Effects of Teaching Argument to First-Year Community-College Students Using a Structural and Dialectical Approach

The purpose of this study was to measure to what extent an experimental method of teaching argument incorporating elements from both Toulmin’s (2004) structural approach and Walton’s (2013) dialectical approach effects first-year college students’ ability to write strong arguments. This experimental instruction used critical questioning as a strategy in building a strong argument, incorporating alternative viewpoints, and creating a dialogue between claims and counterclaims, backed logically by verifiable evidence from reliable sources. Using the Analytic Scoring Rubric of Argumentative Writing (ASRAW; Stapleton & Wu, 2015) that includes the argument elements of claims, data, counterclaim, counterclaim data, rebuttal claim, and rebuttal data, the efficacy of the experimental instruction method was evaluated by collecting and scoring students’ preand postoutlines of arguments on topics involving controversial issues and students\u27 argument research-paper outlines. Scores on these three sets of outlines in each class included in the study (Spring n=20 and Fall n=23 2020) were compared to investigate the efficacy of using the experimental instructional approach. The rubric analysis was based on outlines that incorporate the basic elements of a strong argument as defined above, both before and after this instructional method was employed. The instruction was designed to develop students’ understanding of bias in the context of building an argument by helping students learn to explore and integrate alternative viewpoints, to reflect on their own assumptions, to discover bias in sources, and ultimately to build strong arguments from reliable sources that take more than one perspective into account. The instruction consisted of an interactive lecture and pair and group work on a controversial issue in class. This study took place at a medium-sized community college in an “extended” 6- unit composition course designed for students needing more support than a traditional 3- or 4-unit first-year English Composition course. The student population of this community college and of this course was very diverse and representative of Northern California’s demographics, with many students being first- or second-generation immigrants, from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, the first in their family to attend college, or a combination. Overall, based on the paired-sample t tests for the pre- and postoutline pair, the pre- and research-paper outline pair on the total scores and on the counter-argument and evidence and rebuttals and evidence scores for both Spring and Fall 2020 classes were statistically significant, except for post- and research-paper outlines for Fall 2022 for total, counter-argument and evidence, pre- and postoutlines, and post- and research-paper outlines for rebuttal and rebuttal evidence. Effect size, as measured by Cohen’s d, for pairs that were statistically significant were all large, ranging from 0.80 to 1.26 except for counter-argument and counter-argument evidence for pre- and postoutlines for the Spring 2020 class that were both medium, ranging from 0.58 to 0.65

Exploring grade 11 learners’ functional understanding of proof in relation to argumentation in selected high schools.

Doctoral Degrees. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban.Research has established that understanding the functions of proof in mathematics and argumentation ability provide learners with a firm foundation for constructing proofs. Yet, little is known about the extent to which learners appreciate the functions of proof and whether an association between functional understanding of proof and argumentation ability exists. Guided by van Hiele’s and Toulmin’s theories, this study utilised a sequential explanatory design to randomly select three schools from a cluster grouping of ten Dinaledi high schools in the Pinetown district. Three survey questionnaires, Learners’ Functional Understanding of Proof (LFUP), self-efficacy scale, and Argumentation Framework for Euclidean Geometry (AFEG), were administered to a sample of 135 Grade 11 learners to measure their understanding of the functions of proof and argumentation ability, and to explore the relationship between argumentation ability and functional understanding of proof. Then, Presh N (pseudonym)—a female learner who obtained the highest LFUP score despite attending a historically under-resourced township school—was purposively selected from the larger sample. In addition to her responses on the questionnaires, a semistructured interview, and a standard proof-related task served as data sources to explain the origins of her functional understanding of proof. Statistical analyses were conducted on data obtained from questionnaires while pattern matching method was used to analyse the interview data. The analyses revealed that learners held hybrid functional understanding of proof, the quality of their argumentation was poor, the relationship between functional understanding of proof and argumentation ability was weak and statistically significant, and the collectivist culture and the teacher were the two factors which largely accounted for Presh N’s informed beliefs about the functions of proof. In addition, although she constructed a deductive proof, she did not perform the inductive segment prior to formally proving the proposition. The recommendation that Euclidean geometry curriculum needs to be revamped for the purpose of making functional understanding of proof and argumentation explicit and assessable content has implications for two constituencies. Instructional practices in high schools and methods modules at higher education institutions need to include these exploratory activities (functional understanding of proof and argumentation) prior to engaging in the final step of formal proof construction. Future research initiatives need to blend close-ended items with open-ended questions to enhance insights into learners’ functional understanding of proof. This study not only provides high school teachers and researchers with a single, reliable tool to assess functional understanding of proof but also proposes a model for studying factors affecting functional understanding of proof. Overall, the results of this study are offered as a contribution to the field’s growing understanding of learners’ activities prior to constructing proofs

