Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem

This study describes difficulties students can encounter when discussing a wicked problem and in what way two different representational tools can support interactive argumentation between students. About 55 pairs discussed in chat and wrote about genetically modified organisms in a groupware environment, supported by a text-outline or an argumentative diagram. The expectation was that students who were constructing a diagram would argue in a more thorough way, which is called the broadening and deepening in the space of debate. The expectations were partially confirmed. Diagrams help students to argue in a more thorough way, but only in the diagrams itself and not, as expected, in the discussion. This article shows the difficulties of supporting interactive argumentation with representational tools, because of the great amount of other variables in task and learning environment that effect the way students broaden and deepen an argument.     

How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate?

The objective of the research presented here was to study the influence of two types of instruction for using an argumentation diagram during pedagogical debates over the Internet. In particular, we studied how using an argumentation diagram as a medium of debate compared to using an argumentation diagram as a way of representing a debate. Two groups of students produced an individual argument diagram, then debated in pairs in one of the two conditions, and finally revised their individual diagrams in light of their debate. We developed an original analysis method (ADAM) to evaluate the differences between the argumentation diagrams constructed collaboratively during the interactions that constituted the experimental conditions, as well as those constructed individually before and after debate. The results suggest a complementary relationship between the usage of argumentation diagrams in the framework of conceptual learning. First, students who were instructed to use the argumentation diagram to represent their debate were less inclined to take a position in relation to the same graphical element while collaborating. On the other hand, students who were instructed to use the argumentation diagram alongside a chat expressed more personal opinions while collaborating. Second, the instructions given to the participants regarding the use of the argumentation diagram during the collaborative phase (either for debate or for representing a chat debate) have a significant impact on the post-individual graphs. In the individual graphs revised after the collaborative phase, participants who used the graph to represent their debate added more examples, consequences and causes. It follows that a specific usage for an argumentation diagram can be chosen and instructions given based on pedagogical objectives for a given learning situation.     

Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions

Abstract   Computer-supported collaborative argumentation can improve understanding and problem-solving skills. This study uses WebCT to explore the improvement of argumentation in asynchronous, web-based discussions through goal instructions, which are statements at the end of a discussion prompt indicating what students should achieve. In a previous study ( Nussbaum 2005 ), the goal instruction 'generate as many reasons as possible' resulted in more balanced argumentation in an online environment. This study attempts to replicate this finding. It also examines the role of prior attitudes, knowledge and interest, and also the effect of elaborating on possible lines of reasoning in the question prompt. The goal instruction to generate as many reasons as possible (goal/no goal) was crossed with question elaboration (elaborated/unelaborated question) in a 2 × 2 randomized design using 131 undergraduates. Half of the participants were randomly assigned to complete the attitude survey before discussion. Results indicated that, when prior knowledge was controlled, the reason goal instruction positively affected argument development and opposing view exploration, but only for high-issue knowledge students. The sheer volume of notes created by the online environment may have caused cognitive overload for low-issue knowledge students. Question elaboration promoted balanced argumentation for all students, but especially those with low knowledge.     

How students structure and relate argumentative knowledge when learning together with diagrams

When students learn together by discussing a topic, they sometimes are asked to construct an argumentative diagram. An argumentative diagram consists of boxes with arguments and arrows that relate these boxes. Constructing argumentative diagrams can be especially useful for structuring and relating argumentative knowledge. However, students do not always seem to use a diagram’s structure and relations to their benefit. To focus on structure and relations, 46 secondary school students were asked to either label the boxes in a diagram with argumentative labels such as ‘argument in favor’ and ‘rebuttal’, or to label the arrows with more causal labels such as ‘but’, and ‘because’. The students discussed two topics in dyads using a computer environment with chat and diagram. Then a post-test was given to assess their opinion and arguments. We found no difference between conditions in the extent to which students broadened and deepened their discussion. However, students who labeled the arrows contrasted subtopics more. The students who contrasted subtopics more showed better results on the post-test. Instruction and diagram design can thus influence students’ discussion, although the general results also show us that students need more instruction and reflection to optimally benefit from argumentative diagrams.     

