Designing a Co-creation System for the Development of Work-process-related Learning Material in Manufacturing.

The increasing digitalization and automatization in the manufacturing industry as well as the need to learn on the job has reinforced the need for much more granular learning, which has not yet impacted the design of learning materials. In this regard, granular learning concepts require situated learning materials to support self-directed learning in the workplace in a targeted manner. Co-creation approaches offer promising opportunities to support employees in the independent design of such situated learning materials. Using an action-design research (ADR) approach, we derived requirements from co-creation concepts and practice by conducting focus group workshops in manufacturing and vocational training schools to develop design principles for a co-creation system that supports employees through the creation process of work-process-related learning material. Consequently, we formulate four design principles for the design of a collaborative learning and qualification system for manufacturing. Using an innovative mixed methods approach, we validate these design principles and design features to demonstrate the success of the developed artifact. The results provide insights regarding the design of a co-creation system to support learners in the co-creation of learning material with the consideration of cognitive load (CL). Our study contributes to research and practice by proposing novel design principles for supporting employees in peer creation processes. Furthermore, our study reveals how co-creation systems can support the collaborative development of learning materials in the work process.

Measuring university students' ability to recognize argument structures and fallacies.

Theory: Argumentation is crucial for all academic disciplines. Nevertheless, a lack of argumentation skills among students is evident. Two core aspects of argumentation are the recognition of argument structures (e.g., backing up claims with premises, according to the Toulmin model) and the recognition of fallacies. As both aspects may be related to content knowledge, students studying different subjects might exhibit different argumentation skills depending on whether the content is drawn from their own or from a foreign subject. Therefore, we developed an instrument to measure the recognition of both argument structures and fallacies among the groups of preservice teachers and business economics students in both their respective domains (pedagogy and economics), and a neutral domain (sustainability). For the recognition of fallacies, we distinguished between congruent and incongruent fallacies. In congruent fallacies, the two aspects of argument quality, i.e., deductive validity and inductive strength, provide converging evidence against high argument quality. In incongruent fallacies, these two aspects diverge. Based on dual process theories, we expected to observe differences in the recognition of congruent and incongruent fallacies. Aims: We investigated whether these two abilities are domain-specific and whether the recognition of fallacies depends on the congruence of two aspects of argument quality. Methods: 267 preservice teachers and 56 business economics students participated in the study. For the recognition of argument structures, participants assigned the five statements constituting one argument to the corresponding component according to the Toulmin model. For the recognition of fallacies, we created arguments and incorporated a common fallacy into some of them: formal fallacy, overgeneralization, irrelevance, or circularity. Participants rated whether the argument was cogent or not, which was followed by a brief justification. Results: Domain specificity could not be found for either of both abilities. For the recognition of fallacies, two dimensions were found: a congruent dimension (formal fallacies and overgeneralizations) and an incongruent dimension (irrelevance and circularity). Discussion: The instrument measures the recognition of both argument structures and fallacies in these two groups across domains. The recognition of fallacies differs depending on whether the deductive validity and the inductive strength of the argument are equally indicative of argument quality or not.

Understanding the Design Elements Affecting User Acceptance of Intelligent Agents: Past, Present and Future.

Intelligent agents (IAs) are permeating both business and society. However, interacting with IAs poses challenges moving beyond technological limitations towards the human-computer interface. Thus, the knowledgebase related to interaction with IAs has grown exponentially but remains segregated and impedes the advancement of the field. Therefore, we conduct a systematic literature review to integrate empirical knowledge on user interaction with IAs. This is the first paper to examine 107 Information Systems and Human-Computer Interaction papers and identified 389 relationships between design elements and user acceptance of IAs. Along the independent and dependent variables of these relationships, we span a research space model encompassing empirical research on designing for IA user acceptance. Further we contribute to theory, by presenting a research agenda along the dimensions of the research space, which shall be useful to both researchers and practitioners. This complements the past and present knowledge on designing for IA user acceptance with potential pathways into the future of IAs.

The role of design patterns in the development and legal assessment of lawful technologies.

Novel technologies such as smart personal assistants integrate digital services into everyday life. These services use personal data to offer personalized services. While they are subject to special data protection regulations at the time of development, there are few guidelines describing the transition from legal requirements to implementation. To reduce risks, services depend on external legal assessments. With developers and legal experts often missing either legal or technical knowledge, the challenge lies in bridging this gap. We observe that design patterns support both developers and legal experts, and we present an approach in which design patterns are leveraged to provide twofold value for both developers and legal experts when dealing with novel technologies. We conducted a revelatory case study for smart personal assistants and scaffolded the case interpretation through cognitive fit theory. On the basis of the findings, we develop a theoretical model to explain and predict the twofold value of design patterns to develop and assess lawful technologies.