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)     

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.     

How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue

In this paper it is shown how tools developed in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence can be applied to the development of a new dialectical analysis of the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. These tools are developed, modified and used to formulate dialogue pre-conditions, defining conditions and post-conditions for the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. The defining conditions set out what is required for a move in a dialogue to count as the making of a proposal by one of the parties. What is required are the conditions that (1) the move fit the requirements of the argumentation scheme for practical reasoning, and (2) the premises are propositions describing common goals of both parties or propositions that they reasonably consider means to achieve these goals. The analysis goes beyond the standard speech act approach by specifying not only the normative requirements for making a well-formed proposal, but also the requirements for responding to it by questioning or criticizing it, and the requirements for defending it.     

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.     

规划水资源论证技术要求探讨——以深圳石岩总部经济园区规划为例

2010年,水利部启动了规划水资源论证的试点工作并出台了试行技术要求。规划水资源论证把水资源管理的源头从建设项目向前推进至规划阶段,体现了"从源头和过程控制"的理念。以深圳石岩总部经济园区改造专项规划水资源论证为例,对园区规划水资源论证的内容、方法和要求进行了实例探讨,为规划水资源论证的编制提供参考。     

A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning

Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a formal framework for assessing conflicting arguments. Its use is illustrated with applications to realistic legal examples, and the potential for implementation is discussed. The framework has the form of a logical system for defeasible argumentation. Its language, which is of a logic-programming-like nature, has both weak and explicit negation, and conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. An important feature of the system is that these priorities are not fixed, but are themselves defeasibly derived as conclusions within the system. Thus debates on the choice between conflicting arguments can also be modelled.The proof theory of the system is stated in dialectical style, where a proof takes the form of a dialogue between a proponent and an opponent of an argument. An argument is shown to be justified if the proponent can make the opponent run out of moves in whatever way the opponent attacks. Despite this dialectical form, the system reflects a declarative, or relational approach to modelling legal argument. A basic assumption of this paper is that this approach complements two other lines of research in AI and Law, investigations of precedent-based reasoning and the development of procedural, or dialectical models of legal argument.Supported by a research fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and by Esprit WG 8319 Modelage.     

Abstract argumentation

In this paper we explore the thesis that the role of argumentation in practical reasoning in general and legal reasoning in particular is to justify the use of defeasible rules to derive a conclusion in preference to the use of other defeasible rules to derive a conflicting conclusion. The defeasibility of rules is expressed by means of non-provability claims as additional conditions of the rules.We outline an abstract approach to defeasible reasoning and argumentation which includes many existing formalisms, including default logic, extended logic programming, non-monotonic modal logic and auto-epistemic logic, as special cases. We show, in particular, that the admissibility semantics for all these formalisms has a natural argumentation-theoretic interpretation and proof procedure, which seem to correspond well with informal argumentation.In the admissibility semantics there is only one way for one argument to attack another, namely by undermining one of its non-provability claims. In this paper, we show how other kinds of attack between arguments, specifically how rebuttal and priority attacks, can be reduced to the undermining of non-provability claims.     

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.     

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.     

A cross‐cultural study of the effect of a graph‐oriented computer‐assisted project‐based learning environment on middle school students' science knowledge and argumentation skills

The purpose of this mixed‐methods study was to explore how seventh graders in a suburban school in the United States and sixth graders in an urban school in Taiwan developed argumentation skills and science knowledge in a project‐based learning environment that incorporated a graph‐oriented, computer‐assisted application (GOCAA). A total of 42 students comprised the treatment condition and were engaged in a project‐based learning environment that incorporated a GOCAA. Of these 42 students, 21 were located in the United States and 21 were located in Taiwan. A total of 26 students comprised the control condition and were engaged in a project‐based learning environment without the GOCAA. Of these 26 students, 15 were in the United States and 11 were in Taiwan. In each country, verbal collaborative argumentation was recorded and the students' post‐essays were collected. A one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for each measure of science knowledge about alternative energies. The results showed a significant treatment effect for the outcome of scientific explanation among U.S. students, while among Taiwanese students, a significant treatment effect on scientific facts was observed. A one‐way ANOVA was additionally conducted for each measure of argumentation skills and a significant treatment effect on counterarguments and rebuttals was observed among the U.S. students, while in Taiwan, a significant treatment effect on reasoning and rebuttals was observed. A qualitative analysis was conducted to examine how the GOCAA supported students' development of argumentation skills in different countries. This study found distinct argumentation patterns between the U.S. and Taiwanese intervention teams. Additionally, a distinct gender difference in the use of evidence and division of labour was noted when the Taiwanese teams were compared with the U.S. teams, which may be explained by cultural differences. This study concluded that, in both the United States and Taiwan, a project‐based learning environment incorporating a GOCAA was effective in improving students' science knowledge and developing their scientific argumentation skills.