Advertisement

Using an Argument Ontology to Develop Pedagogical Tool Suites

  • Chris Reed
  • Simon Wells
  • Mark Snaith
  • Katarzyna Budzynska
  • John Lawrence
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6680)

Abstract

The teaching of argumentation theory, argumentation skills and critical thinking has only very recently enjoyed any bespoke software support for classroom activities. As software has started to become available, it has been characterised by idiosyncratic, incompatible approaches not only to data representation and processing but also to underlying theories of argument. The rise in popularity of the Argument Interchange Format ontology offers a principled solution to this problem, and we describe here three tools (OVA, Arvina and Parley) which use the AIF to provide pedagogical applications, and a sketch is given of how these tools can complement one another and can share resources.

Keywords

Argumentation Theory Ontology Argument Interchange Format Dialogue 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chesñevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S.: Towards an argument interchange format. Knowledge Engineering Review 21(4), 293–316 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harrell, M.: Using argument diagramming software in the classroom. Teaching Philosophy 28(2), 163–177 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirschner, P., Buckingham Shum, S., Carr, C.: Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ravenscroft, A.: Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23(6), 453–465 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reed, C., Rowe, G.W.A.: Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools 14(3-4), 961–980 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reed, C., Wells, S.: Dialogical argument as an interface to complex debates. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(6), 60–65 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rolf, B., Magnusson, C.: Developing the art of argumentation: A software approach. In: van Eemeren, F.H., Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (eds.) Proceedings of ISSA-2002, pp. 919–926. SicSat (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suthers, D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., Paolucci, M.: Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In: Proc. of the 7th World Conference on AI in Education, pp. 266–273. AACE (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Twardy, C.: Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy 27, 95–116 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Gelder, T.: The rationale for Rationale. Law, Prob. & Risk 6(1-4), 23–42 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walton, D.: Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. CUP, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. CUP, New York (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Reed
    • 1
  • Simon Wells
    • 1
  • Mark Snaith
    • 1
  • Katarzyna Budzynska
    • 1
  • John Lawrence
    • 1
  1. 1.Argumentation Research Group, School of ComputingUniversity of DundeeScotlandUK

Personalised recommendations