19,825 research outputs found
The Adaptation of East Asian Masters Students to Western Norms of Critical Thinking and Argumentation in the U.K.
The paper explores the adaptation experiences of East Asian masters students in the U.K. in dealing with Western academic norms of critical thinking and debate. Through in-depth interviewing, studentsâ perceptions of their learning experiences were explored, and stages in this adaptation process were identified, with various entry and exit routes. It was found that the majority of the students opt for a âMiddle Wayâ which synergises their own cultural approach to critical thinking with those aspects of Western style critical thinking and debate that are culturally acceptable to them
Recommended from our members
Arguing satisfaction of security requirements
This chapter presents a process for security requirements elicitation and analysis,
based around the construction of a satisfaction argument for the security of a
system. The process starts with the enumeration of security goals based on assets
in the system, then uses these goals to derive security requirements in the form of
constraints. Next, a satisfaction argument for the system is constructed, using a
problem-centered representation, a formal proof to analyze properties that can be
demonstrated, and structured informal argumentation of the assumptions exposed
during construction of the argument. Constructing the satisfaction argument can
expose missing and inconsistent assumptions about system context and behavior
that effect security, and a completed argument provides assurances that a system
can respect its security requirements
What changed your mind : the roles of dynamic topics and discourse in argumentation process
In our world with full of uncertainty, debates and argumentation contribute to the progress of science and society. Despite of the in- creasing attention to characterize human arguments, most progress made so far focus on the debate outcome, largely ignoring the dynamic patterns in argumentation processes. This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness, beyond simply predicting who will persuade whom. Specifically, we propose a novel neural model that is able to dynamically track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations, allowing the investigation of their roles in influencing the outcomes of persuasion. Extensive experiments have been conducted on argumentative conversations on both social media and supreme court. The results show that our model outperforms state-of-the-art models in identifying persuasive arguments via explicitly exploring dynamic factors of topic and discourse. We further analyze the effects of topics and discourse on persuasiveness, and find that they are both useful -- topics provide concrete evidence while superior discourse styles may bias participants, especially in social media arguments. In addition, we draw some findings from our empirical results, which will help people better engage in future persuasive conversations
KEMNAD: A Knowledge Engineering Methodology for Negotiating Agent Development
Automated negotiation is widely applied in various domains. However, the development of such systems is a complex knowledge and software engineering task. So, a methodology there will be helpful. Unfortunately, none of existing methodologies can offer sufficient, detailed support for such system development. To remove this limitation, this paper develops a new methodology made up of: (1) a generic framework (architectural pattern) for the main task, and (2) a library of modular and reusable design pattern (templates) of subtasks. Thus, it is much easier to build a negotiating agent by assembling these standardised components rather than reinventing the wheel each time. Moreover, since these patterns are identified from a wide variety of existing negotiating agents(especially high impact ones), they can also improve the quality of the final systems developed. In addition, our methodology reveals what types of domain knowledge need to be input into the negotiating agents. This in turn provides a basis for developing techniques to acquire the domain knowledge from human users. This is important because negotiation agents act faithfully on the behalf of their human users and thus the relevant domain knowledge must be acquired from the human users. Finally, our methodology is validated with one high impact system
Using Argument-based Features to Predict and Analyse Review Helpfulness
We study the helpful product reviews identification problem in this paper. We
observe that the evidence-conclusion discourse relations, also known as
arguments, often appear in product reviews, and we hypothesise that some
argument-based features, e.g. the percentage of argumentative sentences, the
evidences-conclusions ratios, are good indicators of helpful reviews. To
validate this hypothesis, we manually annotate arguments in 110 hotel reviews,
and investigate the effectiveness of several combinations of argument-based
features. Experiments suggest that, when being used together with the
argument-based features, the state-of-the-art baseline features can enjoy a
performance boost (in terms of F1) of 11.01\% in average.Comment: 6 pages, EMNLP201
Using Argument-based Features to Predict and Analyse Review Helpfulness
We study the helpful product reviews identification problem in this paper. We
observe that the evidence-conclusion discourse relations, also known as
arguments, often appear in product reviews, and we hypothesise that some
argument-based features, e.g. the percentage of argumentative sentences, the
evidences-conclusions ratios, are good indicators of helpful reviews. To
validate this hypothesis, we manually annotate arguments in 110 hotel reviews,
and investigate the effectiveness of several combinations of argument-based
features. Experiments suggest that, when being used together with the
argument-based features, the state-of-the-art baseline features can enjoy a
performance boost (in terms of F1) of 11.01\% in average.Comment: 6 pages, EMNLP201
Structures and meanings : a way to introduce argumentation analysis in policy studies education
reasoning;logic;policy analysis;policy sciences
Confucian philosophical argumentation skills
Becker argued Confucianism lacked of argumentation, dialogue and debate. However, Becker is wrong. First, the purpose of philosophical argumentation is to justify an arguerâs philosophical standpoints. Second, both Confuciusâ Analects and Menciusâ Mencius were written in forms of dialogues. Third, the content of each book is the recorded utterance and the purpose of dialogue is to persuade its audience. Finally, after Confucius, Confuciansâ works have either argued for those unjustified standpoints or re-argued about some justified viewpoints in the Analects
- âŚ