COLLABORATIVE MIND-MAPPING: A STUDY OF PATTERNS .

3y ago
31 Views
2 Downloads
908.76 KB
13 Pages
Last View : 19d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Brady Himes
Transcription

Proceedings of the ASME 2019International Design Engineering Technical Conferences &Computers and Information in Engineering ConferenceIDETC/CIE 2019August 18-21, 2019, Anaheim, CA, USADETC2019-98125COLLABORATIVE MIND-MAPPING: A STUDY OF PATTERNS, STRATEGIES, ANDEVOLUTION OF MAPS CREATED BY PEER-PAIRSTing-Ju Chen , Ronak R. Mohanty†, Miguel A. Hoffmann Rodriguez‡, Vinayak R. KrishnamurthyJ. Mike Walker ’66 Department of Mechanical EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, Texas 77843, USAABSTRACTWe present a study on collaborative mind-mapping to understand how peers collaborate in pairs to create mind-maps,how the maps evolve over time, and how collaboration changesbetween the peer-pair across multiple maps. Mind-mapping isan important tool that is studied and taught in design practiceand research respectively. While widely used as a brainstorming technique, the collaborative aspects of mind-mapping are little understood in comparison to other ideation methods such asconcept sketching etc. In addition to presenting creativity ratingson the outcome (i.e. the mind-map), we extensively report on thepatterns of collaborative exploration, strategies that emerge fromthe collaborators, inhibition, and the overall process of map creation. We discuss the implications of these observations on thedevelopment of computer-support for mind-mapping.design research has often used mind-maps for concept generation (e.g. actionable ideas at the periphery of the map), the mainvalue of mind-mapping comes from being able to “have a visualoverview of a problem at hand that shows the relationship between a central theme and its ramification of important factorsor ideas” [3]. This is because it allows an unconstrained exploration of a variety of ideas [4] before solving a problem. Thispaper presents a study of collaborative mind-mapping in pairswith an emphasis on the process through which the map evolvesduring the ideation process. In keeping with the original spirit ofmind-mapping, we focus mainly on the problem exploration ability afforded by mind-mapping in early design instead of solutionfinding or concept generation. There are two main motivatingobservations that led to this work.The first inspiration for this study stems from our recentwork [5] wherein we constructed and studied algorithms for enabling human-AI (artificial intelligence) collaboration in a mindmapping process. The key challenge we faced was in modeling a free-form exploration process by the AI due to which weconstrained the mind-mapping interaction to be sequential addition of nodes to the map similar to a game-like scenario (given apair of designers, each designer adds exactly one node at a time).However, past works [6] have discussed group satisfaction, interest, involvement, and intellectual arousal in a collaborative scenario that allows for group members to freely externalize theirthoughts non-sequentially. The purpose of this current paper,therefore, is to go beyond the outcome (what mind-maps were1IntroductionMind-mapping is a popular tool that is used and taught inearly design ideation [1, 2]. It allows for externalization of ideasas a structured network comprised of textual and visual representations of concepts emanating from a central problem, and radiating outward as branches holding relevant information. While Email:carol0712@tamu.eduronakmohanty@tamu.edu, Equal contribution with the third author.‡ Email: miguelh18@tamu.edu, Equal contribution to the second author.Email: vinayak@tamu.edu, Address all correspondence to this author.† Email:1Copyright c 2019 by ASME

