Argumentation Scheme-Based Argument Generation to Support Feedback in Educational Argument Modeling Systems

  • Nancy L. Green


This paper describes an educational argument modeling system, GAIL (Genetics Argumentation Inquiry Learning). Using GAIL’s graphical interface, learners can select from possible argument content elements (hypotheses, data, etc.) displayed on the screen with which to construct argument diagrams. Unlike previous systems, GAIL uses domain-independent argumentation schemes to generate expert arguments as a knowledge source. By comparing the learner’s argument diagram to a generated argument, GAIL can provide problem-specific feedback on both the structure and meaning of the learner’s argument, e.g., that the learner’s argument contains an irrelevant premise. To generate arguments, the argumentation schemes are instantiated from causal domain models specified by lesson authors. Thus, this approach to generating expert arguments has the potential to be used in other domains. In this paper we describe use of GAIL’s Authoring Tool to create the domain model and content elements to be provided for a specific lesson, how expert arguments are generated in GAIL, and how the feedback is produced. As GAIL is a work-in-progress, the paper also describes plans for the next design iteration.


Educational argument modeling systems Formative feedback Argumentation schemes Critical questions 



Former graduate students Mark Hinshaw, Carl Martensen, Meghana Narasimhan, and Tshering Tobgay contributed to the most recent implementation of GAIL for their MS Projects. Former graduate students Benjamin Wyatt and Chris Cain also contributed to the implementation of GAIL. Wyatt and Martensen received support from a UNCG Regular Faculty grant and Cain received support from the Computer Science Department. Dr. Malcolm Schug of the UNCG Biology Department has provided helpful feedback on the project.


  1. Aleven, V., & Ashley, K. D. (1997). Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples: Empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment. In B. du Boulay & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.), Proc. 8th World Conf. on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED-97) (pp. 87–94). Amsterdam: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bricker, L. A. & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473–498.Google Scholar
  4. Chinn, C. A. (2006). Learning to argue. In A.M. O’Donnell, C.E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkins (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 355–383). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Druzdzel, M. J. & Henrion, M. (1993). Efficient reasoning in qualitative probabilistic networks. In Proc. of the 11th Nat. Conf. on AI (AAAI-93) (pp. 548–53).Google Scholar
  6. Green, N. L. (2005). A Bayesian network-based coding scheme for annotating biomedical information presented to genetic counseling clients. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 38, 130–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Green, N. L. (2013). Towards formative feedback on student arguments. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Formative Feedback in Intelligent Learning Environment, at Artificial Intelligence in Education 2013. Google Scholar
  8. Green, N. L. (2015). Identifying argumentation schemes in genetics research articles. In Second Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Denver, CO USA, June 4, 2015.Google Scholar
  9. Green, N. L., Dwight, R., Navoraphan, K., & Stadler, B. (2011). Natural language generation of biomedical argumentation for lay audiences. Argument and Computation, 2(1), 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jiminéz-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education 25(11), 1387–1408.Google Scholar
  13. Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–143). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2006). Fostering achievement and motivation with bug-related tutoring feedback in a computer-based training for written subtraction. Learning and Instruction, 16, 310–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (Eds.). (2012). Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills. Sharjah: Bentham Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2006). Toward legal argument instruction with graph grammars and collaborative filtering techniques. In M. Ikeda, K. Ashley, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proc. of the 8th Int. Conf. on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-06) (pp. 227–236). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education 92(3), 447–472.Google Scholar
  18. Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education 88, 345–372.Google Scholar
  19. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M, Loll, F., Pinkwart, N. (2012). Automated analysis and feedback techniques to support and teach argumentation: A survey. In N. Pinkwart, B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills, Bentham Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Suthers, D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E., Toth, J., & Weiner, A. (2001). Representational and advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 7–35). Menlo Park: AAAI/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. (2002). “Mapping to know”: the effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education 86, 264–286.Google Scholar
  25. Toulmin, S. E. (1998). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Woolf, B., Murray, T., Marshall, D., Dragon, T., Kohler, K., Mattingly, M., Bruno, M., Murray, D., & Sammons, J. (2005). Critical thinking environments for science education. In C. K. Looi, G. McCalla, B. Brewdeweg, & J. Breuker (Eds.), Proc. 12th Intl. Conf. on AI and Education (pp. 702–709). Amsterdam: IOS.Google Scholar
  28. Yuan, T., Moore, D., & Grierson, A. (2008). A human-computer dialogue system for educational debate: a computational dialectics approach. International Journal of AI in Education, 18, 3–26.Google Scholar
  29. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Artificial Intelligence in Education Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of North Carolina GreensboroGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations