23,977 research outputs found
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
Reflective Argumentation
Theories of argumentation usually focus on arguments as means of persuasion, finding consensus, or justifying knowledge claims. However, the construction and visualization of arguments can also be used to clarify one's own thinking and to stimulate change of this thinking if gaps, unjustified assumptions, contradictions, or open questions can be identified. This is what I call "reflective argumentation." The objective of this paper is, first, to clarify the conditions of reflective argumentation and, second, to discuss the possibilities of argument visualization methods in supporting reflection and cognitive change. After a discussion of the cognitive problems we are facing in conflicts--obviously the area where cognitive change is hardest--the second part will, based on this, determine a set of requirements argument visualization tools should fulfill if their main purpose is stimulating reflection and cognitive change. In the third part, I will evaluate available argument visualization methods with regard to these requirements and talk about their limitations. The fourth part, then, introduces a new method of argument visualization which I call Logical Argument Mapping (LAM). LAM has specifically been designed to support reflective argumentation. Since it uses primarily deductively valid argument schemes, this design decision has to be justified with regard to goals of reflective argumentation. The fifth part, finally, provides an example of how Logical Argument Mapping could be used as a method of reflective argumentation in a political controversy
Parsing Argumentation Structures in Persuasive Essays
In this article, we present a novel approach for parsing argumentation
structures. We identify argument components using sequence labeling at the
token level and apply a new joint model for detecting argumentation structures.
The proposed model globally optimizes argument component types and
argumentative relations using integer linear programming. We show that our
model considerably improves the performance of base classifiers and
significantly outperforms challenging heuristic baselines. Moreover, we
introduce a novel corpus of persuasive essays annotated with argumentation
structures. We show that our annotation scheme and annotation guidelines
successfully guide human annotators to substantial agreement. This corpus and
the annotation guidelines are freely available for ensuring reproducibility and
to encourage future research in computational argumentation.Comment: Under review in Computational Linguistics. First submission: 26
October 2015. Revised submission: 15 July 201
The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment
The definition and the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts has become an increasingly crucial issue in education, classroom discourse, and argumentation theory. The different methods developed and used in the literature are all characterized by specific perspectives that fail to capture the complexity of the subject matter, which remains ill-defined and not systematically investigated. This paper addresses this problem by building on the four main dimensions of argument quality resulting from the definition of argument and the literature in classroom discourse: dialogicity, accountability, relevance, and textuality (DART). We use and develop the insights from the literature in education and argumentation by integrating the frameworks that capture both the textual and the argumentative nature of argumentative texts. This theoretical background will be used to propose a method for translating the DART dimensions into specific and clear proxies and evaluation criteria
Scientific Argumentation as a Foundation for the Design of Inquiry-Based Science Instruction
Despite the attention that inquiry has received in science education research and policy, a coherent means for implementing inquiry in the classroom has been missing [1]. In recent research, scientific argumentation has received increasing attention for its role in science and in science education [2]. In this article, we propose that organizing a unit of instruction around building a scientific argument can bring inquiry practices together in the classroom in a coherent way. We outline a framework for argumentation, focusing on arguments that are central to science—arguments for the best explanation. We then use this framework as the basis for a set of design principles for developing a sequence of inquiry-based learning activities that support students in the construction of a scientific argument. We show that careful analysis of the argument that students are expected to build provides designers with a foundation for selecting resources and designing supports for scientific inquiry. Furthermore, we show that creating multiple opportunities for students to critique and refine their explanations through evidence-based argumentation fosters opportunities for critical thinking, while building science knowledge and knowledge of the nature of science
The Argument Reasoning Comprehension Task: Identification and Reconstruction of Implicit Warrants
Reasoning is a crucial part of natural language argumentation. To comprehend
an argument, one must analyze its warrant, which explains why its claim follows
from its premises. As arguments are highly contextualized, warrants are usually
presupposed and left implicit. Thus, the comprehension does not only require
language understanding and logic skills, but also depends on common sense. In
this paper we develop a methodology for reconstructing warrants systematically.
We operationalize it in a scalable crowdsourcing process, resulting in a freely
licensed dataset with warrants for 2k authentic arguments from news comments.
On this basis, we present a new challenging task, the argument reasoning
comprehension task. Given an argument with a claim and a premise, the goal is
to choose the correct implicit warrant from two options. Both warrants are
plausible and lexically close, but lead to contradicting claims. A solution to
this task will define a substantial step towards automatic warrant
reconstruction. However, experiments with several neural attention and language
models reveal that current approaches do not suffice.Comment: Accepted as NAACL 2018 Long Paper; see details on the front pag
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)
Introduction
What is critical thinking, especially in the context of higher education?
How have research and scholarship on the matter developed over recent past
decades? What is the current state of the art here? How might the potential of
critical thinking be enhanced? What kinds of teaching are necessary in order
to realize that potential? And just why is this topic important now? These are
the key questions motivating this volume. We hesitate to use terms such as
“comprehensive” or “complete” or “definitive,” but we believe that, taken in
the round, the chapters in this volume together offer a fair insight into the
contemporary understandings of higher education worldwide. We also believe
that this volume is much needed, and we shall try to justify that claim in this
introduction
"I would like to see that one is able to say I'm proud of being a citizen of the EU…" – the way Hungarian people see Europe and the European Union
This paper explores the concepts of Europe, Europeanism and European Union, their meaning to Hungarians, how people define them and how they relate to these concepts through the analysis of qualitative in-depth interviews. The main question is whether the discourse, expressing attitudes towards Europe and the European Union, are of symbolic or utilitarian character. The symbolic way to relate to the EU is based on principles, an ideological or an emotional approach of the subject, while the pragmatic or utilitarian logic is based on rational cost-benefit analysis. The main argument of this current paper is that the way Hungarians tend to relate to the EU is rather utilitarian and it is the utilitarian logic that represents the relevant frame to understand people’s attitudes on the subject
- …