Analysis of Dialogical Argumentation via Finite State Machines

Dialogical argumentation is an important cognitive activity by which agents exchange arguments and counterarguments as part of some process such as discussion, debate, persuasion and negotiation. Whilst numerous formal systems have been proposed, there is a lack of frameworks for implementing and evaluating these proposals. First-order executable logic has been proposed as a general framework for specifying and analysing dialogical argumentation. In this paper, we investigate how we can implement systems for dialogical argumentation using propositional executable logic. Our approach is to present and evaluate an algorithm that generates a finite state machine that reflects a propositional executable logic specification for a dialogical argumentation together with an initial state. We also consider how the finite state machines can be analysed, with the minimax strategy being used as an illustration of the kinds of empirical analysis that can be undertaken.Comment: 10 page

Dialogical Skirmishes

Tan was guest editor for 'And Now China?', a special print edition of the Ctrl+P journal, which critically responded to the celebratory rhetoric’s of ‘China Now’ and other celebratory markers of China's global ascent in 2008. As well as the introductory article 'Dialogical Skirmishes', Tan also interviewed Hans Ulrich Obrist

Dialogical structures in 17th century controversies

This article is a contribution to historical dialogue analysis, a field of research which has gained momentum in recent years (Fritz 1995, 1997, Gloning 1999, and other articles in Jucker/Fritz/Lebsanft 1999). In the present paper, I report some results of ongoing research from a project on the history of controversies from 1600 to 1800, which Marcelo Dascal and I are conducting at the Universities of Tel Aviv, Israel and Gießen, Germany

COMMENTARY ON COMMENTARIES: A SPACE FOR DIALOGUE AMONG DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

In this commentary we discuss our reactions towards the six contributions on our article “The psychotherapist’s social role under a dialogical perspective: A study of the personal construction of «I as psychotherapist»” (in this issue). These commentaries discuss a multiplicity of problems and potentials, providing us with a meaningful space for dialogue among our multiple and sometimes discrepant perspectives. We have organized our reaction around three issues: (1) the importance of context influence on the process of being a psychotherapist; (2) the use of the motives as a tool to organize the psychotherapists’ diversity; and (3) the methodology for studying the dialogical processes

Dialogical identities in students from cultural minorities or students categorised as presenting SEN: How do they shape learning, namely in mathematics?

Portuguese schools are multicultural. Diversity is their main characteristic. Portuguese policy documents assume inclusive principles (Ainscow & César, 2006). Students categorised as presenting Special Educational Needs (SEN) attend mainstream schools. Multiculturality and diversity are challenges to the educational system. We assume that teachers need to (re)construct the curricula, conceiving it as a mediating tool (César & Oliveira, 2005). Collaborative work facilitate students’ knowledge appropriation, the development of competencies (Elbers & de Haan, 2005), and the emergence of a learning community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Students can be empowered and (re)construct their identities, including students whose voices are usually silenced. Identities are conceived as dialogical and conflictive (Hermans, 2001), particularly when the students’ cultures are far away from the school’s cultures, and transitions between them are difficult (César, 2003). These data are from the Interaction and Knowledge project whose main goal was to study and promote collaborative work in formal educational settings. It lasted 12 years, including classes all over the country (5th - 12th grades, 9/10 - 17/18 years old). It had two levels: (1) quasi experimental studies where different types of dyads were studied (César, 1994; Carvalho, 2001); (2) action-research studies based on interpretative/qualitative approaches, inspired in ethnographic methods; collaborative work was implemented during at least a school year (César & Santos, 2006). A ten years follow up was implemented. The cases in discussion were from two 9th grade classes, in two schools near Lisbon. Participant observation (different observers, including external evaluators; audio and/or videotaped), questionnaires, interviews, instruments inspired in projective tasks, students’ protocols and several documents were the data collecting instruments. The data analysis was a systematic and recurrent content analysis. The inductive categories and the interpretations that emerged were then discussed among the participants and by the project research group. The results illuminate that collaborative work and being part of a learning community can be powerful tools that allow students to (re)construct their identities, namely their identity as (mathematics) students. Collaborative work empowered students and had an impact in their life paths even many years after leaving the project. The participants’ accounts illuminate the role of teachers’ practices in their identities, as well as the conflicts these students had to face, namely the ones related to their cultures and to the experiences related to their categorisation as presenting SEN. Learning how to deal with these conflicts is an essential step to school achievement and to avoid exclusion

'I-I' and 'I-me' : Transposing Buber's interpersonal attitudes to the intrapersonal plane

Hermans' polyphonic model of the self proposes that dialogical relationships can be established between multiple I-positions1 (e.g., Hermans, 2001a). There have been few attempts, however, to explicitly characterize the forms that these intrapersonal relationships may take. Drawing on Buber's (1958) distinction between the 'I-Thou' and 'I-It' attitude, it is proposed that intrapersonal relationships can take one of two forms: an 'I-I' form, in which one I-position encounters and confirms another I-position in its uniqueness and wholeness; and an 'I-Me' form, in which one I-position experiences another I-position in a detached and objectifying way. This article argues that this I-Me form of intrapersonal relating is associated with psychological distress, and that this is so for a number of reasons: Most notably, because an individual who objectifies and subjugates certain I-position cannot reconnect with more central I-positions when dominance reversal (Hermans, 2001a) takes place. On this basis, it is suggested that a key role of the therapeutic process is to help clients become more able to experience moments of I-I intrapersonal encounter, and it is argued that this requires the therapist to confirm the client both as a whole and in terms of each of his or her different voices

A dialogical approach to developing professional competence in assessment

Improving the students learning experience is closely connected with the promotion an implementation of an assessment strategy whose effectiveness relies on the quality of the formative aspect. Assessment can promote or hinder learning and it is therefore a powerful force to be reckoned within Education. The literature on assessment makes it quite clear that assessment shapes and drives learning in powerful, though not always helpful, ways (Ramsden, 1997). If we assume that assessment should maximise the opportunities for those assessed to learn and develop, the tendency to reduce assessment purely to a classification device should be counteracted. The demonstration of knowledge should reflect deeper forms of learning rather that regurgitation and parroting of undigested information. Furthermore while traditional forms of assessment such as essays and end of term examinations -which are still predominantly used in higher education in Ireland as the sole assessment methods- may be valid and reliable methods for collecting evidence of acquisition of theoretical knowledge, they rarely afford students the opportunity to apply knowledge to key professional scenarios. Recent studies (Hyatt, 2005; Juwah & al., 2004; Bryan & Clegg; 2006; (Swinthenby, Brown, Glover, Mills, Stevens & Hughes, 2005; Nicol, 2010; Torrance & Prior 2001) have advocated the encouragement of dialogue around learning and assessment as a means to enhance the formative aspect of assessment. Pedagogical dialogue and formative assessment share common principles such as the emphasis on the process (MacDonald, 1991); the need for negotiation of meaning and shared understanding of assessment criteria (Boud, 1992; Chanok 2000; Harrington & Elander, 2003; Harrington & al., 2005; Sambell & McDowell ;1998; Higgins Hatley& Skelton, 2001; Norton, 2004; Price & Rust, 1999; O’Donovan, Price & Rust 2000; Rust, Price & O’Donovan, 2003) and the development of reciprocal commitment between assessors and assesses (Hyland 1998; Taras, 2001). This chapter describes the introduction of an assessment portfolio for module “Curriculum Assessment” informed by the above principles. The key outcomes from the three implementation and evaluation phases of the portfolio suggest that the format adopted promoted a shift of emphasis from assessment product to assessment process, the development of a shared understanding of assessment criteria, the establishment of a mutual relationship between assessors and assesses based on commitment and trust and heightened students and teachers’ self-awareness both in personal (efficacy) and professional (competence) terms. The research also highlights how multiple voices within the reflective evaluation process can contribute significantly to the restructuring and development of the future curriculum and assessment method that closely meets the need of learners

On the motivations for Merleau-Ponty’s ontological research

This paper attempts to clarify Merleau-Ponty’s later work by tracing a hitherto overlooked set of concerns that were of key consequence for the formulation of his ontological research. I argue that his ontology can be understood as a response to a set of problems originating in reflections on the intersubjective use of language in dialogue, undertaken in the early 1950s. His study of dialogue disclosed a structure of meaning-formation and pointed towards a theory of truth (both recurring ontological topics) that post-Phenomenology premises could not account for. A study of dialogue shows that speakers’ positions are interchangeable, that speaking subjects are active and passive in varying degrees, and that the intentional roles of subjects and objects are liable to shift or ‘transgress’ themselves. These observations anticipate the concepts of ‘reversibility’ and ‘narcissism’, his later view of activity and passivity, and his later view of intentionality, and sharpened the need to adopt an intersubjective focus in ontological research

Why dialogue? Christian engagement in interfaith relations

For nearly 2000 years the primary stance of Christianity and Christians towards other faiths and their peoples was to treat them as radically ‘other’ and the targets of evangelical mission. During the 20th century a sequence of dramatic changes occurred, principally through the ecclesial organs of the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, even though many Christians (and others) are by no means adequately aware of them. In this paper I briefly review the nature of, and reasons for, this change and discuss some of the key issues and problems that have arisen