Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts

Online discussions provide opportunities for learners to engage in argumentative debate, but learners rarely formulate well-grounded arguments or benefit individually from participating in online discussions. Learners often do not explicitly warrant their arguments and fail to construct counterarguments (incomplete formal argumentation structure), which is hypothesized to impede individual knowledge acquisition. Computer-supported scripts have been found to support learners during online discussions. Such scripts can support specific discourse activities, such as the construction of single arguments, by supporting learners in explicitly warranting their claims or in constructing specific argumentation sequences, e.g., argument–counterargument sequences, during online discussions. Participation in argumentative discourse is seen to promote both knowledge on argumentation and domain-specific knowledge. However, there have been few empirical investigations regarding the extent to which computer-supported collaboration scripts can foster the formal quality of argumentation and thereby facilitate the individual acquisition of knowledge. One hundred and twenty (120) students of Educational Science participated in the study with a 2×2-factorial design (with vs. without script for the construction of single arguments and with vs. without script for the construction of argumentation sequences) and were randomly divided into groups of three. Results indicated that the collaboration scripts could improve the formal quality of single arguments and the formal quality of argumentation sequences in online discussions. Scripts also facilitated the acquisition of knowledge on argumentation, without affecting the acquisition of domainspecific knowledge

Creativity in the Philosophy Class. Concrete Research

The issue of creativity among teachers and pupils in terms of the dialogical praxis represented a real challenge concerning the research that we have done in high school classes in which philosophy is being taught. We have come to the conclusion that there is a direct linking between the diversity of the dialogical forms which pupils and teachers use and the forms of expression of creativity that are used during philosophy classes. Philosophical themes seem more attractive and interesting if the working methods in classes are modified and if pupils have to evaluate critically their own knowledge. (DIPF/Orig.)Die Kreativität der Schüler und Lehrer in der Methode dialogischer Praxis während des Philosophieunterrichts von Oberschulklassen stellte im Kontext dieser repräsentativen Untersuchung eine Herausforderung dar. Unsere Feststellungen zeigen die direkte Verknüpfung zwischen der Vielfalt dialogischer Formen, welche die Schüler und Lehrer übernommen haben und den Formen und Ebenen der Kreativität der Schüler während des Philosophieunterrichts. Philosophische Themen gewinnen an Attraktivität, wenn die Arbeitsmethoden in der Klasse dahin gehend geändert werden, dass die Schüler gefordert sind, ihre Kenntnisse kritisch zu bewerten und ihre Position aus einem philosphischen Blickwinkel zu überprüfen. (DIPF/Orig.

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)

Argotario: Computational Argumentation Meets Serious Games

An important skill in critical thinking and argumentation is the ability to spot and recognize fallacies. Fallacious arguments, omnipresent in argumentative discourse, can be deceptive, manipulative, or simply leading to `wrong moves' in a discussion. Despite their importance, argumentation scholars and NLP researchers with focus on argumentation quality have not yet investigated fallacies empirically. The nonexistence of resources dealing with fallacious argumentation calls for scalable approaches to data acquisition and annotation, for which the serious games methodology offers an appealing, yet unexplored, alternative. We present Argotario, a serious game that deals with fallacies in everyday argumentation. Argotario is a multilingual, open-source, platform-independent application with strong educational aspects, accessible at www.argotario.net.Comment: EMNLP 2017 demo paper. Source codes: https://github.com/UKPLab/argotari

Prosody, polyphony and politeness: A polyphonic approach to prosodic configurations common to French and Spanish

From a theoretical perspective based on the Theory of Argumentation in Language (Théorie de l’Argumentation dans la Langue – TAL) and the Theory of Polyphony (Théorie de la Polyphonie Énonciative – TPE), the present study describes and analyses polyphonic configurations that are disclosed through the use of certain voice traits; configurations which, unmistakably common to both French and Spanish, are manifested by what is said and what is prosodically shown in utterances. Within a French corpus and a Spanish corpus of naturally occurring discourse, the patent polyphonic dimension of intonation has been explored in order to demonstrate that locutors’ utterances themselves reveal the orientation of enunciation through both the marking of the lexical and grammatical components and the prosody within which they are embedded. Through this study, the authors show how the locutor – the discursive character presented by the utterance as responsible for its enunciation – puts on stage a multiplicity of enunciators, or viewpoints, which allow him or her to protect the image of self, i.e., the locutor’s own image, and expose, protect or enhance that of others. Polyphony is materialized in two different ways: one in which the enunciator embodied in the prosody reinforces the locutor’s assimilation to the wording of the utterance and another in which the enunciator corresponding to the intonational feature does not match what is expressed through words.Fil: Garcia Negroni, Maria Marta. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Instituto de Lingüística; ArgentinaFil: Caldiz, Adriana Mabel. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación. Departamento de Lenguas Modernas; Argentin

Rethinking network governance: new forms of analysis and the implications for IGR/MLG

Our position is that network governance can be understood as a communicative arena. Networks, then, are not defined by frequency of interactions between actors but by sharing of and contest between different clusters of ideas, theories and normative orientations (discourses) in relation to the specific context within which actors operate. A discourse comprises an ensemble of ideas, concepts and causal theories that give meaning to and reproduce ways of understanding the world (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999). Consequently, network governance can be understood as the inherently political process through which discourses are produced, reproduced and transformed. Democratic network governance thus becomes the study of the way in which the core challenges of democratic practice are addressed – how is legitimacy awarded, by what mechanisms are decisions reached, and how is accountability enabled. Three approaches to the discursive analysis of democracy in network governance are considered - argumentation analysis, inter-subjectivity, and critical discourse analysis – and their implications for the study of intergovernmental relations and multi-level governance (IGR/MLG) are discussed. Case examples are provided. We conclude that the value for the study of MLG/IGR is to complement existing forms of analysis by opening up the communicative and ideational aspects of interactions between levels of government and other actors

Self-reported problems of L1 and L2 college writers: what can writing instructors do?

Understanding self-reported problems of L1 and L2 writers regarding the writing process holds important pedagogical implications for instructors to address their students’ specific writing needs. L2 writers were usually reported to have more difficulty setting goals and generating material, and to produce less accurate and effective texts (Leki, 1992; Silva 1993, 1997). This paper compares the self-reported writing difficulties of two groups: L1 (N=19) and L2 (N=19) freshman composition students from an American university. To analyze the group differences, a questionnaire (using 5-point Likert scale) about the perceptions of writing difficulties and approaches to writing process was used. Findings from the descriptive statistical analysis suggest that despite self-reported common problems, such as keeping clarity by using appropriate syntax, the L1 and L2 students presented different views on the importance of visuals in a text. While L1s find visuals to be least important for the reader to understand the text, L2s find visuals to be most important. The results reveal that although instructors focus on teaching essay organization, both L1 and L2 students need more instruction on creating better sentence structures. Encouraging L2 students to use visuals (pictures and graphs) in their persuasive essays would prove beneficial for them to overcome writing problems in English