created) and develop a richer qualitative understanding of theprocess (how an “in-the-wild” mind-mapping activity would proceed). Developing this understanding will potentially allow foradvancements in computational frameworks, tools, and interactive workflows for creativity support afforded by mind-mapping.Specifically, it is important to study (a) human behavior duringcollaboration, (b) changes due to collaborator presence, and (c)the fundamental issues that may hinder the exploratory nature ofmind-mapping tasks.From a broader perspective, the second inspiration for thisstudy stems from the difference across various ideation techniques and the creative modalities they offer in a creative task.There is no evidence to claim that other free-form ideation techniques such as collaborative sketching [7, 8, 9] would offer thesame kind of cognitive support toward creative idea generationthat mind-mapping would. In this regard, mind-maps serve asmeans to explicate one’s implicit understanding of a problemby building different perspectives, obtaining clarity, and developdeeper insight [10] for a given central idea. Therefore, mindmapping (regardless of being individual or collaborative) is firstand foremost a means to understand different aspects of a problem rather than a solution finding mechanism. A study of collaboration specific to mind-mapping is therefore much needed todevelop a better understanding of its specific capabilities so as tocreate new metrics that better represent creativity resulting frommind-mapping.cal thinking and analysis in active learning set-ups [11, 12]. Itshierarchical structure allows in-depth exploration of ideas [13],making them useful for a variety of applications ranging fromdocument drafting [14], project planning [15], and decision making [16]. Zampetakis et al. discuss utility of mind-maps in learning process of engineering students for creative thinking [17].Specifically during design ideation [18, 19], they are useful forreflection, note-taking, idea-communication, and idea synthesiswhile reducing the cognitive load accompanied with retrievaland maintenance of diverse-knowledge elements [20, 21]. In ourwork, we investigate mind-mapping as a means for problem exploration in conjunction with problem-solving when relevant.2.2Digital Brainstorming & CollaborationCollaboration invokes positive participation experience forany brainstorming task [22, 23, 24, 25]. Our ultimate long-termgoal with this work is to embody our findings within digital toolsfor mind-mapping with support for asynchronous, potentially remote collaboration between human and intelligent agents. Several works have discussed effectiveness of digital tools for ideageneration and collaborative tasks [26]. These works fall under the broader category of Electronic Brainstorming [6] overcoming impasse related shortcomings of the traditional brainstorming process. Digital brainstorming tools are further categorized as Computer Supported Coworking (CSCW) tools [27]discussing multiple technology assisted collaboration scenarios.In relation to mind-maps, we currently focus on asynchronousand co-located aspect of the CSCW matrix [28].Shneiderman et al. [29] discusses an eight-step activityframework to utilize creativity support tools. This is to overcomechallenges of domain related impasse during concept generation.The framework is general and applicable to both individual andcollaborative ideation tasks. Stefik et al. [30] discuss collaboration using digital creativity tools in comparison to traditionalchalkboards. In recent times, researchers have shown interest inexploring the visual schema of collaboration leveraging speechattributes from group based verbal discussions [31, 32, 33, 34].Further, few works explore interactive modalities in digital collaboration [35, 36]. Although, several aforementioned works focus on digital collaboration, very few have tried understandingthe fundamentals involved in the process.1.1ContributionsOur work takes a step the direction of understanding howhumans collaborate as pairs for an unconstrained problem exploration task using mind-maps. For this, we present a detailedevaluation on the mind-mapping process through an in-depthvideo protocol analysis, and a qualitative analysis of the structure (topology) of the mind-maps. We further map the qualitative observations with an inter-rater study by adapting currentlyestablished metrics. Our study shows some unexpected observations regarding (a) how the central problem of the map canlead to differences in mind-map evolution, idea exploration, andexhaustion in the collaborators, (b) how and when collaborationcan have an adversarial impact, and (c) when collaborators takeinspiration from each other and add to each other’s ideas. Basedon our observations we suggest potential guidelines for designinginteractive collaboration workflows for digital mind-mapping.2.3Knowledge Gaps in Digital Mind-MappingIn their work Computer Supported Creativity, Buisine etal. [37] demonstrate lack of significant improvement in a collaborative digital table top set up compared to traditional pen andpaper mind-maps. However, the digital set-up promotes an enhanced, systematic and well-organized environment for people tocollaborate. This leads to a balanced contribution from the participating members in a group. Faste and Lin [14] evaluated numerous existing mind-mapping software applications, performed2 Related Works2.1 Why Mind-mapping?Of the many ways of ideation that are currently employedand taught in conceptual design, mind-maps serve a special purpose in that they go beyond the scope of merely exploring asolution-space. Mind-maps are basically tools for aiding criti2Copyright c 2019 by ASME

