LEGALESE: a legal argumentation tool
ACM SIGCHI Bulletin
Progress on Room 5: a testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer-science courses
Proceedings of the thirty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education
Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation
Visualizing argumentation
Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualization
Visualizing argumentation
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Artificial Intelligence
ITS '08 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems
Face to Face Cooperation with CoFFEE
EC-TEL '08 Proceedings of the 3rd European conference on Technology Enhanced Learning: Times of Convergence: Technologies Across Learning Contexts
'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
Computer-supported argumentation learning: a survey of teachers, researchers, and system developers
EC-TEL'10 Proceedings of the 5th European conference on Technology enhanced learning conference on Sustaining TEL: from innovation to learning and practice
Concepts, Structures, and Goals: Redefining Ill-Definedness
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Supporting Collaborative Learning and E-Discussions Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Learning to argue using computers – a view from teachers, researchers, and system developers
ITS'10 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems - Volume Part II
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Teaching argumentation is challenging, and the factors of how to effectively support the acquisition of argumentation skills through technology are not fully explored yet. One of the key reasons for that is the lack of comparability between studies. In this article, we describe LASAD, a collaborative argumentation framework that can be flexibly parameterized. We illustrate the flexibility of the framework with respect to visualization, structural definitions and kind of cooperation. Using this framework, this paper presents an evaluation of the impact of using an argumentation system with different argument representations and with collaborative vs. individual use on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. We investigate which combinations of these factors produces the best results concerning argument production and learning outcomes. The results of this controlled lab study with 36 participants showed that the use of simple representational formats is superior compared to highly structured ones. Even though the latter encouraged the provision of additional non-given material, the former is less error-prone. A hypothesized structural guidance provided by more complex formats could not be confirmed. With respect to collaboration, the results highlight that arguing in groups lead to more cluttered argumentation maps, including a higher amount of duplicate elements. An expected peer-reviewing between group members did not occur. Yet, groups also tended to include more points-of-view in their arguments, leading to more elaborated argument maps.