Annotations and the collaborative digital library: Effects of an aligned annotation interface on student argumentation and reading strategies

Recent research on annotation interfaces provides provocative evidence that anchored, annotation-based discussion environments may lead to better conversations about a text. However, annotation interfaces raise complicated tradeoffs regarding screen real estate and positioning. It is argued that solving this screen real estate problem requires limiting the number of annotations displayed to users. In order to understand which annotations have the most learning value for students, this paper presents two complementary studies examining the effects of annotations on students performing a reading-to-write task. The first study used think-aloud protocols and a within-subjects methodology, finding that annotations appeared to provoke students to reflect more critically upon the primary text. This effect was particularly strong when students encountered pairs of annotations presenting different viewpoints on the same section of text. Student interviews suggested that annotations were most helpful when they caused the reader to consider and weigh conflicting viewpoints. The second study used a between-subjects methodology and a more naturalistic task to provide complementary evidence that annotations encourage more reflective responses to a text. This study found that students who received annotated materials both perceived themselves and were perceived by instructors as less reliant on unreflective summary strategies than students who received the same content but in a different format. These findings indicate that the learning value of an annotation lies in its ability to provoke students to consider and weigh new perspectives on the primary text. When selected effectively, annotations provide a critical scaffolding that can support students’ critical thinking and argumentation activities. Collaborative digital libraries and applications for the Web 2.0 should be designed with this learning framework in mind.     

Note of clarification on Scholten and Sherman (2006): Erratum.

Reports an error in "Tradeoffs and Theory: The Double-Mediation Model" by Marc Scholten and Steven J. Sherman (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2006 May, Vol 135[2], 237-261). This article was inadvertently printed with the incorrect title. The original title was "Tradeoffs and Conflict: The Double-Mediation Model." This title highlights the relation between tradeoffs and conflict as investigated by the authors and accounted for by their model. However, readers are asked to refer to the article by the title with which it was printed to facilitate its retrieval.. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2006-06642-006.) Most theories of decision making suggest that, when options imply tradeoffs between their attributes, conflict increases as tradeoff size increases, because greater sacrifices are to be incurred in choosing one option instead of another. An alternative view is that conflict decreases as tradeoff size increases, because stronger arguments can be made for any decision. The authors propose a unified model, the double-mediation model, which combines the mediating effects of sacrifice and argumentation. Our model generally predicts an inverse U-shaped relation between tradeoff size and conflict. Results support this prediction. Also, when the decision situation increases the mediating effect of sacrifice relative to that of argumentation, the relation between tradeoff size and conflict changes in an upward direction; conversely, when the decision situation increases the mediating effect of argumentation relative to that of sacrifice, the relation changes in a downward direction. Results support these predictions as well. Commonalities and differences between our model and other formulations are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Tradeoffs and theory: The double-mediation model.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 135(4) of Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (see record 2006-20327-004). This article was inadvertently printed with the incorrect title. A clarification regarding the correct title is provided in the erratum.] Most theories of decision making suggest that, when options imply tradeoffs between their attributes, conflict increases as tradeoff size increases, because greater sacrifices are to be incurred in choosing one option instead of another. An alternative view is that conflict decreases as tradeoff size increases, because stronger arguments can be made for any decision. The authors propose a unified model, the double-mediation model, which combines the mediating effects of sacrifice and argumentation. Our model generally predicts an inverse U-shaped relation between tradeoff size and conflict. Results support this prediction. Also, when the decision situation increases the mediating effect of sacrifice relative to that of argumentation, the relation between tradeoff size and conflict changes in an upward direction; conversely, when the decision situation increases the mediating effect of argumentation relative to that of sacrifice, the relation changes in a downward direction. Results support these predictions as well. Commonalities and differences between our model and other formulations are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

水源热泵建设项目水资源论证中有关问题的探讨

面对巨大的能源压力，鼓励各种节能设备和技术的推广，水源热泵作为一种新技术被应用。为了更好的发挥其优势，提出水源热泵建设项目水资源论证的主要内容及论证中需注意的问题，包括对水源的要求、对回灌的要求及井位布置。     

The computational complexity of ideal semantics

We analyse the computational complexity of the recently proposed ideal semantics within both abstract argumentation frameworks (afs) and assumption-based argumentation frameworks (abfs). It is shown that while typically less tractable than credulous admissibi-lity semantics, the natural decision problems arising with this extension-based model can, perhaps surprisingly, be decided more efficiently than sceptical preferred semantics. In particular the task of finding the unique ideal extension is easier than that of deciding if a given argument is accepted under the sceptical semantics. We provide efficient algorithmic approaches for the class of bipartite argumentation frameworks and, finally, present a number of technical results which offer strong indications that typical problems in ideal argumentation are complete for the class of languages decidable by polynomial time algorithms allowed to make non-adaptive queries to a C oracle, where C is an upper bound on the computational complexity of deciding credulous acceptance: C=np for afs and logic programming (lp) instantiations of abfs; for abfs modelling default theories.     

舰载武器系统研制方案多目标生成与评价方法

舰载武器系统研制方案的生成、评价与优选问题是武器装备研制论证中的重要内容．在分析目前舰载武器系统研制方案论证方法的基础上，构建了舰载武器系统多目标优化模型，提出了舰载武器系统研制方案的多目标生成方法，并建立了不完全偏好信息的舰载武器系统研制方案的多目标评价与优选模型．实例分析说明，该模型与方法是有效的，可为武器装备研制论证问题提供辅助决策方法和智力支持．     

Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC

Abstract Empirical studies and theory suggest that educational dialogue can be used to support learners in the development of reasoning, critical thinking and argumentation. This paper presents an educational design for synchronous online peer discussion that guides student dialogue in ways that lead to improved argumentation and collaborative knowledge development. This design includes a mediating interface – or tool, linked to a broader set of online educational activities – a designed local context, where the latter aims to provide conditions that support argumentation. The approach is based on collaborative working and dialogue game approaches to discussion. Preliminary findings with UK Open University students showed the argumentation process was more coherent, varied, deeper and extended when using our interaction design compared with the use of a simple unstructured interface.     

Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation

The present paper discusses experimental argument assistance tools. In contrast with automated reasoning tools, the objective is not to replace reasoning, but to guide the user's production of arguments. Two systems are presented, and based on . The focus is on defeasible argumentation with an eye on the law. Argument assistants for defeasible argumentation naturally correspond to a view of the application of law as dialectical theory construction. The experiments provide insights into the design of argument assistants, and show the pros and cons of different ways of representing argumentative data. The development of the argumentation theories underlying the systems has culminated in the logical system that formalizes the interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. introduces an innovative use of conditionals expressing support and attack. This allows the expression of warrants for support and attack, making it a transparent and flexible system of defeasible argumentation.     

都江堰反调节水库规划论证

受岷江上游干流水电站运行的影响 ,都江堰枢纽区来流的波动幅度大、次数多 ,难以满足都江堰灌区国民经济发展对水资源的需要 ,因而有必要在都江堰河段修建反调节水库。推荐在岷江干流距都江堰鱼嘴约 2 0 0 0m的位置修复元代鱼嘴和借鉴灵渠的布局修建橡胶坝 ;利用旧鱼嘴电站的土坝和闲置土地建成杨柳湖水库。这将改善都江堰枢纽区的景观 ,亦有利于保护世界文化遗产。