Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using an Argument Ontology to Develop Pedagogical Tool Suites

  • Conference paper
Tools for Teaching Logic (TICTTL 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6680))

Included in the following conference series:

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Harrell, M.: Using argument diagramming software in the classroom. Teaching Philosophy 28(2), 163–177 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kirschner, P., Buckingham Shum, S., Carr, C.: Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Ravenscroft, A.: Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23(6), 453–465 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Reed, C., Wells, S.: Dialogical argument as an interface to complex debates. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(6), 60–65 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Twardy, C.: Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy 27, 95–116 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. van Gelder, T.: The rationale for Rationale. Law, Prob. & Risk 6(1-4), 23–42 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Walton, D.: Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. CUP, New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. CUP, New York (2008)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Argumentation Research Group, School of Computing, University of Dundee, Scotland, UK, DD1 4HN

    Chris Reed, Simon Wells, Mark Snaith, Katarzyna Budzynska & John Lawrence

Authors
  1. Chris Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Wells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Snaith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katarzyna Budzynska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John Lawrence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. INRIA Nancy Grand-Est, 615, rue du Jardin Botanique, 54602, Nancy Cedex, Villers lès, France

    Patrick Blackburn

  2. Dpto. Filosofía y Lógica, Universidad de Sevilla, C/ Camilo José Cela s/n, 41018, Sevilla, Spain

    Hans van Ditmarsch

  3. Dpto. de Filosofia, Universidad de Salamanca, Campus Unamuno, Edificio FES, 37007, Salamanca, Spain

    María Manzano

  4. Dpto. de Filosofia y Lógica, Universidad de Sevilla, C/ Camilo José Cela s/n, 41018, Sevilla, Spain

    Fernando Soler-Toscano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Reed, C., Wells, S., Snaith, M., Budzynska, K., Lawrence, J. (2011). Using an Argument Ontology to Develop Pedagogical Tool Suites. In: Blackburn, P., van Ditmarsch, H., Manzano, M., Soler-Toscano, F. (eds) Tools for Teaching Logic. TICTTL 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6680. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21350-2_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21350-2_25

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21349-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21350-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation