Advertisement

Enhancing Deliberation Through Computer Supported Argument Visualization

  • Tim van Gelder
Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)

Abstract

As this is being written, the Governor General of Australia, Dr. Peter Hollingworth, has not resigned. Yet over the previous weeks and months he must have been thinking about it long and hard. He has been under intense pressure from various quarters, based on allegations that in previous positions of leadership he had not handled some sexual abuse incidents appropriately. In pondering what he should do, he must have been considering the many and varied arguments on both sides of the case. He must, in short, have been deliberating about his future.

Keywords

Critical Thinking Argument Structure Argument Mapping Rational Consensus Argument Skill 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bar-Hillel Y., & others. (1969). Formal logic and natural languages: A symposium. Foundations of Language, 3,256–284.Google Scholar
  2. Dyson F. J. (2002, March 28). Science and religion: No ends in sight. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved on August 28, 2002 from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15220Google Scholar
  3. Kuhn D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lakoff G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things:: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Minto, B. (1995). The pyramid principle: Logic in writing and thinking. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  6. Monk, P. (2001, March 16). Mapping the future of argument. Australian Financial Review, (pp. 8-9).Google Scholar
  7. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twentyyears of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Rolf, B., & Magnusson, C. (2002). Developing the art of argumentation. A software approach. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Argumentation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., et al. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Van Gelder, T. J. (2001). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the crossroads: proceedings of the 18th annual conference of the Australasian Society for computers in learning in tertiary education (pp. 539-548). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Uni, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  11. Van Gelder, T. J., & Bulka, A. (2000). Reason!Able (Version 1.1). Melbourne: The Reason Group. Available from http://www.goreason.comGoogle Scholar
  12. Webster N., & Porter N. (1913). Ilebster’s revised unabridged dictionary of the English language. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim van Gelder
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Austhink

Personalised recommendations