A PRISMA-driven systematic mapping study on system assurance weakeners

Context: An assurance case is a structured hierarchy of claims aiming at demonstrating that a given mission-critical system supports specific requirements (e.g., safety, security, privacy). The presence of assurance weakeners (i.e., assurance deficits, logical fallacies) in assurance cases reflects insufficient evidence, knowledge, or gaps in reasoning. These weakeners can undermine confidence in assurance arguments, potentially hindering the verification of mission-critical system capabilities. Objectives: As a stepping stone for future research on assurance weakeners, we aim to initiate the first comprehensive systematic mapping study on this subject. Methods: We followed the well-established PRISMA 2020 and SEGRESS guidelines to conduct our systematic mapping study. We searched for primary studies in five digital libraries and focused on the 2012-2023 publication year range. Our selection criteria focused on studies addressing assurance weakeners at the modeling level, resulting in the inclusion of 39 primary studies in our systematic review. Results: Our systematic mapping study reports a taxonomy (map) that provides a uniform categorization of assurance weakeners and approaches proposed to manage them at the modeling level. Conclusion: Our study findings suggest that the SACM (Structured Assurance Case Metamodel) -- a standard specified by the OMG (Object Management Group) -- may be the best specification to capture structured arguments and reason about their potential assurance weakeners

Negotiating About Charges and Pleas: Balancing Interests and Justice

There is a worldwide movement towards alternatives to judicial decision-making for legal disputes. In the domain of criminal sentencing, in Western countries more than 95 % of cases are guilty pleas, with many being decided by negotiations over charges and pleas, rather than a decision being made after a judge or jury has heard all relevant evidence in a trial. Because decisions are being made, and people incarcerated on the basis of negotiations, it is important that such negotiations be just and fair. In this paper we discuss issues of fairness in plea-bargaining and how we can develop systems to support the process of plea and charge negotiation. We discuss how we are using Toulmin’s theory of argumentation and Lodder and Zeleznikow’s model of online dispute resolution to develop just plea bargaining systems. A specific investigation of the process of charge mentions is discussed

Uncertainty and Confidence in Safety Logic

Abstract Reasoning about system safety requires reasoning about confidence in safety claims. For example, DO-178B requires developers to determine the correctness of the worst-case execution time of the software. It is not possible to do this beyond any doubt. Therefore, developers and assessors must consider the limitations of execution time evidence and their effect on the confidence that can be placed in execution time figures, timing analysis results, and claims to have met timing-related software safety requirements. In this paper, we survey and assess five existing concepts that might serve as means of describing and reasoning about confidence: safety integrity levels, probability distributions of failure rates, Bayesian Belief Networks, argument integrity levels, and Baconian probability. We define use cases for confidence in safety cases, prescriptive standards, certification of component-based systems, and the reuse of safety elements both in and out of context. From these use cases, we derive requirements for a confidence framework. We assess existing techniques by discussing what is known about how well each confidence metric meets these requirements. Our results show that no existing confidence metric is ideally suited for all uses. We conclude by discussing implications for future standards and for reuse of safety elements

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

Generation of model-based safety arguments from automatically allocated safety integrity levels

To certify safety-critical systems, assurance arguments linking evidence of safety to appropriate requirements must be constructed. However, modern safety-critical systems feature increasing complexity and integration, which render manual approaches impractical to apply. This thesis addresses this problem by introducing a model-based method, with an exemplary application based on the aerospace domain.Previous work has partially addressed this problem for slightly different applications, including verification-based, COTS, product-line and process-based assurance. Each of the approaches is applicable to a specialised case and does not deliver a solution applicable to a generic system in a top-down process. This thesis argues that such a solution is feasible and can be achieved based on the automatic allocation of safety requirements onto a system’s architecture. This automatic allocation is a recent development which combines model-based safety analysis and optimisation techniques. The proposed approach emphasises the use of model-based safety analysis, such as HiP-HOPS, to maximise the benefits towards the system development lifecycle.The thesis investigates the background and earlier work regarding construction of safety arguments, safety requirements allocation and optimisation. A method for addressing the problem of optimal safety requirements allocation is first introduced, using the Tabu Search optimisation metaheuristic. The method delivers satisfactory results that are further exploited for construction of safety arguments. Using the produced requirements allocation, an instantiation algorithm is applied onto a generic safety argument pattern, which is compliant with standards, to automatically construct an argument establishing a claim that a system’s safety requirements have been met. This argument is hierarchically decomposed and shows how system and subsystem safety requirements are satisfied by architectures and analyses at low levels of decomposition. Evaluation on two abstract case studies demonstrates the feasibility and scalability of the method and indicates good performance of the algorithms proposed. Limitations and potential areas of further investigation are identified