Advertisement

An Instructional Factors Analysis of an Online Logical Fallacy Tutoring System

  • Nicholas Diana
  • John Stamper
  • Ken Koedinger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10947)

Abstract

The proliferation of fake news has underscored the importance of critical thinking in the civic education curriculum. Despite this recognized importance, systems designed to foster these kinds of critical thinking skills are largely absent from the educational technology space. In this work, we utilize an instructional factors analysis in conjunction with an online tutoring system to determine if logical fallacies are best learned through deduction, induction, or some combination of both. We found that while participants were able to learn the informal fallacies using inductive practice alone, deductive explanations were more beneficial for learning.

Keywords

Informal logic Instructional factors Analysis Online tutoring systems Argumentation Ill-defined domains 

References

  1. 1.
    Aleven, V., McLaren, B.M., Sewall, J., Koedinger, K.R.: The Cognitive Tutor Authoring Tools (CTAT): preliminary evaluation of efficiency gains. In: Ikeda, M., Ashley, K.D., Chan, T.-W. (eds.) ITS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4053, pp. 61–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11774303_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aleven, V.A., Koedinger, K.R.: An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cogn. Sci. 26(2), 147–179 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashley, K.D., Aleven, V.: Toward an intelligent tutoring system for teaching law students to argue with cases. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 42–52. ACM (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., Pigliucci, M.: The fake, the flimsy, and the fallacious: demarcating arguments in real life. Argumentation 29(4), 431–456 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D.: Amazon’s mechanical turk. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6(1), 3–5 (2011). PMID: 26162106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chi, M., Koedinger, K.R., Gordon, G.J., Jordon, P., VanLahn, K.: Instructional factors analysis: a cognitive model for multiple instructional interventions (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K.R., Hadley, W.: Cognitive tutors: from the research classroom to all classrooms. In: Technology Enhanced Learning: Opportunities for Change, pp. 235–263 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Easterday, M.W., Aleven, V., Scheines, R., Carver, S.M.: Using tutors to improve educational games. In: Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., Mitrovic, A. (eds.) AIED 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6738, pp. 63–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gottfried, J., Shearer, E.: News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016. Pew Research Center (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Handelsman and M. Smith. Stem for all—whitehouse.gov, February 2016. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/02/11/stem-all. Accessed 28 Sept 2017
  11. 11.
    Harrell, M.: Assessing the efficacy of argument diagramming to teach critical thinking skills in introduction to philosophy. Inq. Crit. Thinking Across Disciplines 27(2), 31–39 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koedinger, K.R., Corbett, A.T., Perfetti, C.: The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cogn. Sci. 36(5), 757–798 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koedinger, K.R., Stamper, J.C., Leber, B., Skogsholm, A.: LearnLab’s DataShop: a data repository and analytics tool set for cognitive science. Topics Cogn. Sci. 5(3), 668–669 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lynch, C., Ashley, K., Aleven, V., Pinkwart, N.: Defining ill-defined domains; a literature survey. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Ill-defined Domains at the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 1–10 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milton, O.: Will that be on the final? (1982)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paul, R.W., Elder, L., Bartell, T.: California teacher preparation for instruction in critical thinking: research findings and policy recommendations (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reed, C., Walton, D., Macagno, F.: Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 22(01), 87 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Silverman, C., Singer-Vine, J.: Most Americans who see fake news believe it, new survey says. BuzzFeed News (www.buzzfeed.com) (2016). https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/fake-newssurvey
  20. 20.
    Tindale, C.W.: Fallacies and Argument Appraisal, vol. 23. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations