LASAD: Flexible representations for computer-based collaborative argumentation

International Journal of Human Computer Studies

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 91-109

  Loll, Frank ^a   Pinkwart, Niels ^a  

^a CLAUSTHAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Argumentation; CSCL; Visualization

Indexed keywords

FLOW VISUALIZATION; VISUALIZATION;

ARGUMENTATION; ARGUMENTATION SYSTEMS; COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATIONS; CSCL; GROUP MEMBERS; LEARNING OUTCOME; PARAMETERIZED; PEER REVIEWING;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 84870608401     PISSN: 10715819     EISSN: 10959300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.04.002     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. J. Andriessen Arguing to learn R.K. Sawyer, The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences 2006 Cambridge University Press 443 460
2. J. Andriessen, M.J. Baker, and D. Suthers Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers
3. A. Bangor, P.T. Kortum, and J.T. Miller An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 24 6 2008 574 594
4. A. Bangor, P.T. Kortum, and J.T Miller Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale International Journal of Usability Studies 4 3 2009 114 123
5. F. Belgiorno, R.D. Chiara, I. Manno, M. Overdijk, V. Scarano, and W. van Diggelen Face to face cooperation with CoFFEE P. Dillenbourg, M. Specht, Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TE 2008 2008 Springer 49 57
6. J. Brooke SUS - a quick and dirty usability scale P.W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B.A. Weerdmeester, Usability Evaluation in Industry 1996 Taylor & Francis 189 194
7. C.S. Carr Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham Shum, C.S. Carr, Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making 2003 Springer 75 96
8. K. Cho, and C.D. Schunn Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: a web-based reciprocal peer review system Computers & Education 48 3 2007 409 426
9. H.H. Clark, and S.E. Brennan Grounding in communication L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, S.D. Teasley, Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition 1991 127 148
10. P. Dillenbourg, M. Baker, A. Blaye, and C. O'Malley The evolution of research on collaborative learning P. Reimann, H. Spada, Learning in Humans and Machines: Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science 1995 Elsevier/Pergamon Oxford 189 211
11. Easterday, M.W.; Aleven, V.; Scheines, R.; 2007. 'Tis better to construct or to receive? Effect of diagrams on analysis of social policy. In: Luckin, R.; Koedinger, K.R.; Greer, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 93-100). IOS Press
12. P. Ekman Facial expression and emotion American Psychologist 48 4 1993 384 392
13. Gehringer, E.F.; (2001). Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer-science courses. Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 139-143).
14. T.F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. Walton The carneades model of argument and burden of proof Artificial Intelligence 171 2007 875 896
15. D.C. Hair Legalese: a legal argumentation tool SIGCHI Bulletin 23 1 1991 71 74
16. M. Harrell No computer program required: even pencil-and-paper argument mapping improves critical thinking skills Teaching Philosophy 31 4 2008 351 374
17. J. Janssen, G. Erkens, P.A. Kirschner, and G. Kanselaar Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning Instructional Science 38 1 2010 59 88
18. D.H. Jonassen, and B. Kim Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines Educational Technology Research and Development 58 4 2010 439 457
19. P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham Shum, and C.S. Carr Visualizing Argumentation. Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making 2003 Springer
20. D. Kuhn The Skills of Argument 1991 Cambridge University Press
21. D. Kuhn Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking Science Education 77 3 1993 319 337
22. P.R. Laughlin, E. Hatch, C. Silver, and J.S. Boh, L. Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of group size Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 4 2006 644 651
23. Loll, F.; 2012. Domain-independent support for computer-based argumentation. PhD Thesis. Clausthal University of Technology. Published online at〈 http://www.gbv.de/dms/clausthal/E-DISS/2012/db110727.pdf 〉. ISBN: 978-3-942216-92-0.
24. F. Loll, and N. Pinkwart Disburdening tutors in e-learning environments via Web 2.0 techniques D. Dicheva, R. Mizoguchi, J. Greer, Semantic Web Technologies for e-Learning 2009 IOS Press Amsterdam, The Netherlands 279 298