PARMENIDES: Facilitating Deliberation in Democracies

Governments and other groups interested in the views of citizens require the means to present justifications of proposed actions, and the means to solicit public opinion concerning these justifications. Although Internet technologies provide the means for such dialogues, system designers usually face a choice between allowing unstructured dialogues, through, for example, bulletin boards, or requiring citizens to acquire a knowledge of some argumentation schema or theory, as in, for example, ZENO. Both of these options present usability problems. In this paper, we describe an implemented system called PARMENIDES which allows structured argument over a proposed course of action, without requiring knowledge of the underlying argumentation theory.     

Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry

Constructing scientific explanations is necessary for students to engage in scientific inquiry. The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of using a structured argumentation scaffold to enhance skill in constructing scientific explanations in the process of scientific inquiry. The proposed approach is designed to scaffold the following aspects of argumentation: the argumentation process, the explanation structuring, explanation construction, and explanation evaluation. A quasi-experiment was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the structured argumentation scaffold in developing skill in constructing scientific explanations and engaging in electronic dialogues. A web-based collaborative synchronous inquiry system, ASIS (Argumentative Scientific Inquiry System), was utilized to support students as they worked in groups to carry out inquiry tasks. Two intact sixth grade classes (n = 50) participated in the study. The data show that the ASIS with the structured argumentation scaffold helped students significantly improve their skills in constructing scientific explanations, make more dialogue moves for explanation and query, and use more of all four argument components. In addition, the use of warrants, one of the components of an argument, was found to be a critical variable in predicting students' competence with regard to constructing scientific explanations. The results provide references for further research and system development with regard to facilitating students' construction of scientific argumentation and explanations.     

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.     

The effect of a graph‐oriented computer‐assisted project‐based learning environment on argumentation skills

The purpose of this quasi‐experimental study was to explore how seventh graders in a suburban school in the United States developed argumentation skills and science knowledge in a project‐based learning environment that incorporated a graph‐oriented, computer‐assisted application. A total of 54 students (three classes) comprised this treatment condition and were engaged in a project‐based learning environment that incorporated a graph‐oriented, computer‐assisted application, whereas a total of 57 students (three classes) comprised the control condition and were engaged in a project‐based learning environment without this graph‐oriented, computer‐assisted application. Verbal collaborative argumentation was recorded and the students' post essays were collected. A random effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted and a significant difference in science knowledge about alternative energies between conditions was observed. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted and there was a significant difference in counterargument and rebuttal skills between conditions. A qualitative analysis was conducted to examine how the graph‐oriented, computer‐assisted application supported students' development of argumentation skills and affected the quality of collaborative argumentation. The difference in argumentation structure and quality of argumentation between conditions might explain a difference in science knowledge as well counterargument and rebuttal skills (argumentation) between both conditions. This study concluded that a project‐based learning environment incorporating a graph‐oriented, computer‐assisted application was effective in improving students' science knowledge and developing their scientific argumentation skills.     

Performance evaluation of an online argumentation learning assistance agent

Recent research indicated that students’ ability to construct evidence-based explanations in classrooms through scientific inquiry is critical to successful science education. Structured argumentation support environments have been built and used in scientific discourse in the literature. To the best of our knowledge, no research work in the literature addressed the issue of automatically assessing the student’s argumentation quality, and the teaching load of the teacher that used the online argumentation support environments is not alleviated. In this work, an intelligent argumentation assessment system based on machine learning techniques for computer supported cooperative learning is proposed. Learners’ arguments on discussion board were examined by using argumentation element sequence to detect whether the learners address the expected discussion issues and to determine the argumentation skill level achieved by the learner. Learners are first assigned to heterogeneous groups based on their responses to the learning styles questionnaire given right before the beginning of learning activities on the e-learning platform. A feedback rule construction mechanism is used to issue feedback messages to the learners in case the argumentation assessment system detects that the learners go in a biased direction. The Moodle, an open source software e-learning platform, was used to establish the cooperative learning environment for this study. The experimental results exhibit that the proposed work is effective in classifying and improving student’s argumentation level and assisting the students in learning the core concepts taught at a natural science course on the elementary school level.     

Studying the effectiveness of an online argumentation model for improving undergraduate students' argumentation ability

This research develops a web-based model, entitled the “intuitive claim, peer-assessment, discussion, and elaborate claim argumentation training” (IPadE) model, and embeds with a Web-based Interactive Argumentation System to enhance undergraduate students' socioscientific argumentation abilities. This research adopts a quasi-experimental research design; the sample comprised 131 undergraduate students from two classes (69 in the experimental group and 62 in the control group). The socioscientific issue discussed were related to global health. This study collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data, including the pretest and posttest of students' knowledge test scores and argumentation abilities questionnaire. The results generally confirmed the effectiveness of the IPadE model. First, in a comparison of the content knowledge and argumentation skills, the experimental group have statistically significantly improved than the control group. Second, regarding the number of reasoning modes proposed, the experimental group could propose multiple reasoning modes and reasoning levels on rebuttals increased after training.     

Mediating debate through on-line large-scale argumentation: Evidence from the field

Web 2.0 technologies, such as forums and wikis, are enabling an explosion of global knowledge sharing through distributed large-scale conversations, but they seem to be less successful at supporting collaborative deliberation around complex and controversial questions. In order to cope with this limitation, many scholars have proposed to adopt on-line argumentation platforms to improve information visualization, organization and reuse. However, such research has mostly focused on the design of adequate argument-based knowledge formalisms. Less attention has been paid to the empirical analysis of actual interactions mediated by argumentation technology with reasonably large user communities. In this paper, we present an in-depth analysis of the data obtained in the empirical test of an argumentation platform where a 160-member community created, in 3 weeks, what is to our knowledge the largest single online argument map ever built (around 5000 posts). Our results show that (i) users were able to quickly and comprehensively explore and map the debate on the selected discussion topic; (ii) substantial moderation was needed to ensure that the argument map was well-organized and users were confident with the argumentation formalism; (iii) considerable out-of-the map communication occurred, possibly as a way to allow for conversational flows inhibited by the argumentation formalism, (iv) formal rating of contributions favored exploration of the map, understanding the debate structure, and improving the quality of content.     

Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving

Abstract  In this study, constraint-based argumentation scaffolding was proposed to facilitate online argumentation performance and ill-structured problem solving during online discussions. In addition, epistemological beliefs were presumed to play a role in solving ill-structured diagnosis–solution problems. Constraint-based discussion boards were implemented to scaffold pre-service teachers' online discussions about behaviour management (diagnosis–solution) problems. The scaffolded discussion group generated more evidence notes and also generated more hypothesis messages and hypothesis testing messages as well as problem space construction messages. There was a relationship between epistemological beliefs and ill-structured problem solving. Simple knowledge, omniscient authority, and fixed ability significantly predicted problem-solving performance. A significant negative relationship between simple knowledge and individual problem-solving performance was found. This implies that individuals who believe in simple knowledge may be less inclined to explore more solution alternatives. However, contrary to prediction, omniscient authority and fixed ability beliefs were positively associated with problem-solving processes.     

A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments

Argumentation is a reasoning model based on the construction of arguments and counter-arguments (or defeaters) followed by the selection of the most acceptable of them. In this paper, we refine the argumentation framework proposed by Dung by taking into account preference relations between arguments in order to integrate two complementary points of view on the concept of acceptability: acceptability based on the existence of direct counter-arguments and acceptability based on the existence of defenders. An argument is thus acceptable if it is preferred to its direct defeaters or if it is defended against its defeaters. This also refines previous works by Prakken and Sartor, by associating with each argument a notion of strength, while these authors embed preferences in the definition of the defeat relation. We propose a revised proof theory in terms of AND/OR trees, verifying if a given argument is acceptable, which better reflects the dialectical form of argumentation.     