ethnographic studies with a variety of users, and developed aframework of principles to guide future development of digitalmind-maps. Largely, mind-mapping in collaboration is studiedfor a medium to large group interacting on an interactive displaywith independence [38,39]. Also, mind-maps have been found toenhance teacher-student collaboration while learning fundamental concepts pertaining to a given topic [40].in a radially outward direction from the central idea. This visualscheme added emphasis to the ideas conveyed in the mind-maps.Also, ideas added by two different participants were assigneddifferent color schemes to avoid any confusion while maintaining an unobstructed flow if thought. At the back-end, we implemented our application using D3JS to maintain a force-directedlayout for the created mind-maps. In addition, we used FirebaseDatabase REST API to synchronize data from two computers.3 Methodology3.1 Overview and RationaleLarge brainstorming groups perform similar to small groupsin terms of productivity [41, 42]. Bouchar et al. [43] also foundthat larger the group, larger the potential loss of innovativeideas. Pinsonneault et al. [6] pointed out that working in nominalbrainstorming groups could potentially alleviate the phenomenonwhere the idea generation productivity can be impaired by exposing their thoughts to group members. Gallupe et al. [44]also addressed the comparability of productivity between a groupconsisting of two and more collaborators. Our prior work [5]puts forth a comparison between computer assisted and humanassisted collaboration for mind-mapping tasks. However, thiscomparison is based on allowing each user paired with a computer or human, to mind-map in a sequential manner. In a typical brainstorming scenario, collaboration is parallel, yet asynchronous [45]. The very purpose of our study was to understandthis parallel development of a mind-map.Leveraging the best of both traditional collaborative approach and electronic brainstorming, we designed a study focusing on understanding the fundamental of human-human collaboration teamed in pairs for a digital setup. The rationale herewas to evaluate the collaborative ideation outcomes in termsof quality, variety, and novelty metrics [46, 47], and the mindmapping process in evolution and interactivity perspectives. Wealso wanted to constrain our study such that the collaboratorsexpress all their ideas in the mind-map without inhibiting theirability to work freely in tandem. For this, we did not allow thecollaborators to discuss verbally during our study — instead weencouraged them to put forth their ideas directly on the map.3.3Experimental Tasks & ProcedureWe recruited 20 undergraduate and 4 graduate engineeringstudents (18-30 years old). 14 participants had prior experienceusing mind-mapping in creative tasks. The participants were divided into pairs for each study and both participants in the pairperformed mind-mapping at the same location. In total, we had12 pairs of participants create 24 mind-maps using the web-basedapplication — two per study session. The participants were allowed to spend a maximum of 10 minutes per mind-map. Noverbal discussion was allowed between the participants.3.3.1 Tasks Each pair was provided with two problemstatements (corresponding to two central ideas in the mind-map)and asked to create one mind-map per problem using our webbased application. The problem statements were selected suchthat they were descriptive enough, and encouraged participantsto create multi-level mind-maps. The problem statements aredescribed as follows:P1 Solar Energy — Brainstorm the properties and ideas aroundsolar energy. Where can solar energy be utilized and why is ituseful. Limitations and potential solutions: This problem statement was kept generic and can be typically found familiar tothe target participants.P2 Space Travel — Brainstorm the needs, difficulties, ideas forspace travel and corresponding solutions. Also, if space travelcomes to reality: This problem statement was relatively openended to encourage participants explore a wide variety of ideas.3.3.2 Procedure The total experiment duration variedbetween 30 to 35 minutes. In order to avoid any learning bias,the two problem statements were randomized across the pairs.In addition to demographic survey and study description, we explained the basic features of our designed web-based applicationand allowed 2 to 5 minutes for the participants to get acquaintedwith the interface. For each study session, the participants wererecorded throughout the mind-mapping process under their consent. The time-stamped data for the created mind-maps (nodesand links) were also recorded using JSON data structure. Theprocedure of the study is described as follows:3.2Experiment Setup & PreparationWe developed a web-based application which consisted ofa shared virtual canvas for participants to expand on a given thecentral idea. Each participant was provided with their own computer using which they could freely add any node anywhere onthe same shared mind-map simultaneously. At the front-end, theapplication allowed participants to use a simple input interactionto create mind-maps on the canvas. Double-clicking on any node(including the node with the central idea) resulted in a pop-upwindow where the collaborator could add the content of the newnode. We further encoded varying font size and color gradient1. Practice: Participants were demonstrated on how to operate3Copyright c 2019 by ASME

the web-based application, using Safety as a practice centraltopic. They were encouraged to ask any questions for theirclarity. Also, they were allowed to refer to the problem statement at any time during the study.2. Collaborative mind-mapping with P1 & P2: Participants wereallowed 10 minutes to mind-map on each central topic andwere encouraged to externalize their ideas as much as theycan in the given time. The canvas was set to a default blankscreen after the completion of each mind-map.3. Questionnaire: Each participant answered a set of questionsusing an electronic questionnaire. The questions were relatedto their knowledge level with respect to the central topic before and after the creation of each mind-map. After completion of the two mind-maps, participants responded to anotherquestionnaire regarding individual perception towards theircollaborators. We also collected open-ended feedback on thestudy and conducted informal interviews.the existing metrics for novelty and variety in mind-mapping asdemonstrated by Linsey et al. [47] need to be adapted for a fairinter-rater evaluation. Specifically, we instructed our raters toassess all ideas regardless of them being solutions in contrast tothe current work that assesses only those ides that hinted towarda solution to the given problem. With this modification, we usedthe following metrics as detailed by Linsey et al. [47].Variety: The raters were asked to create an exhaustive list ofcategory of explored ideas after thoroughly going through allthe mind-maps created by participants. The Variety score isthen given by the percentage of categories that is presented inthe given mind-map.Novelty: The Novelty score for the ideas were calculated byconsidering the number of other similar ideas present in thesame category — lower number of ideas in a category, higherthe novelty. Novelty is calculated using N j 1 Ci/T , whereN j is the Novelty score of the jth idea, T is the total number ofideas, Ci is the number of similar ideas in the ith category.4 Analysis of Outcome: Inter-Rater Evaluation4.1 Metrics for EvaluationTo evaluate the outcomes from the user study, mind-mapscreated by participants were assessed by two expert raters possessing sound knowledge about creating mind-maps and theirstructure in general. They were unaware of study design andtasks, and were not provided with any information related to thegeneral study hypotheses other than the final mind-maps the participants created. Both raters were senior graduate researchers inengineering and product design disciplines. They were asked torate each mind-map on a scale of 1 to 4 based on well-establishedmetrics. From the mind-map assessment rubric [46, 48], weadapted the following metrics for a comprehensive assessment:The inter-raters were supplemented with all mind-maps andthe specific grading rubric. The two raters independently evaluated all the mind-maps for each of these metrics. Further, theywere encouraged to discuss and come to a consensus on theirgrading rubric by sharing a common set of idea category list.The modified values of the metrics were then checked for reliability between the two raters. The Cohen’s Kappa value for themetrics Structure, Exploratory, Communication, Extent of Coverage and Quantity(unique) were found to be in the range of 0.9- 1, showing strong agreement and reliability between the tworaters. Also the Pearson’s correlation between raters for Variety and Novelty scores was found to be 1, which is the highestcorrelation possible [49].Structure: It primarily focuses on the breadth, depth, and thebalance between the two. Maps that are well-explored in bothbreadth and depth receive higher scores.Exploratory: This metric evaluates the relatedness of linkedideas to the central problem of the map. The flow of ideasfrom abstract in the center to concrete toward the periphery (leafnodes on the map) leads to a higher score.Communication: This metric evaluates the effectiveness ofrepresentation of mind-mapped ideas. Appropriate key-wordsutilized during idea exploration help convey a clearer intent ofthe mind-map. A higher score is established for higher usage ofappropriate key-words.Extent of Coverage: Here, we evaluate the effort made by pairto create meaningful relationships between the ideas. A higherscore reflects a more dedicated effort towards creating an understanding between the primary ideas established in the mindmap. Whereas, a lower score reflects minimal effort towardscreating a well connected mind-map.4.2Evaluation ResultsEach study session had participants paired up and stayedclose to the allowed time per mind-mapping session. The interraters evaluated each mind-map based on aforementioned rubricsin section 4.1. As a part of evaluation, they reported numberof raw and unique ideas per mind-map. The Variety and Novelty scores were calculated based on the category list created bythe two expert raters. For Solar Energy, the raters agreed upon:electricity generation, electricity storage, mobility, utility, natural availability, environmental impact, renewable energy, financial analysis, sustainabilit

