arguments remained in the proximity of their creators. These groups hardly built any sequences.

Summary and consequences for the ArgueTable redesign

The feedback of the participants led to a redesign of the interface for the construction of single arguments (see Figure 4.4), which was used in the next case study. Since the next study was done with a functional prototype, controls for minimizing and maximizing the argument representation were added. By clicking on the ‘minimize’ button the argument structure (claim, grounds and qualification) is hidden. Only the title (summarizing keyword) and controls are shown. In the minimized state (Figure 4.4, right) a maximize button shows a thumbnail of three hidden boxes. In the thumbnail empty boxes are white, filled boxes are gray. Furthermore, a rotate button allows users to rotate the argument representation by 180◦ in order to show the content to the opponent.

Security



_

Editable text fields Clause openers Triangular argument structure Argument title rotate by 180° Security



The colors of the boxes in symbolize completeness: in this case claim and grounds exist, qualification is missing.

additional box for title and control

Figure 4.4: Redesign of argument representations.

Apart from the redesign of argument representations we identified argument sequencing as dif- ficult task, which is rarely done by learners even when instructed to do so. Therefore, argument sequencing needs to be scaffolded accordingly.

4.1 Iterative Design of the ArgueTable 71