A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is often based on written argumentative discourse of learners, who discuss their perspectives on a problem with the goal to acquire knowledge. Lately, CSCL research focuses on the facilitation of specific processes of argumentative knowledge construction, e.g., with computer-supported collaboration scripts. In order to refine process-oriented instructional support, such as scripts, we need to measure the influence of scripts on specific processes of argumentative knowledge construction. In this article, we propose a multi-dimensional approach to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in CSCL from sampling and segmentation of the discourse corpora to the analysis of four process dimensions (participation, epistemic, argumentative, social mode)

Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse

The goal of argumentation mining, an evolving research field in computational linguistics, is to design methods capable of analyzing people's argumentation. In this article, we go beyond the state of the art in several ways. (i) We deal with actual Web data and take up the challenges given by the variety of registers, multiple domains, and unrestricted noisy user-generated Web discourse. (ii) We bridge the gap between normative argumentation theories and argumentation phenomena encountered in actual data by adapting an argumentation model tested in an extensive annotation study. (iii) We create a new gold standard corpus (90k tokens in 340 documents) and experiment with several machine learning methods to identify argument components. We offer the data, source codes, and annotation guidelines to the community under free licenses. Our findings show that argumentation mining in user-generated Web discourse is a feasible but challenging task.Comment: Cite as: Habernal, I. & Gurevych, I. (2017). Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse. Computational Linguistics 43(1), pp. 125-17

Towards modelling dialectic and eristic argumentation on the social web

Modelling arguments on the social web is a key challenge for those studying computational argumentation. This is because formal models of argumentation tend to assume dialectic and logical argument, whereas argumentation on the social web is highly eristic. In this paper we explore this gap by bringing together the Argument Interchange Format (AIF) and the Semantic Interlinked Online Communities (SIOC) project, and modelling a sample of social web arguments. This allows us to explore which eristic effects cannot be modelled, and also to see which features of the social web are missing.We show that even in our small sample, from YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, eristic effects (such as playing to the audience) were missing from the final model, and that key social features (such as likes and dislikes) were also not represented. This suggests that both eristic and social extensions need to be made to our models of argumentation in order to deal effectively with the social we

Capturing and representing deliberation in participatory planning practices

In this paper we argue for the importance of capturing and representing deliberation in participatory planning practices. We discuss the concept of deliberation in planning theory, and argue for a paradigm that puts deliberation at the centre of public participation to planning decision. We argue that in order to enable effective participation, the normally ephemeral delib- eration process needs to be captured and represented so that the information and knowledge gathered during deliberation is visible for all, can be effectively traced, reused, and can actively influence planning decisions. To scaffold this we describe the integration of three technologies to create a collective project memory structured against five dimensions of participatory plan- ning processes: dialogical, social, spatial, temporal and causal. Based on several authentic par- ticipatory planning cases, we report that this supported deliberation across planning tasks, communication modes, time and environments. The coupled use of online and offline group- ware technologies created a more expressive and transparent participatory knowledge base than is possible with conventional media, and enhanced participatory planning by: supporting the effective capture and representation of deliberation processes and products; providing a rich picture of the social setting in which planning decision develops and supporting reflection in and on planning actions

Discourse Analysis: varieties and methods

This paper presents and analyses six key approaches to discourse analysis, including political discourse theory, rhetorical political analysis, the discourse historical approach in critical discourse analysis, interpretive policy analysis, discursive psychology and Q methodology. It highlights differences and similarities between the approaches along three distinctive dimensions, namely, ontology, focus and purpose. Our analysis reveals the difficulty of arriving at a fundamental matrix of dimensions which would satisfactorily allow one to organize all approaches in a coherent theoretical framework. However, it does not preclude various theoretical articulations between the different approaches, provided one takes a problem-driven approach to social science as one?s starting-point

A Model of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

“Critical thinking in higher education” is a phrase that means many things to many people. It is a broad church. Does it mean a propensity for finding fault? Does it refer to an analytical method? Does it mean an ethical attitude or a disposition? Does it mean all of the above? Educating to develop critical intellectuals and the Marxist concept of critical consciousness are very different from the logician’s toolkit of finding fallacies in passages of text, or the practice of identifying and distinguishing valid from invalid syllogisms. Critical thinking in higher education can also encompass debates about critical pedagogy, i.e., political critiques of the role and function of education in society, critical feminist approaches to curriculum, issues related to what has become known as critical citizenship, or any other education-related topic that uses the appellation “critical”. Equally, it can, and usually does, refer to the importance and centrality of developing general skills in reasoning—skills that we hope all graduates possess. Yet, despite more than four decades of dedicated scholarly work “critical thinking” remains as elusive as ever. As a concept, it is, as Raymond Williams has noted, a ‘most difficult one’ (Williams, 1976, p. 74)

Collaboration in the Semantic Grid: a Basis for e-Learning

The CoAKTinG project aims to advance the state of the art in collaborative mediated spaces for the Semantic Grid. This paper presents an overview of the hypertext and knowledge based tools which have been deployed to augment existing collaborative environments, and the ontology which is used to exchange structure, promote enhanced process tracking, and aid navigation of resources before, after, and while a collaboration occurs. While the primary focus of the project has been supporting e-Science, this paper also explores the similarities and application of CoAKTinG technologies as part of a human-centred design approach to e-Learning

Online civic intervention: A new form of political participation under conditions of a disruptive online discourse

In the everyday practice of online communication, we observe users deliberately reporting abusive content or opposing hate speech through counterspeech, while at the same time, online platforms are increasingly relying on and supporting this kind of user action to fight disruptive online behavior. We refer to this type of user engagement as online civic intervention (OCI) and regard it as a new form of user-based political participation in the digital sphere that contributes to an accessible and reasoned public discourse. Because OCI has received little scholarly attention thus far, this article conceptualizes low- and high-threshold types of OCI as different kinds of user responses to common disruptive online behavior such as hate speech or hostility toward the media. Against the background of participation research, we propose a theoretically grounded individual-level model that serves to explain OCI