Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art

Abstract

Argumentation is an important skill to learn. It is valuable not only in many professional contexts, such as the law, science, politics, and business, but also in everyday life. However, not many people are good arguers. In response to this, researchers and practitioners over the past 15-20 years have developed software tools both to support and teach argumentation. Some of these tools are used in individual fashion, to present students with the "rules" of argumentation in a particular domain and give them an opportunity to practice, while other tools are used in collaborative fashion, to facilitate communication and argumentation between multiple, and perhaps distant, participants. In this paper, we review the extensive literature on argumentation systems, both individual and collaborative, and both supportive and educational, with an eye toward particular aspects of the past work. More specifically, we review the types of argument representations that have been used, the various types of interaction design and ontologies that have been employed, and the system architecture issues that have been addressed. In addition, we discuss intelligent and automated features that have been imbued in past systems, such as automatically analyzing the quality of arguments and providing intelligent feedback to support and/or tutor argumentation. We also discuss a variety of empirical studies that have been done with argumentation systems, including, among other aspects, studies that have evaluated the effect of argument diagrams (e.g., textual versus graphical), different representations, and adaptive feedback on learning argumentation. Finally, we conclude by summarizing the "lessons learned" from this large and impressive body of work, particularly focusing on lessons for the CSCL research community and its ongoing efforts to develop computermediated collaborative argumentation systems.

Learning to Learn Together through Planning, Discussion and Reflection on Microworld-Based Challenges

“…Second, LASAD [5] offers a more structured approach to discussion through argumentation graphs (see Fig. 2) which has been shown to improve discussion and argumentation skills [6].…”

“…The challenges encourage students to interact with microworlds (including simulators and games) where they either build digital artifacts (models) that allow them to engage in collaborative problem solving or simply test hypotheses or theories related to the challenges. The pedagogy behind the Metafora project and the activities that can be undertaken have been described in detail in project deliverables 6 and other publications [1][2][3][4]. As a brief summary, we first acknowledge that L2L2 is a complex competency, not easily decomposed into a clear-cut division of independent underlying skills.…”

Ontology-Based Argument Mining and Automatic Essay Scoring

“…However, there is evidence to suggest that standard text-based outlines do not necessarily improve writing quality (Torrance et al, 2000). Recently, there has been growing interest in graphical outline representations, especially for argumentative essays in various domains (Scheuer et al, 2009;Scheuer et al, 2010;Peldszus and Stede, 2013;Reed and Rowe, 2004;Reed et al, 2007). Not only do they provide a different outlining format, but they also allow students to concretely visualize their argumentation structure.…”

Scripting Discussions for Elaborative, Critical Interactions

“…During the past two decades many computer-based tools have been developed to support the acquisition of argumentation skills [2]. We introduce a web-based collaborative learning environment that supports students in creating and discussing argument diagrams, and a collaboration script to support students in using this environment to discuss conflicting texts.…”