Developing argumentation processing agents for computer-supported collaborative learning

Expert Systems with Applications

Volumn 36, Issue 2 PART 2, 2009, Pages 2615-2624

  Huang, Chenn Jung ^a   Chen, Hong Xin ^a   Chen, Chun Hua ^a  

^a NATIONAL DONG HWA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Assessment; Conversation analysis; e Learning; Exception maximum (EM); Learning style; Text mining

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; DATA MINING; LEARNING SYSTEMS; OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE; OPEN SYSTEMS;

ARGUMENTATION; ASSESSMENT; CONVERSATION ANALYSIS; EXCEPTION MAXIMUMS; LEARNING STYLE; TEXT MINING;

E-LEARNING;

EID: 56349112278     PISSN: 09574174     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.01.036     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In Proceedings of the computer supported collaborative learning e97 (pp. 10-19).
2. Bell P., and Linn M.C. Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education 22 8 (2000) 797-818
3. Bench-Capon T.J.M., Coenen F.P., and Orton P. Argument-based explanation of the British Nationality Act as a logic program. Computers, Law and AI 2 1 (1993) 53-66
4. Borisoff J.F., McPhail L.T., Saunders J.T.W., Birch G.E., and Ramer M.S. Detection and classification of sensory information from acute spinal cord recordings. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 53 8 (2006) 1715-1719
5. Chicco G., Napoli R., and Piglione F. Comparisons among clustering techniques for electricity customer classification. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 21 2 (2006) 933-940
6. Driver R., Newton P., and Osborne J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84 3 (2000) 213-287
7. Edelson, D. C., Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. (1996). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In B. C. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 151-164).
8. Forman E.A., Larreamendy-Joerns J., Stein M.K., and Brown C.A. "You're going to want to find out which and prove it": Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction 8 6 (1998) 527-548
9. Gaddam S.R., Phoha V.V., and Balagani K.S. K-Means + ID3: A novel method for supervised anomaly detection by cascading K-means clustering and ID3. IEEE Transactions on Decision Tree Learning Methods Knowledge and Data Engineering 19 3 (2007) 345-354
10. Gordon T.F. The Pleadings Game: An exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (1994) 239-292
11. Grasha A. Teaching with style (1996), Alliance, Pittsburgh, PA
12. Guzdial, M., Turns, J., Rappin, N., & Carlson, D. (1995). Collaborative support for learning in complex domains. In The first international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning (pp.157-160).
13. Hoadley C.M., Berman B.P., and Hsi S. SpeakEasy Networked Communication Tool [Tcl Programs for CGI WWW Interface] (1995), University of California, Berkeley, CA
14. Hruska-Riechmann S., and Grasha A.F. The Grasha-Riechmann student learning style scales: Research findings and applications. In: Keefe J. (Ed). Student learning styles and brain behavior (1982), NASSP, Reston, VA
15. Hulstijn, J. (2000). Dialogue models for inquiry and transaction. Ph.D. thesis. Universities Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
16. Hu W., Xiao X., Fu Z., Xie D., Tan T., and Maybank S. A system for learning statistical motion patterns. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 28 9 (2006) 1450-1464
17. Kelly G.J., Druker S., and Chen C. Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education 20 7 (1998) 849-871
18. Kraus S., Sycara K., and Evenchik A. Reaching agreements through argumentation: A logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104 1-2 (1998) 1-69
19. Kuhn, L., & Resier, B. (2005). Students constructing and defending evidence based scientific explanations. Dallas, TX: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
20. Kumar P., Kumar A., and Smart K. Assessing the impact of instructional methods and information technology on student learning styles. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology 1 (2004) 533-544
21. Lemke J.L. Talking science: Language, learning and values (1990), Norwood Ablex Publishing Company
22. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
23. Nock R., and Nielsen F. On weighting clustering. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 28 8 (2006) 1223-1235
24. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2006). Ideas, evidence and argument in science education: Supporting teacher practice. In Conference of the American educational research association.
25. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2007). Talking to learn and learning to talk. Association for Science Education.
26. Parsons S., Sierra C., and Jennings N.R. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8 3 (1998) 261-292
27. Parsons S., Wooldridge M., and Amgoud L. An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. First international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (2002), ACM Press
28. Parsons S., Wooldridge M., and Amgoud L. On the outcomes of formal inter-agent dialogues. Second international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (2003), ACM Press
29. Pei Y., and Zha H. Transferring of speech movements from video to 3D face space. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 13 1 (2007) 58-69
30. Prakken H. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defensible argumentation. Syntheses 127 (2001) 187-219
31. Rosebery, A., Warren, B., & Conant, F. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 61-94.
32. Sadler T.D., and Zeidler D.L. The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. Science Education 89 (2005) 71-93
33. Scardamalia M., Bereiter C., and Lamon M. The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In: McGilly K. (Ed). Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (1994), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
34. Schauble L., Glaser R., Duschl R.A., Schulze S., and John J. Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of Learning Sciences 4 2 (1995) 131-166
35. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2002). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. In Conference of the National Association for research in science teaching.
36. Simon, S., Osborne, J., & Erduran, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science project. In Association of tutors in science education. Annual day conference.
37. Tabak, I., Smith, B. K., Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (1996). Combining general and domain-specific support for biological inquiry. In Proceedings of the ITS'96.
38. Toulmin S. The uses of argument (1958), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
39. Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Kraus, M. E., Osborne, O., Rogge1, C., & Simon, S. (2005). Argumentation and the learning of science. In European science education research association conference.
40. Walker K.A., and Zeidler D.L. Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education 29 11 (2007) 1387-1410
41. Yu, H., Li, P., & Fan, Y. (2006). Sampling fuzzy K-means clustering algorithm based on clonal optimization. In WCICA 2006. The sixth world congress on intelligent control and automation, 2006 (Vol. 2, pp. 6102-6105).
42. Zhong Y., Zhang L., Huang B., and Li P. An unsupervised artificial immune classifier for multi/hyperspectral remote sensing imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 44 2 (2006) 420-431