Abstract
Much instruction in the first year of American legal education focuses on argumentation. Paradoxically, however, comparatively little of the instructional explanation in legal classrooms is about the process of argumentation. Instead, instructors teach law students the process of argumentation primarily by engaging them in argumentation about the issues, problems, and examples in the casebook. Instructors also use these arguments to teach law students lessons about the substantive rules of a legal area (e.g., contracts or torts) and about the applications, ambiguities, and limitations of those rules. In this sense, the instructor’s and students’ interactive argument dialogues are the instructional explanations of the argument process and an important component of the instructional explanations of the substantive law (Leinhardt, 2001, Handbook for research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aleven, V. (2006). An intelligent learning environment for case-based argumentation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 4(2), 191–241.
Ashley, K. (1990). Modeling legal argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Carr, C. (2003). Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation. In P. Kirschner, S. Buckingham Shum, & C. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation (pp. 75–96). London: Springer.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. London: Cambridge University Press.
Leinhardt, G. (2001). Instructional explanations: A commonplace for teaching and location for contrast. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook for research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
LSAT. (n.d.). Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.lsat.org/LSAT/about-the-lsat.asp
Lynch, C., Ashley, K., Pinkwart, N., & Aleven, V. (2007). Argument diagramming as focusing device: does it scaffold reading? In Proceedings of the workshop on AIED applications for Ill-Defined domains at the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 51–60). Los Angeles, CA.
Lynch, C., Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K., & Aleven, V. (2008). What do argument diagrams tell us about students’ aptitude or experience? A statistical analysis in an ill-defined domain. In Proceedings of the workshop on ITSs for Ill-Defined domains: Focusing on assessment and feedback at the 9th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems. Montreal, Canada: Retrieved from http://www.cs.pitt.edu/∼collinl/ITS08/
Newman, S., & Marshall, C. (1992). Pushing Toulmin too far: Learning from an argument representation scheme. Xerox PARC Tech. Rpt. SSL-92-45.
Pinkwart, N., Lynch, C., Ashley, K., & Aleven, V. (2008). Reevaluating LARGO in the classroom: Are diagrams better than text for teaching argumentation skills? In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 90–100). Montreal, June.
Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K., Aleven, V., & Lynch, C. (2008). Graph grammars: An ITS technology for diagram representations. In Proceedings of the 21st international FLAIRS conference, special track on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 433–438).
Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2007). Evaluating legal argument instruction with graphical representations using LARGO. In R. Luckin, K. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence in education (AIED2007) (pp. 101–108). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Stuckey, R., et al. (2007). Best practices for legal education. New York: Clinical Legal Education Association.
Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning, proceedings of the first European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 577–584). Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Twardy, C. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27, 95–116.
van den Braak, S., van Oostendorp, H., Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. (2006). A critical review of argument visualization tools. In F. Grasso, R. Kibble, & C. Reed (Eds.), ECAI-06 workshop on computational models of natural argument(pp. 67–75). August.
van Gelder, T. (2007). The Rationale for Rational™ in P. Tillers (Ed.), Law, probability and risk Special Issue on Graphic and Visual Representations of Evidence and Inference in Legal Settings 6(1–4), 23–42.
Voss, J. (2006). Toulmin’s model and the solving of Ill-Structured problems. In D. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Ed.), Arguing on the Toulmin model: New essays in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Voss, J., & Means, M. (1991). Learning to Reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337–350.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ashley, K.D., Lynch, C. (2010). Instructional Explanations in a Legal Classroom: Are Students’ Argument Diagrams of Hypothetical Reasoning Diagnostic?. In: Stein, M., Kucan, L. (eds) Instructional Explanations in the Disciplines. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0594-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0594-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-0593-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-0594-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)