Examining students' use of online annotation tools in support of argumentative reading

This study examined how students in a Hong Kong high school used Diigo, an online annotation tool, to support their argumentative reading activities. Two year 10 classes, a high-performance class (HPC) and an ordinary-performance class (OPC), highlighted passages of text and wrote and attached sticky notes to them to clarify argumentation structures and to represent and share argumentation processes. Analysis of annotations revealed that highlighting was the most frequently used online annotation feature. The HPC made significantly more sticky notes and used them more to annotate terms, claims and judgments than the OPC. The study suggests that Diigo is a promising tool for supporting reading-to-argue. The findings may be of value to teachers and researchers in designing online annotation tools that more effectively foster the process of reading-to-argue.published_or_final_versio

Decision Representation Language (DRL) and Its Support Environment

In this report, I describe a language, called Decision Representation Language (DRL), for representing the qualitative aspects of decision making processes such as the alternatives being evaluated, goals to satisfy, and the arguments evaluating the alternatives. Once a decision process is represented in this language, the system can provide a set of services that support people making the decision. These services, together with the interface such as the object and the different presentation formats, form the support environment for using the language. I describe the services that have been so far identified to be useful — the managements of dependency, plausibility, viewpoints, and precedents. I also discuss how this work on DRL is related to other studies on decision making.MIT Artificial Intelligence Laborator

Towards Sound Forensic Arguments: Structured Argumentation Applied to Digital Forensics Practice

Digital forensic practitioners are increasingly facing examinations which are both complex in nature and structure. Throughout this process, during the examination and analysis phases, the practitioner is constantly drawing logical inferences which will be reflected in the reporting of results. Therefore, it is important to expose how all the elements of an investigation fit together to allow review and scrutiny, and to support associated parties to understand the components within it. This paper proposes the use of ‘Structured Argumentation’ as a valuable and flexible ingredient of the practitioners’ thinking toolbox. It explores this approach using three case examples which allow discussion of the benefits and application of structured argumentation to real world contexts. We argue that, despite requiring a short learning curve, structured argumentation is a practical method which promotes accessibility of findings facilitating communication between technical and legal parties, peer review, logical reconstruction, jury interpretation, and error detection

Dual processes in mathematics: reasoning about conditionals

This thesis studies the reasoning behaviour of successful mathematicians. It is based on the philosophy that, if the goal of an advanced education in mathematics is to develop talented mathematicians, it is important to have a thorough understanding of their reasoning behaviour. In particular, one needs to know the processes which mathematicians use to accomplish mathematical tasks. However, Rav (1999) has noted that there is currently no adequate theory of the role that logic plays in informal mathematical reasoning. The goal of this thesis is to begin to answer this specific criticism of the literature by developing a model of how conditional “if…then” statements are evaluated by successful mathematics students. Two stages of empirical work are reported. In the first the various theories of reasoning are empirically evaluated to see how they account for mathematicians’ responses to the Wason Selection Task, an apparently straightforward logic problem (Wason, 1968). Mathematics undergraduates are shown to have a different range of responses to the task than the general well-educated population. This finding is followed up by an eve-tracker inspection time experiment which measured which parts of the task participants attended to. It is argued that Evans’s (1984, 1989, 1996, 2006) heuristic-analytic theory provides the best account of these data. In the second stage of empirical work an in-depth qualitative interview study is reported. Mathematics research students were asked to evaluate and prove (or disprove) a series of conjectures in a realistic mathematical context. It is argued that preconscious heuristics play an important role in determining where participants allocate their attention whilst working with mathematical conditionals. Participants’ arguments are modelled using Toulmin’s (1958) argumentation scheme, and it is suggested that to accurately account for their reasoning it is necessary to use Toulmin’s full scheme, contrary to the practice of earlier researchers. The importance of recognising that arguments may sometimes only reduce uncertainty in the conditional statement’s truth/falsity, rather than remove uncertainty, is emphasised. In the final section of the thesis, these two stages are brought together. A model is developed which attempts to account for how mathematicians evaluate conditional statements. The model proposes that when encountering a mathematical conditional “if P then Q”, the mathematician hypothetically adds P to their stock of knowledge and looks for a warrant with which to conclude Q. The level of belief that the reasoner has in the conditional statement is given by a modal qualifier which they are prepared to pair with their warrant. It is argued that this level of belief is fixed by conducting a modified version of the so-called Ramsey Test (Evans & Over, 2004). Finally the differences between the proposed model and both formal logic and everyday reasoning are discussed

Sifting the Commonplace: Topoi and the Grounds for Argument in Classical and Modern Rhetoric

This dissertation is a reminder that how we consider reasoning to work and its end is very much bound up with how we think about people, what they are, what they can be, and how they do and should live together. Part of the end of the human being is to understand, to understand the Good or God and thus understand herself and her relation to others and her obligation to others; this is something we see in Aristotle\u27s somewhat-spiritual understanding of Ethics and the Human Being. Focusing on reasoning (and its connection to being) in general, instead of accenting the limitations and conditionings of the human capacity to know, is part of the means of securing the road for this end, which is especially important, as understanding, which is of and by being, is bound up with morality and moral development. Also, bound up with understanding and how human beings should convey it and build it up are rhetoric and dialectic, which are meant to get to the same end, Good or God, together. It is a fundamental contention of this project that rhetoric and dialectic cannot or should not be separated, nor these separated from substance, for rhetoric and dialectic easily become instruments of abuse in isolation, as in, for example, a rigid formalism of the self or a rigid formalism of philosophy. I will focus on dialectical aspects of reasoning and understanding here. Situating Aristotle\u27s discussion of how reasoning operates in a discussion prompted by Toulmin\u27s Uses of Argument, this dissertation shows how Aristotle attempts to avoid the lure of formalism by grounding reasoning and its evaluation in the real (which he understands as the connection among mind, world, and language)

Legal knowledge-based systems: new directions in system design

This thesis examines and critiques the concept of 'legal knowledge-based’ systems. Work on legal knowledge-based systems is dominated by work in 'artificial intelligence and law’. It seeks to automate the application of law and to automate the solution of legal problems. Automation however, has proved elusive. In contrast to such automation, this thesis proposes the creation of legal knowledge-based systems based on the concept of augmentation of legal work. Focusing on systems that augment legal work opens new possibilities for system creation and use. To inform how systems might augment legal work, this thesis examines philosophy, psychology and legal theory for information they provide on how processes of legal reasoning operate. It is argued that, in contrast to conceptions of law adopted in artificial intelligence and law, 'sensemaking' provides a useful perspective with which to create systems. It is argued that visualisation, and particularly diagrams, are an important and under considered element of reasoning and that producing systems that support diagramming of processes of legal reasoning would provide useful support for legal work. This thesis reviews techniques for diagramming aspects of sensemaking. In particular this thesis examines standard methods for diagramming arguments and methods for diagramming reasoning. These techniques are applied in the diagramming of legal judgments. A review is conducted of systems that have been constructed to support the construction of diagrams of argument and reasoning. Drawing upon these examinations, this thesis highlights the necessity of appropriate representations for supporting reasoning. The literature examining diagramming for reasoning support provides little discussion of appropriate representations. This thesis examines theories of representation for insight they can provide into the design of appropriate representations. It is concluded that while the theories of representation that are examined do not determine what amounts to a good representation, guidelines for the design and choice of representations can be distilled. These guidelines cannot map the class of legal knowledge-based systems that augment legal sensemaking, they can however, be used to explore this class and to inform construction of systems

Proof and reasoning in an inquiry-oriented class: The impact of classroom discourse

Over the past decade, mathematics educators and researchers have become increasingly aware of the impact of social interactions on students\u27 learning (NCTM, 2000; Bowers & Nickerson, 2001; Forman, 2003). Current research indicates that the classroom environment, including the activities and discussions that take place, can have a significant effect on the ways students make sense of mathematical concepts (Yackel, 2001). Understanding mathematics involves knowing how to make sense of key concepts through the processes of reasoning and justification. Educators and researchers agree on the importance of providing students with opportunities in class to explore, conjecture, and prove in order to promote mathematical understanding beyond procedural knowledge (Lakatos, 1976; Rasmussen & Marrongelle, 2006). Although there are a number of studies that investigate many different aspects of classroom discourse and students\u27 learning, there remains a need for more understanding (Franke, Kazemi & Battey, 2007). This study is aimed at investigating the nature and impact of social interactions, both teacher-student and student-student, in classroom discourse. In particular, the study seeks to gain understanding of how interactions influence students\u27 engagement in proof and reasoning activities. In addition, the study analyzes students\u27 argumentation schemes as they occurred in classroom discussions and during student group work. Through the perspective that learning is both a social and an individual activity, this research focuses on the social component of the learning process as it occurs in the classroom. Ethnographic techniques of participant observation and interviews provided methods of data collection, and analysis of discourse and argumentation structures provided a way to interpret the data. This study contributes to the existing research by highlighting certain types of interactions that resulted in students contributing to proof construction and collective reasoning

How Do Prospective Teachers Argue in Focus Group Discussion? Toulmin's Argumentation Study

Students’ argumentation ability is necessary for education today, which emphasizes the student-centered learning process. One way to see students’ argumentation ability is by having a discussion. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the Toulmin argumentation process for students during focus group discussions (FGD). This research is qualitative. The data collection instrument used was an open-ended questionnaire assisted by Google Form that contained common problems of the distance learning process during a pandemic. The subjects of this study consisted of fifty students from the University of Mataram. The results showed that the argumentation process was divided into three categories. The first category was the one-sentence argument. There were 58 %, or 29 students, who belonged in this category. The second category was the two sentences argument. There are 30 %, or 15 students belonged in this category. Lastly, 12 % or six students belonged to the more than three sentence argument category. The results of this study indicated that many students could not provide complete arguments. Thus, the role of lecturers is significant to improve students’ ability in providing complete argumentations. Therefore, the researchers suggest that lecturers should apply learning models that invite students to argue and discuss

Designing Science Learning Domains for 2e (Twice Exceptional) Students

2e (twice-exceptional) students are gifted and differently-abled, so they need specific learning domains according to their needs. This research aimed to design science learning domains for a 2e (gifted and blind) student to enhance his critical thinking in his special learning needs in Ankara province in Turkey in the 2020-2021 academic year's first term. Single-subject research was employed. The 2e student was ten years old. Through the application process, the 2e student argued 3D modeled Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. The main application's intervention was conducted to provide the research's internal validity since it was single-subject research. Through the intervention application, the 2e student argued 3D modeled Schrödinger's twin cats thought experiment. We noted both social dialectic argumentation processes as texts, and these texts were used as data collecting tools. Descriptive analysis was utilized to gathered data. The study showed that the 2e student could construct arguments containing claim, data, warrant, and weak rebuttals in the main application, which meant his argumentation quality level was average, so his critical thinking too. In contrast, the 2e student-constructed arguments containing claim, data, weak rebuttal, and rebuttal meant his argumentation quality level enhanced his critical thinking