Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Computer Supported Argument Visualization to Teach Legal Argumentation

  • Chapter
Visualizing Argumentation

Part of the book series: Computer Supported Cooperative Work ((CSCW))

Abstract

According to the American Bar Association (ABA), legal reasoning is one of the “fundamental lawyering skills”; listed among those skills the ABA task force deems most important (MacCrate, 1994). In response to this recent report, many law schools have introduced courses in “lawyering skills” to help support legal reasoning (in addition to other skills listed in the report) (Schrag, 1989). However, there is not much indication as to how this “fundamental lawyering skill” is, or. should be, acquired inside the law classrooms or in the legal education literature (Blasi, 1995; MacCrate, 1994). Further, many law professors still believe that a law school education should focus on doctrine and theory, leaving the development of these fundamental skills up to the students (Maurer and Mischler, 1994).

I choose the word “argument” thoughtfully, for scientific demonstrations, even mathematical proofs, are fundamentally acts of persuasion. Scientific statements can never be certain: they can only be more or less credible. Joseph Weizenbaum in Computer Power and Human Reason (1976)

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 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
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

  • Bell P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasi G. L. (1995). What lawyers know: Lawyering expertise, cognitive science, and the functions of theory. Journal of Legal Education, 45(3), 313–97.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham Shum S. (1996). Design argumentation as design rationale. The Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology, 35(20), 95–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham Shum S., & Hammond Nick. (1994). Argumentation-based design rationale: What use at what cost? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(4), 603–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham Shum S. J., MacLean A., Bellotti V. M. E., & Hammond N. V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 1997, 267–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D. T., Stanley J. C., & Gage N. L. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerbin, B. (1988). The nature and development of informal reasoning skills in college students. (ED298805)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. B., J. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1987). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for team design deliberation. Paper presented at Hypertext’ 87, Chapel Hill, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimant, R. J., & Bearison, D. J. (1991). Development of formal reasoning during successive peer interactions. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 277-84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, E. P. (1995). Multiple representations: A vehicle for understanding understanding. In J. S. D. Perkins, M. West, & M. Wiske (Ed.), Software goes to school teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 155-171). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golder, C. (1992). Production of elaborated argumentative discourse: The role of cooperativeness. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 7(1), 51-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golder, C., & Coirier, P. (1994). Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends. Discourse Processes, 18(2), 187-210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J. D. I. (1989). An integrated first-year legal writing program. Journal of Legal Education, 39, 609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, F.J. (1987). Die vokabularisierung des lehrbuchs: Prdsentation and vermittlung von wortschatz in lehrwerken fur den franzosischunterricht [The vokabulansierung of the text book: Presentation and mediation of vocabulary in educational materials for learning French]. Die Neueren Sprachen (85), 426–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Carr, Chad S. (1999). Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledge representations for learning. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools II.-No more walls: Theory change, paradigm shifts and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. & Reeves., T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, C. W. (1992). Software Reuse. Computing Surveys, 24(2), 131-183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Lajoie, S., & Derry, S. J. (1993). Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeman, R. W. (1987). Taking perspectives: Teaching critical thinking in the argumentation course (ED292147).

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrate, R. (1994). Preparing lawyers to participate effectively in the legal process. Journal of Legal Education, 44(1), 89-95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marke, J. J. (19 89). How legal research should be taught. New York Law Journal, 202(74), 477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen, M. (1992). Commenting on written arguments as a part of argumentation skills—Comparison between students engaged in traditional vs on-line study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36(4), 289-302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, N. M., & Mischler, L. F. (1994). Introduction to lawyering: teaching first-year students to think like professionals. Journal of Legal Education, 44(1), 96-115. McCann, T. M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 62-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moshman, D., & Geil,, M. (1998). Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking and Reasoning 4(3), Aug 1998, 231-248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penner, B. C., & Voss, J. F. (1983). Problem solving skills in the social sciences: methodological considerations (ED242612).

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. (1980). Justice, law, and argument. essays on moral and legal reasoning. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N., Crismond, D., Simmons, R., & Unger, C. (1995). Inside understanding. In J. S. D. Perkins, M. West, & M. Wiske (Ed.), Software goes to school Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 70-87). New York: Oxford University Press. Perkins, D. N. (1985). Reasoning as imagination. Interchange, 16(1), 14-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In J. M. L. L.B.Resnick, & S. D Teasley (Ed.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Behrend, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1975). Primer of methods for the behavioral sciences. John Wiley and Sons, Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, K. M. (1994). Law as rhetoric, rhetoric as argument. Journal of Legal Education, 44(4), 566-78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrag, P. G. (1989). The serpent strikes: simulation in a large first-year course. Journal of Legal Education, 39, 555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Ed.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. (1999). Representational support for collaborative inquiry. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge [Eng.]: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S. E., Rieke R. D., & Janik A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York London: Macmillan; Collier Macmillan Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen D. M. (1997). Assessing reliability of measurements with generalizability theory: An application to inter-rater reliability. Journal of Agricultural Education, 38(3), 36–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss J. F., Blais J., Means M. L., & Greene T. R. (1986). Informal reasoning and subject matter knowledge in the solving of economics problems by naive and novice individuals. Cognition and Instruction, 3(4), 1986, 269–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss J. F., & Means M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1(4), 337–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wason P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Prychology, 20(3), 1968, 273–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woxland T. A. (1989). Why can’t Johnny research? Or it all started with Christopher Columbus Langdell. Law Labrayy journal, 81(3), 451–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zammuner V. L. (1991). Children’s writing of argumentative texts: Effects of indirect instruction. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 6(2), 243–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sears, Roebuck & Co., USA

    Chad S. Carr

Authors
  1. Chad S. Carr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Open University of the Netherlands, Educational Technology Expertise Center, PO Box 2960, 6401 DL, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Paul A. Kirschner BA, MEd, PhD (Professor of Educational Technology) (Professor of Educational Technology)

  2. Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK

    Simon J. Buckingham Shum BSc, MSc, PhD (Senior Lecturer in Knowledge Media) (Senior Lecturer in Knowledge Media)

  3. Retail Stores Training, Sears Roebuck and Co, 3333 Beverly Road, E2-213B, Hoffman Estates, Illinois, IL, 60179, USA

    Chad S. Carr BA, MA, PhD (Curriculum Development Manager) (Curriculum Development Manager)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Carr, C.S. (2003). Using Computer Supported Argument Visualization to Teach Legal Argumentation. In: Kirschner, P.A., Buckingham Shum, S.J., Carr, C.S. (eds) Visualizing Argumentation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-664-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0037-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation