Graphically and spatially displayed text tools – The Concept

Alternative to a linear text display of synchronous communication graphic displays can be used. It is the way the space is created and used to display the interactions that is different. van Amelsvoort (2006) take the view that argumentation has a vital position is the process of negotiating meaning during learning. It is a form of thinking or reasoning. (Toulmin’s Argument Schema, Pragma Dialectics, Waltons Dialogue, Baker’s Learning Mechanisms, Knowledge Building and Progressive Inquiry) Chat is the representation of the communication is in the linear form. Van Amelsvoort (2006) refers to Suther’s (2003) research in relation to using different ways of representing interactions such as diagrams, matrices, text, containers and threaded discussions. The use of diagrams allows the learners to use concepts to construct knowledge. This relates to Buzan’s (2004) work on learning by developing Mind Maps as discussed in earlier blog. Similar to this are concept maps (Akinsanya & Williams 2004, Williams 2004) which are used in many disciplines as visual language. The map allows the individual to develop on prior knowledge and make links between concepts and have a visual pathway of individual understanding of meaning. ‘The concept is usually enclosed in a circle or square (and) a connecting line and linking words showing the relationship between two concepts.’ (Williams 2004, pp 34) van Amelsvoort (2006) refers to Lohse et al’s (1994) ‘network charts’ which show relationship between components via use of lines, arrows, proximity, similarity or containers.  The meaning can be understood from the spatial arrangement of the information. As part of the learning strategy this approach can be taken to allow for collaborative learning (Akinsanya & Williams 2004, van Amelsvoort 2006). van Amelsvoort (2006) goes on to explain that there are four benefits of graphical representation :

•             Diagrams are concrete and require less interpretation than a verbal representation. If we use the argumentation approach, the links would be positive or negative and so nuances can be missed. However, if we take the view that learners are building concept maps, then the wider links and even weaker links can be accounted for.

•             Diagrams show structure and relations and so it is easy to see the patterns. The discussion can be broadened and deepened when using diagram as it generates discussion on clearly visible links.

•             Diagrams give an instant overview and keep a complete record. However, when the diagram is made up of shapes with text in them it is difficult to get the overview specially if boxes contain a lot of text and the map gets complex.

•             Diagrams can stimulate and guide communication and reasoning. The students can use each other’s ideas to generate further discussion which is relevant. It forces the students to make clear arguments and negotiate to come to a shared understanding.

Van Amelsvoort (2004) goes on to say that these reasons have not been substantiated by empirical evidence. It does not give a clear idea about the underlying cognitive processes. The success of the representational tool is dependent on how it is used and not on the fact that the tool is available to use. The effect is also reliant on the kind of task as well as knowledge of the learner. Moreover, the research into tools is hard to generalise as there are many different tools and many different studies. The use of open task diagrams appears to be more congruent to the earlier described benefits. These are again similar to the concept mapping as it is a good way to organise information and bring together prior and new learning. It also makes the process of learning transparent to all involved. (Williams 2004) van Amelsvoort (2004) summarise that ‘diagrams may benefit both construction and communication of arguments for many reasons, such as clarifying relations (Suthers 2003), illustrating the structure of argumentation (Shwarz, Neuman, Gil & Ilya 2000), giving overview (Larkin & Simon 1987), helping to maintain focus (Veerman 2000), and promoting reflection of alternative perspectives, solutions, and critiques (Kolodner & Guzdial 1996).’ (pp 40)

The advantage that graphic tool has over the text based chat is that it is not linear and so can be seen in two dimensional space. ‘Argumentation theory aims to analyse, describe, and evaluate arguments that occur in the real world. It aims to teach students both to think critically about the arguments of others, and to create better, more measured arguments of their own. One of the key tools available to the discipline is diagramming. The claims and their associated reasons within a given argument are identified, and the relationships between them drawn up as trees. This diagram then serves as a basis for criticism and reflection’. (Reed & Rowe, 2004, pp 1) The first premise of this theory is in pedagogy. It uses diagrams to support the teaching of critical thinking skills. The need to teach critical thinking, and the increased use of technology, has led to the appearance of a number of software systems for argument diagramming that are intended for pedagogical use. Secondly diagrams allow for the construction and implementation of theories of argument evaluation within the research community. Lastly, argumentation itself has many applications within computing, especially for artificial intelligence.