Assessing Argument Diagrams in an Ill-defined Domain

Authors:
Niels Pinkwart;Collin Lynch;Kevin Ashley;Vincent Aleven
Affiliations:
Clausthal University of Technology, Department of Informatics, Germany;University of Pittsburgh, Intelligent Systems Program, Pittsburgh, PA;University of Pittsburgh, LRDC, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;Carnegie Mellon University, HCI Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Learning Systems that Care: From Knowledge Representation to Affective Modelling
Year:
2009

Citing 3
Cited 0

Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals

Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals
Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation

Artificial Intelligence - Special issue on AI and law
'Tis Better to Construct than to Receive? The Effects of Diagram Tools on Causal Reasoning

Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Technology Rich Learning Contexts That Work

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This paper describes a study in which student-created diagrams about arguments in an ill-defined domain were manually graded by two independent human graders. Findings include that the graders overall agreed with each other on their grades, but their agreement was lower than one would expect in well-defined domains, and higher for solutions of extreme quality.