结构化定理在《程序设计》教学中的应用

流程图是一种很好的算法表示工具,但对程序设计的初学者而言,设计出来的流程图大多是非结构化的。在《程序设计》课程的教学中,让学生学习结构化定理的相关知识,把非结构化的流程图转换为结构化的,这对培养学生的结构化程序设计思维有很好的意义。     

The effects of computerized inquiry‐stage‐dependent argumentation assistance on elementary students' science process and argument construction skills

This study proposed a computerized inquiry‐stage‐dependent argumentation assistance and investigated whether this can help improve elementary students' performance in science processes and the construction of quality arguments. Various argumentation assistances were developed and incorporated into each stage of scientific inquiry in a computer‐supported scientific inquiry system. A nonequivalent quasi‐experimental design was adopted to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach. Two intact sixth grade classes (N = 55) participated in this study, and each student used a tablet computer to accomplish the designated inquiry activities. One class of students was arranged to use the stage‐dependent argumentation assistance, and the other used a generic text‐based interface. The findings indicate that students who used the stage‐dependent argumentation assistance could acquire significantly better science process and argument construction skills than those using the generic text‐based interface.     

A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning

We present a computational model of dialectical argumentation that could serve as a basis for legal reasoning. The legal domain is an instance of a domain in which knowledge is incomplete, uncertain, and inconsistent. Argumentation is well suited for reasoning in such weak theory domains. We model argument both as information structure, i.e., argument units connecting claims with supporting data, and as dialectical process, i.e., an alternating series of moves by opposing sides. Our model includes burden of proof as a key element, indicating what level of support must be achieved by one side to win the argument. Burden of proof acts as move filter, turntaking mechanism, and termination criterion, eventually determining the winner of an argument. Our model has been implemented in a computer program. We demonstrate the model by considering program output for two examples previously discussed in the artificial intelligence and legal reasoning literature.     

Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing

In the COSAR-project a computer-supported collaborative learning environment enables students to collaborate in writing an argumentative essay. The TC3 groupware environment (TC3: Text Composer, Computer supported and Collaborative) offers access to relevant information sources, a private notepad, a chat facility including a chat history, and a shared word-processor. Planning tools for writing – a shared argumentation diagram for content generation and a shared outline facility for content linearization – were added to the basic TC3 environment. About 145 pairs of high school students completed essays on organ donation or cloning in the TC3 environment. We analyzed the logged discussion (‘chats’) and activity protocols for task-related processes present during discussion and collaboration. Processes looked into are planning, gathering information and composing the essay, as well as collaborative processes such as coordinating, turn taking and time management. Our main research question is how task-related planning activities and collaborative coordination with or without the help of planning tools relate to the quality of the resulting argumentative texts. Overall coordination and planning of the writing activities on a meta-level and on a content level were found to be crucial for the quality of the text.     

Exchanging and countering points of view: a linguistic perspective on school students' use of electronic conferencing

Abstract The ability to argue is an important academic goal in secondary education. This paper reports on an exploratory study which investigated how asynchronous text‐based conferencing provides a new site for school students to rehearse and develop their skills in argumentation. The study used linguistic tools of analysis to investigate two key questions:

• ? How is argumentation structured in asynchronous text‐based conferencing?
• ? How do students use language to negotiate their position on an issue?

The originality of our study lies in the use of a functional linguistic method of analysis which provides unique insights into how students use language to argue, insights that can inform teaching and learning both in school history (the context for this paper) and more generally. Our interest in language is based on the premise that it is central to the learning process – a premise supported by work in socio‐cultural psychology and systemic functional linguistics. The most significant findings to emerge from the analysis were that (1) counter‐argumentation was rare; and (2b) the more tentatively a claim is phrased the more likely it is that students will challenge or counter it.     

基于Web的群体决策研讨信息自主可视化初探

为了克服在群体决策研讨过程中存在的“信息过载”和“知识断层”以及单纯依赖文本记录方法等给群体交流造成的不便,改善沟通效果并最终有效地辅助决策,需要对研讨信息进行合理组织和表示。文章分析了群体研讨过程中的信息属性及其结构,提出了在研讨某一时点上的信息布局“树状结构”以及在整个研讨进程上的“网络结构”的信息自主可视化概念模型。最后,利用JAVA技术、WEB技术以及多媒体技术等设计并实现了一个简单的体现研讨信息自主可视化思想的平台。