Enhancing Deliberation Through Computer Supported Argument Visualization

Gelder, Tim van

doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_5

Cited by 78 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Students were assigned to collaborating groups who had to solve either well-structured or ill-structured problems, and they were provided with tools to support (and record) their deliberations: a bulletin-board system and Belvedere, argument-mapping software that enabled collaborators to Various other argument-mapping systems have been developed, including Mildred, a tool used to support reasoning about science, incorporating a Toulmin-based reasoning scaffold (Bell & Davis, 2000); Reason!Able, initially designed as a critical thinking tool, but for which pedagogic gains are reported at a variety of levels (cf. van Gelder, 2003), and Araucaria (Reed & Rowe, 2004). These tools share a general family resemblance, in that they use Toulmin representations or something similar to structure a visual representation of an argument, typically in the context of a dialogic, collaborative interaction.…”

Section: Scaffolding Through Argument Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a Complex Integrated Skill

Deane

Odendahl

Quinlan

et al. 2008

ETS Research Report Series

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper undertakes a review of the literature on writing cognition, writing instruction, and writing assessment with the goal of developing a framework and competency model for a new approach to writing assessment. The model developed is part of the Cognitively Based Assessments of, for, and as Learning (CBAL) initiative, an ongoing research project at ETS intended to develop a new form of kindergarten through Grade 12 (K-12) assessment that is based on modern cognitive understandings; built around integrated, foundational, constructedresponse tasks that are equally useful for assessment and for instruction; and structured to allow multiple measurements over the course of the school year. The model that emerges from a review of the literature on writing places a strong emphasis on writing as an integrated, socially situated skill that cannot be assessed properly without taking into account the fact that most writing tasks involve management of a complex array of skills over the course of a writing project, including language and literacy skills, document-creation and document-management skills, and critical-thinking skills. As such, the model makes strong connections with emerging conceptions of reading and literacy, suggesting an assessment approach in which writing is viewed as calling upon a broader construct than is usually tested in assessments that focus on relatively simple, on-demand writing tasks.

show abstract

Section: Scaffolding Through Argument Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a Complex Integrated Skill

Deane

Odendahl

Quinlan

et al. 2008

ETS Research Report Series

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For some reason, there does not seem to have emerged a consensus on how best to deal with the issue diagrammatically. This has transferred directly into software implementations of diagramming methods: Reason!Able, for example uses coloured arrows (van Gelder, 2003), Argue! has lines terminated in diamonds (Verheij, 2003) and so on.…”

Section: Rebuttalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation

Reed

Rowe

2005

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Toulmin diagram layout is very familiar and widely used, particularly in the teaching of critical thinking skills. The conventional box-and-arrow diagram is equally familiar and widespread. Translation between the two throws up a number of interesting challenges. Some of these challenges (such as the relationship between Toulmin warrants and their counterparts in traditional diagrams) represent slightly different ways of looking at old and deep theoretical questions. Others (such as how to allow Toulmin diagrams to be recursive) are diagrammatic versions of questions that have already been addressed in artificial intelligence models of argument. But there are further questions (such as the relationships between refutations, rebuttals and undercutters, and the roles of multiple warrants) that are posed as a specific result of examining the diagram inter-translation problem. These three classes of problems are discussed. To the first class are addressed solutions based on engineering pragmatism; to the second class, are addressed solutions drawn from the appropriate literature; and to the third class, fuller exploration is offered justifying the approaches taken in developing solutions that offer both pragmatic utility and theoretical interest. Finally, these solutions are explored briefly in the context of the Araucaria system, showing the ways in which analysts can tackle arguments either using one diagrammatic style or another, or even a combination of the two.KEY WORDS: argument analysis, argument diagramming, argument software computational models of argument, Toulmin diagrams

show abstract

“…CCSAV typically requires users to undergo intensive training to become proficient with the formalism (Twardy, 2004;van Gelder, 2003); in the organizational setting, this requires strong internal sponsorship coupled with individual commitment (Conklin, 2006). There are high coordination and moderation costs when the deliberation involves many users (Gurkan et al, 2010).…”

Section: Online Argument Mapping Tools For Collective Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socially augmented argumentation tools: Rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard

Iandoli

Quinto

Liddo

et al. 2014

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Collaborative Computer-Supported Argument Visualization (CCSAV) is a technical methodology that offers support for online collective deliberation over complex dilemmas. As compared with more traditional conversational technologies, like wikis and forums, CCSAV is designed to promote more critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning, by using representations that highlight conceptual relationships between contributions, and through computational analytics that assess the structural integrity of the network. However, to date, CCSAV tools have achieved adoption primarily in small-scale educational contexts, and only to a limited degree in real world applications. We hypothesise that by reifying conversations as logical maps to address the shortcomings of chronological streams, CCSAV tools underestimate the importance of participation and interaction in enhancing collaborative knowledge-building. We argue, therefore, that CCSAV platforms should be socially augmented in order to improve their mediation capability. Drawing on Clark and Brennan's influential Common Ground theory, we designed a Debate Dashboard, which augmented a CCSAV tool with a set of widgets that deliver meta-information about participants and the interaction process. An empirical study simulating a moderately sized collective deliberation scenario provides evidence that this experimental version outperformed the control version on a range of indicators, including usability, mutual understanding, quality of perceived collaboration, and accuracy of individual decisions. No evidence was found that the addition of the Debate Dashboard impeded the quality of the argumentation or the richness of content. Keywords:Computer-supported argument visualization, Grounding process, Common Ground, Debate Dashboard, Collective deliberation, Visual feedback Supporting collective deliberation through socially-augmented knowledge mapping toolsComputer-supported argument visualization (CSAV) platforms assist their users in identifying, structuring, and settling issues using argument maps (Buckingham Shum, 2003). An argument map is a visual representation of the informal logical structure of an argument (Walton, 2008). Depending on the representational scheme, it displays the constituent elements of the argument (such as issues, claims, premises, and evidence) as a tree or network, with nodes in the network expressing the elements, and arrows expressing key relationships, such as evidential support and challenge (van Gelder, 2007) or the underlying argumentation scheme, such as argument by analogy, or argument by authority (Reed and Rowe, 2004;Walton, et al., 2008;Buckingham Shum and Okada, 2008).A wide range of representational schemes has been devised within different research communities (e.g. law; design; philosophy). Computational argumentation research has developed more formal logic and mathematical models with an interest in reasoning over the model in order to evaluate claims or prove properties automatically (e.g. Rahwan and Simari, 2009). However...

show abstract

Enhancing Deliberation Through Computer Supported Argument Visualization

Cited by 78 publications

References 2 publications

Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a Complex Integrated Skill

Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a Complex Integrated Skill

Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation

Socially augmented argumentation tools: Rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About