Scaffolding Computer Supported Argumentation Processes through Mini Map Based Interaction Techniques

  • Nguyen-Thinh Le
  • Sabine Niebuhr
  • David Drexler
  • Niels Pinkwart
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8015)


Recent prior studies with argumentation systems have shown that, unfortunately, with larger learner groups using argumentation software over longer periods of time, argument maps inevitably increase greatly in size and complexity, often leading to learner confusion. To help users understand and navigate within large and complex argument maps, we implemented an initial version of mini maps within an existing tested argumentation system. This isan implementation of the general usability pattern “overview + detail”. In addition, in order to facilitate the interaction with larger argument maps, the “anchor principle” has been implemented to define an anchor area in a workspace. Evaluation studies showed that, using mini-maps and anchors, the orientation of students could be improved.


usability patterns argumentation systems mini-maps 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baudisch, P., Good, N., Bellotti, V., Schraedley, P.: Keeping things in context: a comparative evaluation of focus plus context screens, overviews, and zooming. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2002, pp. 259–266. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bederson, B.B., Boltman, A.: Does Animation Help Users Build Mental Maps of Spatial Information? In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, INFOVIS 1999, pp. 28–35. IEEE Computer Society Press (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burmester, M., Hassenzahl, M., Koller, F.: Usability istnichtalles – Wegezuattraktiven Produkten. I-Com Zeitschrift für interaktive und kooperative Medien 1, 22–40 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cockburn, A., Savage, J.: Comparing speed-dependent automatic zooming with traditional scroll, pan and zoom methods. In: Proceedings of the British Computer Society Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, People and Computers XVII, pp. 87–102 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cockburn, A., Karlson, A., Bederson, B.B.: A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(1), 1–31 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kosara, R., Miksch, S., Hauser, H.: Semantic Depth of Field. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, INFOVIS 2001, pp. 97–104. IEEE Computer Society Press (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuhn, D.: The Skills of Argument. Cambridge University Press (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Niebuhr, S., Pinkwart, N.: Usability requirements for exploratory learning environments: the case of educational argumentation systems. In: Dragon, T., Mavrikis, M., Gutierrez-Santos, S., Mclaren, B.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Support for Exploratory Environments at the 11th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS), pp. 64–72 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Osborne, J.: Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse. Science 328(463), 463–466 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Plaisant, C., Carr, D., Shneiderman, B.: Image-Browser: Taxonomy and Guidelines for Designers. IEEE Software 12(2), 21–32 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., McLaren, B.M.: Computer-Supported Argumentation: A Review of the State-of-the-Art. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1), 43–102 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tidwell, J.: Designing Interfaces: Patterns for Effective Interaction Design. O‘Reilly (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nguyen-Thinh Le
    • 1
  • Sabine Niebuhr
    • 1
  • David Drexler
    • 1
  • Niels Pinkwart
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsClausthal University of TechnologyGermany

Personalised recommendations