25. F. Loll, O. Scheuer, B.M. McLaren, and N. Pinkwart Computer-supported argumentation learning: a survey of teachers, researchers, and system developers M. Wolpers, P. Kirschner, M. Scheffel, S. Lindstaedt, V. Dimitrova, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (6383) - Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (ECTEL) 2010 Springer Verlag Berlin, Germany 530 535
26. F. Loll, O. Scheuer, B.M. McLaren, and N. Pinkwart Learning to argue using computers - a view from teachers, researchers, and system developers V. Aleven, J. Kay, J. Mostow, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (6095) - Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) 2010 Springer Verlag Berlin, Germany 377 379
27. F. Loll, N. Pinkwart, O. Scheuer, and B.M. McLaren Simplifying the development of argumentation systems using a configurable platform N. Pinkwart, B.M. McLaren, Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills 2011 Bentham Science
28. Loui, R.P.; Norman, J.; Altepeter, J.; Pinkard, D.; Linsday, J.; Foltz, M.; 1997. Progress on room 5: A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1997) (pp. 207-214). ACM.
29. K. Lund, G. Molinari, A. Séjourné, and M.J. Baker How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2 2-3 2007 273 295
30. C. Lynch, K.D. Ashley, N. Pinkwart, and V. Aleven Concepts, structures, and goals: redefining Ill-definedness International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 19 3 2010 253 266
31. S. McAlister, A. Ravenscroft, and E. Scanlon Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous cmc Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20 3 2004 194 204
32. B.M. McLaren, O. Scheuer, and J. Miksatko Supporting collaborative learning and e-fiscussions using artificial intelligence techniques International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 20 2010 1 46
33. L. Munneke, M. van Amelsvoort, and J. Andriessen The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning International Journal of Educational Research 39 2003 113 131
34. J. Osborne Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse Science 328 463 2010 463 466
35. N. Pinkwart, C. Lynch, K.D. Ashley, and V. Aleven Re-evaluating LARGO in the classroom: are diagrams better than text for teaching argumentation skills? In LNCS 5091 2008 90 100
36. Rolf, B.; Magnusson, C.; 2002. Developing the art of argumentation. A software approach. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Argumentation (pp. 919-926).
37. N. Rummel, and H. Spada Can people learn computer-mediated collaboration by following a script? F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, I. Kollar, Scripting Computer-Supported Communication of Knowledge Cognitive, Computational, and Educational Perspectives 2005 Kluwer Dordrecht, NL
38. V. Sampson, and D. Clark The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation Science Education 93 3 2009 448 484
39. O. Scheuer, F. Loll, N. Pinkwart, and B.M. McLaren Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state-of-the-art International Journal of CSC 5 1 2010 43 102
40. O. Scheuer, B.M. McLaren, F. Loll, and N. Pinkwart Automated analysis and feedback techniques to support argumentation: a survey, to appear N. Pinkwart, B.M. McLaren, Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills 2011 Bentham Science Publishers
41. B.B. Schwarz, and A. Glassner The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools International Journal of CSC 2 2007 449 478
42. B.B. Schwarz, Y. Neuman, and S. Biezunger Two wrongs may make a right... if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction 18 4 2000 461 494
43. K. Stegmann, A. Weinberger, and F. Fischer Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts International Journal of CSCL 2 2007 421 447
44. D.D. Suthers, A. Weiner, J. Connelly, and M. Paolucci Belvedere: engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues J. Greer, Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED) 1995 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Charlottesville 266 273
45. Suthers, D.D.; 2003. Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, pp. 27-46.
46. E.E. Toth, D.D. Suthers, and A.M. Lesgold Mapping to know: the effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry Science Education 86 2002 2
47. S.E. Toulmin The Uses of Argument 2nd rev. ed. 2003 Cambridge University Press
48. T. van Gelder Enhancing deliberation through computer supported-visualization P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham Shum, C.S. Carr, Visualizing Argumentation. Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making 2003 97 115
49. C. von Aufschnaiter, S. Erduran, J. Osborne, and S. Simon Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45 1 2008 101 131