Visualizing

argumentation
Dr. Mari Carmen Puerta Melguizo
References:
Gedetailleerd
Van Bruggen, J.M., Boshuizen, H.P., & Kirchner, P.A. (2003). A
cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument
visualization. In P.A. Kirchner, S.J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr
(Eds.), Visualizing Argumentation. Software Tools for Collaborative
and Educational Sense-Making (pp. 25-47). London: Springer.
Globaal
Lauer, M., Ueberall, M. Horvath, O., Matthes, M., & Drobnik, O.
(2003). CLE : A collaborative learning environment. In B. Wasson,
R. Baggetun, U. Hoppe, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), International
Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003
(pp. 120-122). Bergen, Norway: Intermedia, University of Bergen.
Baker, M.J., Quignard, M., Lund, K., & Sejourne, A. (2003).
Computer-supported collaborative learning in the space of debate. In
B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for Change
in Networked Learning Environments (pp.11-20). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands : Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Argumentation
Argument
A discussion in which
disagreement is expressed; a
debate.
A course of reasoning aimed
at demonstrating truth or
falsehood
Argumentation
The presentation and
elaboration of arguments or
claims
and providing support and
justification for them
Using data, facts and evidence
The goal is to persuade or
convince that one reasoning is
more valid or appropriate
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
argumentation
Argument
mapping
Why
Argument mapping
Or visualizing argumentation
Making a picture of argumentation/reasoning
With a Graphical display of evidential
relationships
To augment our intellectual ability in
argument analysis and construction
A bit of history
Wigmore (1931): maps of complex legal
argumentation
Toulmin (1958): a simple argument mapping
schema
Since 1990s: Computer Supported
argument visualization (CSAV)
E.g. Horn: argument maps of very complex
debates
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
argumentation
Argument
mapping
Why
Wigmore (1931): maps of
complex legal argumentation
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
argumentation
Argument
mapping
Why
Toulmin (1958): a simple
argument mapping schema
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
argumentation
Argument
mapping
Why
Horn: argument maps of very
complex debates
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
argumentation
Argument
mapping
Why
Why Argument visualization?
Instruction based on argument mapping is more
effective than traditional techniques for
improving critical thinking (Van Gelder,
2002)
Information clarity, representing the most
information with the least clutter
To produce well-organized arguments
To communicate reasoning to other people
more appropriately than verbally
To evaluate reasoning because it makes the
structure completely explicit
To resolve disagreements rationally
To make better decisions because to map out
the arguments helps to gain clarity and
perspective
Cognitive Psychology suggests were good
visual/spatial thinkers
In collaborative environments
To explicate and share representation among
people
To maintain focus
To maintain consistency, accuracy and plausibility
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
argumentation
Argument
mapping
Why
When using the
argumentation approach?
Problem solving: The process of finding a solution to
an unfamiliar task using the knowledge we have
ill-defined problems
The solution takes the form of an argument based on informal
reasoning
Reasoning: The process by which we transform
available information in order to reach conclusions
Informal reasoning
not all the required information is always supplied
several possible answers that can vary in effectiveness
not a specific method
Legal reasoning
Argument aiming to persuade and convince that a specific
choice, decision or attitude is preferable to others
Especially in Collaborative situations where multiple
actors are involved such as:
Collaborative learning
Collaborative problem solving
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
Problem solving
collaborative
The problem solving states
(Newell & Simon, 1972)
Orientation state
Problem identification and definition
Problem representation is constructed
constraints and criteria for solution and evaluation
Problem solving state
Plan of how to solve the problem (Formulation of potential
solutions)
Application of Operators and strategies to solve the
problem
Analysis breaking down the whole of a complex problem into
manageable elements
Synthesis putting together various elements to arrange them
into something useful
Divergent thinking you try to generate a diverse assortment
of possible alternative solutions to a problem
Convergent thinking you narrow down the multiple
possibilities to converge on a single, best answer
Organization of information in a way that enables to
implement the strategy
Evaluation of the solutions and the operators used
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
Problem solving
collaborative
Types of problems
Well-structured
Complete and unambiguous problem specifications
Clear paths to their solutions
Clear criteria and procedures to evaluate
Deductive logic, puzzles, calculating the trajectory of a
rocket, tower of Hanoi
You rave d|s|s or a peg as |r lre l|gure. Trese srou|d oe roved lo lre r|grl peg. You
are or|y a||oWed lo rove ore d|s| al a l|re. You car or|y p|ace a sra||er d|s| or lop
ol a o|gger ore.
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
Problem solving
collaborative
Types of problems
ill-structured
Ambiguous and incomplete problem specifications
no clear, readily available path to solution
problem solvers have difficulty constructing appropriate
mental representations for modeling these problems and
their solutions
Developing guidelines for web accessibility, solving the
problem of world hunger
Solvers do not progress in a linear way through the
problem solving states but move back and forth
between states
Work on partial solutions
Return to refine the problem representation
Jump to evaluation, revise criteria
solving ill-structured problems is an
argumentative process requiring informal
and not logical reasoning
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
Problem solving
collaborative
Voss et al., (1983)
Problem: to find a way to increase crop
production in the former Soviet Union
Thinking-aloud protocols
Orientation state (Problem representation
stage)
Problem solving state (Problem solution
phase)
Operators related to the problem solving
structure
State constraint, state sub-problem, state
solution, evaluate
Informal operators associated with the
reasoning structure
Verbal actions: Compare, clarify, state
conclusion, state qualifier, state reason
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
Problem solving
collaborative
Collaborative Problem solving
Multiple agents or actors
With different levels of expertise: novices vs.
experts
and/or expertise in different aspects of the problem
with multiple
Problem Representations (data and format)
Solutions and Operators
Criteria to evaluate
that need to be coordinated
Incomplete understandings
Misunderstandings
To deal with these issues: IBIS: Issue Based
Information Systems
Methodology that tries to ensure all agents can put
forward their issues and positions
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
Problem solving
collaborative
Data, format, operators,
criteria and macro-operators
Dimensions in which representations among agents can differ:
Data
Content
E.g. we have a meeting at half ten: 10:30 or 9:30?
Format
Propositional vs. visual
Argument visualization is a means to force agents to use the same
format
Operators to solve the problem
Legal approach, common-sense, practical, long-term solutions..
Criteria to evaluate solutions and arguments
Macro-operators
Sequences of operators learned during past experience which can
be shared by experts of a domain area
Mathematical procedures, juridical reasoning
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
Problem solving
collaborative
Preconditions in collaborative
problem solving
Shared understanding (at least minimal levels of)
Equivalent expectations about a situation
There is a problem that they can solve together
Minimal shared understanding on
How the problem can be represented
Which operators and reasoning schemas are
admissible for solving the problem
Accountability
Social mechanism underlying responsible behavior
between people
Do not plagiarize a fellow team member
Trust
Perceived ability to rely on the character, ability,
strength, or truth of the other(s)
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
Problem solving
collaborative
Cognitive and communicative
demands in collaborative problem
solving
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
Problem solving
collaborative
Negotiate criteria Evaluate solutions
Evaluate constraints
Evaluate process
Evaluation
Topic-based
discussion
Maintain common
ground and focus
Conflict detection and
resolution
Knowledge negotiation
Apply macro-operators
to produce solutions
Use topic and control
representations
Maintain coherence,
accuracy and
plausibility
Solution
Issue-based
communication
Brainstorm
Build trust
Establish common
ground
Problem
representation
constraints
Problem structuring
Establish shared
representations
Orientation
Communication
demands
Cognitive
demands
Problem solving
states
Based on Bruggen et al. (2003)
Cognitive and communicative
demands in collaborative problem
solving
Alpay et al., (1998)
How interdisciplinary teams of engineers and
psychologists use multiple representations to
analyze traffic accidents
Dimensions of the representations
Permanent-temporary representations
Shared-unshared representations
Control representation-topic representation
(domain dependent)
Control representations are representations that
guide operations on topic representations such as
models, phase decompositions,
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
Problem solving
collaborative
Computer Supported Argument
Visualization (CSAV)
Argumentation visualization is
achieved through a
computerized tool
The precise form depends
on:
Task demands
User community
Context of use
Applications
Collaborative learning
collaborative problem solving
Compendium (Selving et al,
2000) in business and public
administration
Legal argumentation
Prosupport
Reasoning
Reason!Able (van Gelder,
2003)
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
CSAV in collaborative problem
solving
Means to explicitly share and
coordinate
(Multiple) problem representations
Operators
Macro-operators
constraints
By making shared external
representations
Construed using a limited set of objects
Relations between objects
Rules on their use and combination
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
Suthers, 2001
In describing CSAV it is important to consider:
Representational notation (ontology)
Objects
Claim, data, warrant
Relations
Strength of belief, hierarchy, causality
Rules that govern their use
Data can be related to one or more hypotheses
Representational tools: the specific software that
implements the notation
Choice of symbols
Functionality and implementation of rules
Artifacts produced using the tool
Argument maps, diagrams, Toulmin structures,...
