Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes.

Two experiments examined whether text quality is related to online management of the writing processes. Experiment 1 focused on the relationship between online management and text quality in narrative and argumentative texts. Experiment 2 investigated how this relationship might be affected by a goal emphasizing text quality. In both experiments, psychology students were instructed to think aloud while composing their texts. Reaction times to auditory probes were also collected to reflect writers' cognitive effort. Two sets of variables were measured: general temporal indicators (fluency, prewriting pause) and online management of writing processes (number, mean length of episodes). Finally, text quality was assessed. As expected, results confirmed that narrative and argumentative texts are composed using different strategies. Students also composed better texts when a quality-based goal had been set. The main reliable indicator of text quality was an increase of the prewriting pause and of planning processes. These findings indicate that writers tailor their writing behavior to match the type and quality of the text they are asked to produce. These results are discussed in the light of interventions and recommendations in the classroom. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Evaluating science arguments: Evidence, uncertainty, and argument strength.

Public debates about socioscientific issues are increasingly prevalent, but the public response to messages about, for example, climate change, does not always seem to match the seriousness of the problem identified by scientists. Is there anything unique about appeals based on scientific evidence—do people evaluate science and nonscience arguments differently? In an attempt to apply a systematic framework to people’s evaluation of science arguments, the authors draw on the Bayesian approach to informal argumentation. The Bayesian approach permits questions about how people evaluate science arguments to be posed and comparisons to be made between the evaluation of science and nonscience arguments. In an experiment involving three separate argument evaluation tasks, the authors investigated whether people’s evaluations of science and nonscience arguments differed in any meaningful way. Although some differences were observed in the relative strength of science and nonscience arguments, the evaluation of science arguments was determined by the same factors as nonscience arguments. Our results suggest that science communicators wishing to construct a successful appeal can make use of the Bayesian framework to distinguish strong and weak arguments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Representing Epistemic Uncertainty by Means of Dialectical Argumentation

We articulate a dialectical argumentation framework for qualitative representation of epistemic uncertainty in scientific domains. The framework is grounded in specific philosophies of science and theories of rational mutual discourse. We study the formal properties of our framework and provide it with a game theoretic semantics. With this semantics, we examine the relationship between the snaphots of the debate in the framework and the long run position of the debate, and prove a result directly analogous to the standard (Neyman–Pearson) approach to statistical hypothesis testing. We believe this formalism for representating uncertainty has value in domains with only limited knowledge, where experimental evidence is ambiguous or conflicting, or where agreement between different stakeholders on the quantification of uncertainty is difficult to achieve. All three of these conditions are found in assessments of carcinogenic risk for new chemicals.     

Implementation of Web‐based argumentation in facilitating elementary school students to learn environmental issues

This research develops a Web‐based argumentation system named the Web‐based Interactive Argumentation System (WIAS). WIAS can provide teachers with the scaffolding for argumentation instruction. Students can propose their statements, collect supporting evidence and share and discuss with peers online. This research adopts a quasi‐experimental design, applying WIAS to the teaching of environmental issues, including mudslides, global warming and nuclear power. Fifty‐seven elementary school fifth graders from two classes participated in this research. With each class as a unit, they were divided into the WIAS group (n = 30) and the traditional argumentation instruction (TAI) group (n = 27). Before research, all students took the pre‐test of the ‘achievement test for environmental issues (ATEI)’ and the ‘environmental literacy scale (ELS).’ Then all students received argumentation training and six classes of argumentation instruction. Students in the WIAS group performed argumentation in the WIAS, while those in the TAI group performed argumentation in a traditional classroom. After the six‐class argumentation instruction, all students took the post‐test of the ATEI and ELS. The results show that students in the WIAS group have significantly better learning effectiveness than those in the TAI group. Students in the WIAS group also exhibited significantly better improvement in their environmental literacy.     

Improving the Rationale Capture Capability of QFD

The goals of Design Rationale Capture (DRC) are improving design quality and reducing design time. These general goals have led to the design of many DRC techniques originating from research in various design and other related disciplines. However, little evidence about attaining these goals or about their usability or utility in practice has been demonstrated. To improve this situation, we use QFD tools to design a new DRC technique. QFD can be used to transform general needs into working products; its practical utility in improving design quality and reducing overall design time are widely recognised. In the course of using QFD, significant design knowledge is generated and recorded. Consequently, we picked QFD as a candidate DRC technique, and used QFD itself to improve its DRC proper-ties. The utility of QFD as a DRC tool is illustrated by using it to capture the rationale underlying its own design.     

Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing.

This study examined a new prewriting tool, argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs), which are used to write reflective opinion essays. AVDs are based on the theoretical concept of argument-counterargument integration, which involves evaluating and integrating both sides of an issue before developing a final conclusion on a controversial question. In a test of the effectiveness of AVDs, 45 undergraduates at a large, southwestern university were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. Both groups wrote 4 opinion essays over a 4-week period. The experimental group also received training on using the AVDs, including instruction on criteria for weighing arguments. Results indicated that AVD training was effective in enhancing argument-counterargument integration. Furthermore, examination of integration strategies used by participants revealed a new strategy, minimization, which was not previously part of E. M. Nussbaum and G. Schraw's (2007) argument-counterargument integration framework. Minimization involves curtailing the importance or extensiveness of a problem or advantage as a heuristic shortcut for weighing advantages and disadvantages. The role of critical questions and argumentation schemata in argument-counterargument integration is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

任务级行动序列问题中的定性偏好研究

关注了一类典型行动序列,研究如何在动作集合上存在定性偏好,且偏好集合存在不一致性时开展规划。所考虑的行动序列问题称为任务级COA,以抽象层次的动作为基本要素,所考虑的定性偏好包括静态偏好和时序偏好,所讨论的规划目的是获得最大满意度的COA方案。首先建立了偏好与约束的归一化形式描述,在此基础上形成了COA方案设计算法;进一步,使用计算辩论技术排除偏好集合中的不一致性,形成用户接受度最高的COA方案。文中建立的以定性推理为基础的规划框架,实现了偏好解耦,能够适应不同的领域问题,是以定量计算为基础的传统规划算法的有效补充。通过快速响应卫星成像的COA案例,演示了算法的可行性。     

基于工作流的装备需求论证项目管理系统的设计与实现

针对目前装备需求论证流程缺少科学的方法论指导、缺少规范的管理机制、信息文档不便于整理、装备需求论证各要素之间相互关系复杂且动态多变等问题,基于工作流技术,设计并实现了一套支持装备需求论证的项目管理系统,该系统能够以在线方式辅助装备需求论证人员基于定义好的论证流程开展武器装备的需求论证工作,并提供了论证进度监控等功能,提高了工作效率,安全性高。