Argumentation-based design rationale - the sharpest tools in the box

In this paper the three main argumentation-based design rationale methodologies - IBIS, QOC and DRL – will be discussed with illustrations of particular points drawn from a working example. The areas of scope, expressiveness in terms of design space and argumentation representation and the resulting usability by human and computer will be examined. Particular attention is paid to how the development of the artifact is being controlled by the evaluation of intentions and objectives that allow consistent goals throughout the design to be formulated, evaluated and modified. Furthermore, decision making within an argumentative context is highlighted

Should We Collaborate with AI to Conduct Literature Reviews? Changing Epistemic Values in a Flattening World

In this paper, we revisit the issue of collaboration with artificial intelligence (AI) to conduct literature reviews and discuss if this should be done and how it could be done. We also call for further reflection on the epistemic values at risk when using certain types of AI tools based on machine learning or generative AI at different stages of the review process, which often require the scope to be redefined and fundamentally follow an iterative process. Although AI tools accelerate search and screening tasks, particularly when there are vast amounts of literature involved, they may compromise quality, especially when it comes to transparency and explainability. Expert systems are less likely to have a negative impact on these tasks. In a broader context, any AI method should preserve researchers’ ability to critically select, analyze, and interpret the literature

Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of SOCRATES learning environment

The aim of this study was to examine how students used evidence in argumentation while they engaged in argumentive and reflective activities in the context of a designed learning environment. A web-based learning environment, SOCRATES, was developed, which included a rich data base on the topic of Climate Change. Sixteen 11th graders, working with a partner, engaged in electronic argumentive dialogs with classmates who held an opposing view on the topic and in some evidence-focused reflective activities, based on transcriptions of their dialogs. Another sixteen 11th graders, who studied the data base in the learning environment for the same amount of time as experimental-condition students but did not engage in an argumentive discourse activity, served as a comparison condition. Students who engaged in an evidence-focused dialogic intervention increased the use of evidence in their dialogs, used more evidence that functioned to weaken opponents’ claims and used more accurate evidence. Significant gains in evidence use and in meta-level communication about evidence were observed after students engaged in reflective activities. We frame our discussion of these findings in terms of their implications for promoting use of evidence in argumentation, and in relation to the development of epistemological understanding in science

Searching for Common Ground on Hamas Through Logical Argument Mapping

Robert Fogelin (1985) formulated the thesis “that deep disagreements cannot be resolved through the use of argument, for they undercut the conditions essential to arguing.” The possibility of arguing presupposes “a shared background of beliefs and preferences,” and if such a background is not given, there is no way of “rational” dispute resolution. By contrast to this pessimistic view, I will propose a method that has been developed to overcome difficulties as described by Fogelin

Assessing and supporting argumentation with online rubrics

published_or_final_versio

The Rhetoric of the Comment Box: Editorial Queries as Arguments and Relationships in Engineering Proposals

In today\u27s academic engineering environments, securing funding has become a volatile process, requiring the hard work of and collaboration between many different people. Technical editors are one of these important forces in the proposal writing process, as they help engineer writers to develop their proposals and persuade reviewers of the value of their research. However, to date, there have been very few studies on how editors convince engineer writers to accept their proposed revisions. To fill this gap in the literature, this thesis offers an in-depth style analysis of six proposals in order to determine what technical editors do when they edit engineering proposals and how they create working relationships with engineers. In particular, I will concentrate on how two editors in Clemson University\u27s College of Engineering and Science argue for changes and create stylistic relationships--and the interrelationship between argument and style--by querying writers through the Comment function in Microsoft Word. The two analyses that I will complete are based on the theories of Stephen Toulmin et al. on argumentation and Walker Gibson on style. Toulmin et al.\u27s theory will enable me to analyze how the editors argue for revisionary changes in each of the technical proposals, whereas Gibson\u27s theory will enable me to determine how editors create relationships with authors through the language they use in the comment box. The findings revealed from this thesis provide practical knowledge to technical editing students and to working technical editors

Explicitly Teaching Scientific Argumentation: Using Action Research to Study High School Science Readiness and Detracking

Access to advanced-level science courses can be difficult for those students who start in a tracked system. Tracking is an educational practice where students are assigned to different classes based on ability level. African American and Hispanic students are most at risk since most minority students are found in the lower level track (Burris, 2014; Mehan, 2015; Oakes, 2005). This investigation used an action research approach to determine how explicitly taught elements of scientific argumentation would impact student mastery of argument skills and influence instructional practices by a professional learning community. A mixed method study was used to collect qualitative and quantitative data. Action research was conducted to answer the research questions. During the action research study data was continuously collected and analyzed to make decisions about improvements to instructional practices. The findings revealed how the process of action research influenced instructional practices, and improved written and verbal understanding of elements of argument. The results of this study added to science education research related to scientific argumentation in the science classroom