Teaching case-based argumentation concepts using dialectic arguments vs. didactic explanations

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 2363, Issue , 2002, Pages 585-595

  Ashley, Kevin D ^a   Desai, Ravi ^a   Levine, John M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; INTELLIGENT VEHICLE HIGHWAY SYSTEMS; STUDENTS;

AUTOMATED APPROACH; CASE BASED; CONTEXT SENSITIVE; LEGAL ARGUMENTS; POST TEST;

CASE BASED REASONING;

EID: 84943266385     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-47987-2_60     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Aleven, V. (1997) Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples, Ph.D. Dis., U. Pittsburgh, unnumbered Tech. Rep. LRDC/ISP.
2. Aleven, V. and Ashley, K.D. (1997) “Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples”. Proc. 8th World Conf. AI in Ed. Soc. 87-94. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
3. Ashley, K.D., (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. The MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA.
4. Ashley, K. D. (2000) “Designing Electronic Casebooks That Talk Back: The CATO Program”. In Jurimetrics Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 275-319.
5. Ashley, K.D. (2002) “An AI Model of Case-Based Legal Argument from a Jurisprudential Viewpoint.” In Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law. Kluwer: Dordrecht, Neth.
6. Carbonell, J.R. (1970). AI in CAI: An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Computer Aided Instruction. IEEE Transactions on Man Machine Systems 11(4) 190-202.
7. Centinia, F., T. Routen, A. Hartmann, and C. Hegarty (1995) “STATUTOR: Too Intelligent By Half?” In Legal Knowledge Based Systems JURIX’95. 121-132. Lelystad: Koninklijke.
8. Chi D, Michelene T.H., S. Silver, H. Jeong, T. Yamauchi, and R. Hausmann (2001) “Learning From Human Tutoring” in Cognitive Science, Vol. 25, pp. 471-533.
9. Collins, A. and Stevens, A. L. (1982). “Goals and Strategies of inquiry Teachers”. In Advances In Instructional Psychology, R Glaser (ed.) pp. 65-119. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Retalis, S., H. Pain and M. Haggith. (1996) “Arguing with the Devil; Teaching in Controversial Domains”. Int. Tutoring Sys., 3d Intl Conf., ITS-96. 659-667. Berlin: Springer.
11. Rissland, E.L. (1990) “Artificial Intelligence and Law: Stepping Stones to a Model of Legal Reasoning”. Yale Law Journal 99. 1957-1981. June 1990. Number 8.
12. Rose C. P., J. D. Moore, K. VanLehn, D. Allbritton. (2001) “A Comparative Evaluation of Socratic versus Didactic Tutoring”, 2001 LRDC Tech Report LRDC-BEE-1.
13. Span, G. (1993) “LITES, an Intelligent Tutoring System for Legal Problem-Solving in the Domain of Dutch Civil Law”. In Proc. 4th Intl Conf. AI and Law, 76-81. New York: ACM.
14. Thompson, L., Gentner, D. and Loewenstein, J. (2000) “Avoiding Missed Opportunities in Managerial Life.” in Org. Behavior and Human Decision Proc., 82, No. 1. May. pp. 60-75.
15. Wong, L., C. Quek, and C. Looi. (1997) “PADI-2: An Inquiry-based Geography Tutor”. In AI in Education, Proc. AI-ED 97 World Conf. 47-54. Amsterdam: IOS Press.