Tag Archives: deliberation mapping

No comments

Deliberation map is born!

  March 1, 2015 , ,

Project: Online Deliberation Mapping Tool Development As planned, version 1.0 of deliberation map was completed. It includes following features: 1. There can be only one seed for the deliberation map. When the map starts, it will look like this. 2. Any body can post and reply, without logging in. So, it is open to public. When deliberation map is running on a server, whosoever gets access to the URL of the deliberation map, can add posts to it. As a consequence, two users, probably from two different computers, can view and edit the map at the same time. Changes made by one user will be reflected to all others when the map is refreshed at the viewer’s end. 3. Currently map refreshes at a particular client computer when a new post is added by a user at the client computer, it is NOT refreshed at all other clients viewing the map. 4. The view is in a tree like fashion. Reply to a post is in the next level. Within a level posts will be in chronological order with earliest on the left and the latest on the right. 5. When a post is added, the map rearranges and scales dynamically to adjust the display to show all the posts on the map. The nodes, representing the post, decreases in size automatically to fit into the display. For example, the map changes to look as follows:   Technical Details The deliberation map has been implemented using ASP.NET technology. It has been … Continue reading

No comments

Filling in the gaps

  February 3, 2015 ,

Project: Online Deliberation Mapping Tool Development Before we start implementing the project, we need to decide the timelines and milestones so that the product can evolve in a systematic fashion. To do this, we needed to prioritize the features and decide which features are going to be in the version 1.0 of the product. Further, we needed to fill in the gaps, that is, those aspects of the tool which may not be features per se but would be necessary for the product to be functional. The priority features for the version 1.0 are :- Structure of display of the posts would be in a tree line fashion. We tried time line representation and concentric circle representations and various flavors of tree representations, finally we decided to go with a tree model which would make the deliberation intuitive to follow and easy to contribute to. An approximate sketch of the tree representation is :- Time slider : Users entering the conversation should be able to see the state of the deliberation at any previous point in time. Types of connections between posts. A reply to a post can be of neutral, agree or disagree type. These will be represented by different colored edges connecting the appropriate posts. Another distinct color will be allocated for edges representing connection between a post and a question to that post. There should be visual cues to the annotations to a post. We came up with a name “annotaticons” for such visual cues. Subsequent questions that arose during design … Continue reading

No comments

Integration and Finalization

  October 30, 2014 , , ,

This week has been truly and completely hectic. However this hectic schedule was not because of our work at SIF but due to our midterm examinations. Almost all our examinations and assignment submissions were due this week. Luckily, everything went well and we were able to do a good job. Coming to the work part, we have discussed about the possibilities of integrating online deliberation mapping tool with the Desire 2 Learn system. However, after having a discussion with Chad, we have realized that the integration is not a possible option. D2L is a closed system where additional features cannot be added by third parties. There can only be external communication between the tools and the desire 2 learn system. So, the possibility of Online Deliberation mapping tool getting integrated with Georgia State University’s D2L system is ruled out. Now moving on to the design part of the Online Deliberation mapping tool, we are following a process for taking a product or feature from design through prototyping, which we call as product design sprint. This design sprint follows a simple process of 1)Choosing and understanding the problem 2) Mind mapping 3)Writing Story boards and 4) Critique and Super Vote. The major goal of the Online deliberation mapping tool is to provide asynchronus conversations between professors and students. Since the problem which includes a platform for sharing ideas, developing and promoting ideas has alreay been clearly defined, we could well proceed to the mind mapping. The mind maps is a kind … Continue reading

No comments

Where is the big picture?

  October 23, 2014 ,

I have been working as a SIF for about 2 months, I am excited about the projects that I am working on. Here is a status update regards what is happening to our main project and how things are shaping up. Project 1 Online Deliberation Mapping Tool Development This is our primary project. We had a design sprint meeting for the project, the participants were Heidi, Will, Justin, Nathan and the usual suspects Ram, Siva, Rushitha and Sruthi. The design sprint involves the following stages : – Understanding the problem Creating user stories Diverging of ideas Understanding the problem involves mapping the problem and the issues thereof. Here we discussed asynchronous spaces wherein there is lack of feel of shared experience, flow of conversations, development of ideas and their inter-dependencies. Most often in online spaces, the big picture is difficult to find and making the user not see the wood for the trees. This understanding of the problem at hand helped us define our goals for a space for asynchronous generative conversations. Participation is motivated by shared purpose, so the tool has to support formation and deliberation for a shared goal or purpose like solving or defining a problem, making a decision and to develop shared understanding. All these goals were defined from a pedagogical perspective. Possible solutions regarding the tool were discussed. User stories from the perspectives of instructor, early contributors, mediators and late contributors were discussed. With these broad use case scenarios, we proceeded to the next step. Diverging … Continue reading

2 Comments

Deliberation Mapping – Shaping Online Discussion

  September 22, 2014

A quick previsualization of what a deliberation map may look like as a viewer scrubs through the timeline. One of the projects I’m most excited about is the Deliberation Mapping project. The general idea is to create a new interface and toolset for professors and students to engage in an online discussion or deliberation in a way that more closely resembles the non-linearity of in-person discussions. Online conversation, in its currently widespread adopted form (with occasional variation) is a linear stacked-reply system. Think your average comment system. Or Facebook. Each thread is placed below the previous based solely on a time hierarchy, with little control given to the participants for shaping the discussion. Every reply is given the same weight as every previous reply. Some commenting systems allow for crowd-sourced relevancy triggers such as the Like button or Up/Downvote button. This works well in terms of allowing a participant to see what posts are most preferred by the participants, but it doesn’t necessarily allow for the original poster to determine which posts are most relevant to the original thought. Thread hijacking can occur frequently where a troll can derail the conversation just for fun. What we’re looking to do is to give both the students and professor a time-based non-linear deliberation map of a conversation. Instead of linear threads, we use nodes. This allows for multi-dimensional replies and cross references. For example, in an in-person conversation with a group you’d listen to multiple comments then reply to all of them … Continue reading