mind-mapping. 1.1 Contributions Our work takes a step the direction of understanding how humans collaborate as pairs for an unconstrained problem ex-ploration task using mind-maps. For this, we present a detailed evaluation on the mind-mapping process through an in-depth video protocol analysis, and a qualitative analysis of the struc-ture .

Related Documents:

concept mapping has been developed to address these limitations of mind mapping. 3.2 Concept Mapping Concept mapping is often confused with mind mapping (Ahlberg, 1993, 2004; Slotte & Lonka, 1999). However, unlike mind mapping, concept mapping is more structured, and less pictorial in nature.

Mind mapping Mind mapping (or ‘‘idea’’ mapping) has been defined as ‘visual, non-linear representations of ideas and their relationships’ (Biktimirov and Nilson 2006). Mind maps comprise a network of connected and related concepts. However, in mind mapping, any idea can be connected to

Argument mapping is different from mind mapping and concept mapping (Figure 1). As Davies described, while mind mapping is based on the associative connections among images and topics and concept mapping is concerned about the interrelationships among concepts, argument mapping “ is interested in the inferential basis for a claim

Mind Mapping Software Concept and mind mapping has been embraced by the corporate world as a planning and management tool (Moon et al, 2010xi) as well as in clinical care (Schmehl, 2013xii). In a survey of mind mapping software users by Frey (2011)xiii, over 50% of the respondents reported that mind mapping software increased their productivity .

Mind Mapping Fundamentals Learn how to Mind Map and the core principles behind it. Discover why you need keywords, colour, curved branches and plenty of imagery. The science behind Mind Mapping Discover the science behind how and why Mind Mapping is so powerful, including research on memory, creativity, productivity and enlightening case studies.

Mind Mapping voor Agile Leren 3 2021 Serious Insights LLC. Gesponsord door MeisterLabs LLC Mind Mapping voor Agile Leren Mind mapping is altijd al mijn go-to-tool geweest om lessen in te plannen. In feite, heb ik nog nooit een lesvoorbereiding gemaakt zonder behulp van een mind map. In tegenstelling tot lineaire codificaties van leren die statisch

Mapping is one of the basic elements in Informatica code. A mapping with out business rules are know as Flat mappings. To understand the basics of Mapping in Informatica, let us create a Mapping that inserts data from source into the target. Create Mapping in Informatica. To create Mapping in Informatica, open Informatica PowerCenter Designer .

The American Revolution, 1763-1783 By Pauline Maier This essay excerpt is provided courtesy of the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. INDEPENDENCE The Seven Years’ War had left Great Britain with a huge debt by the standards of the day. Moreover, thanks in part to Pontiac’s Rebellion, a massive American Indian uprising in the territories won from France, the British decided to .