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
Characteristics of the
representational notation
Ontology
Objects and relations between objects
Better a small set of objects and relations (Suthers:
Belvedere environment to represent argumentation in
scientific enquiry)
Also requires complex structures and relations
Perspective
To represent different conceptualizations of the
problem
Specificity of the type of representation
The representational notation forces to make a
specific categorical choice
Precision
Accuracy with which the representation reflects the
underlying models
Quantitative vs. Qualitative models, nature of the
objects (hypothesis vs. Predictions)...
Modality
Used to display information (text, animations,
graphs,...)
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
Characteristics of the
representational notation
Each representational notation
offers
A restrictive view of the domain
Makes easier to express certain
aspects of the domain and certain
types of arguments
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
CSAV supporting Problem Solving
States
Based on Bruggen et al. (2003)
Negotiate criteria Evaluate solutions
Evaluate constraints
Evaluate process
Evaluation
Topic-based discussion
Maintain common
ground and focus
Conflict detection and
resolution
Knowledge negotiation
Apply macro-operators
to produce solutions
Use topic and control
representations
Maintain coherence,
accuracy and plausibility
Solution
Issue-based
communication
Brainstorm
Build trust
Establish common
ground
Problem representation
constraints
Problem structuring
Establish shared
representations
Orientation
Communication
demands
Cognitive
demands
Problem solving
states
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
CSAV supporting the problem
solving states
Orientation
Cognitive demand
problem structuring
Communicative demands
Communication style: issue-based
Creation of common ground
Representations without bias against
particular perspective
Supporting different perspectives and
comparisons between them
Reason!Able (van Gelder, 2003) is not
committed to a particular domain or
perspective
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
CSAV supporting the problem
solving states
Solution
Cognitive demands
Application of operators
Representation management to maintain coherence, accuracy
and plausibility
Communicative demands
Communication style: topic-based
Maintaining focus and common ground
Conflict detection and resolution
CSAV allows the establishment and management of shared
representations (and partial models)
Maintaining coherence and focus
By showing argumentation visible
Meta-cognitive nodes in CSILE: users can indicate the type of
knowledge or support needed
Maintaining plausibility
By allowing users to express the strength of their belief in their
argumentation and claims
SIBYL uses these evaluations to recalculate the plausibility of a
claim
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
CSAV supporting the problem
solving states
Evaluation
Cognitive demands
Evaluate appropriateness of problem
representation
The state of the constraints
The quality of the process
Communicative demands
Negotiate criteria
CSAV allows users to express
solution X is a satisfactory
solution
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
CSAV helps problem solvers
to reach their goals?
Specificity and disambiguation
The more specific a CSAV tool is
The more it allows to disambiguate
The easier it is to determine the different
perspectives on the problem
The more difficult and time consuming it is to
learn
More complex to use
Cognitive load
CSAV can decrease cognitive load by
increasing our ability in argument construction
and analysis
But characteristics of the representation may
lead to extra activities increasing the cognitive
load
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
Araucaria 2
Araucaria 2
Reed and Rowe, 2002. University of Dundee, Australia
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
Reason!Able
Reason!Able
van Gelder, 2003.
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
ClaiMaker
To evaluate research documents
http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto/
A claim that has already been constructed, ready to submit
The concept to link from, which has being assigned the type evidence
Linked via the relational class supports/challenges
More specifically, refutes (selected from the dialect-specific menu)
The user then searched the knowledge base for a target concept, set or claim to which they wish to
make the connection
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
ProSupport
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
ProSupport
introduction
Argumentation
approach
CSAV tools
components
characteristics
support
examples
ProSupport