The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.02 - April-June (2013 vol.6)
pp: 144-157
O. Scheuer , Center for E-Learning Technol., Saarland Univ., Saarbrucken, Germany
B. M. McLaren , Human-Comput. Interaction Inst., Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, PA, USA
ABSTRACT
One of the main challenges in tapping the full potential of modern educational software is to devise mechanisms to automatically analyze and adaptively support students' problem solving and learning. A number of such approaches have been developed to teach argumentation skills in domains as diverse as science, the Law, and ethics. Yet, imbuing educational software with effective intelligent tutoring functions requires considerable time and effort. We present a highly configurable software framework, “Configurable Argumentation Support Engine” (CASE), designed to reduce effort and development costs considerably when building tutorial agents for graphical argumentation learning systems. CASE detects pedagogically relevant patterns in argument diagrams and provides feedback and hints in response. A wide variety of patterns are supported, including ones sensitive to students' understanding of the domain, problem-solving processes, and collaboration processes. Teachers and researchers can configure the behavior of tutorial agents on three levels: patterns, tutorial actions, and tutorial strategies. The paper discusses design concerns, the architecture, and the configuration mechanisms of CASE. As a proof of concept, four showcases are presented each showing different aspects of CASE and thus demonstrating the flexibility and breadth of applicability of the CASE approach in supporting single user and collaborative scenarios across different argumentation domains.
INDEX TERMS
Computer aided software engineering, Collaboration, Tutorials, Law, Peer to peer computing, Analytical models,intelligent tutoring systems, Computer aided software engineering, Collaboration, Tutorials, Law, Peer to peer computing, Analytical models, authoring tools, Collaborative learning tools
CITATION
O. Scheuer, B. M. McLaren, "CASE: A Configurable Argumentation Support Engine", IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol.6, no. 2, pp. 144-157, April-June 2013, doi:10.1109/TLT.2013.3
REFERENCES
[1] R. Driver, P. Newton, and J. Osborne, "Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms," Science Education, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 287-312, 2000.
[2] T. van Gelder, "Argument Mapping with Reason!Able," The Am. Philosophical Assoc. Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 85-90, 2002.
[3] O. Scheuer, F. Loll, N. Pinkwart, and B.M. McLaren, "Computer-Supported Argumentation: A Review of the State of the Art," Int'l J. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 43-102, 2010.
[4] O. Scheuer, B.M. McLaren, F. Loll, and N. Pinkwart, "Automated Analysis and Feedback Techniques to Support and Teach Argumentation: A Survey," Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills, N. Pinkwart and B.M. McLaren, eds., pp. 71-124, Bentham Science, 2012.
[5] F. Loll, N. Pinkwart, O. Scheuer, and B.M. McLaren, "How Tough Should It Be? Simplifying the Development of Argumentation Systems Using a Configurable Platform," Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills, N. Pinkwart and B.M. McLaren, eds., pp. 169-197, Bentham Science, 2012.
[6] A. Soller, A.M. Monés, P. Jermann, and M. Mühlenbrock, "From Mirroring to Guiding: A Review of State of the Art Technology for Supporting Collaborative Learning," Int'l J. Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 15, pp. 261-290, 2005.
[7] I. Magnisalis, S. Demetriadis, and A. Karakostas, "Adaptive and Intelligent Systems for Collaborative Learning Support: A Review of the Field," IEEE Trans. Learning Technologies, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 5-20, Jan.-Mar. 2011.
[8] P. Bell, "Using Argument Representations to Make Thinking Visible for Individuals and Groups," Proc. Second Int'l Conf. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL '97), R. Hall, N. Miyake, and N. Enyedy, eds., pp. 10-19, 1997.
[9] O. Scheuer, B.M. McLaren, A. Weinberger, and S. Niebuhr, "Promoting Critical, Elaborative Discussions through a Collaboration Script and Argument Maps," Instructional Science, 2013, doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9274-5.
[10] F. Loll and N. Pinkwart, "LASAD: Flexible Representations for Computer-Based Collaborative Argumentation," Int'l J. Human-Computer Studies, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 91-109, 2013.
[11] N. Pinkwart, K.D. Ashley, C. Lynch, and V. Aleven, "Evaluating an Intelligent Tutoring System for Making Legal Arguments with Hypotheticals," Int'l J. Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 401-424, 2009.
[12] A. Soller, "Supporting Social Interaction in an Intelligent Collaborative Learning System," Int'l J. Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 12, pp. 40-62, 2001.
[13] K. Ashley, Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT/Bradford Books, 1990.
[14] C. Lynch and K.D. Ashley, "Modeling Student Arguments in Research Reports," Proc. Fourth AHFE Conf., V.G. Duffy, ed., pp. 191-201, 2012.
[15] T. Dragon, B.M. McLaren, M. Mavrikis, A. Harrer, C. Kynigos, R. Wegerif, and Y. Yang, "Metafora: A Web-Based Platform for Learning to Learn Together in Science and Mathematics," IEEE Trans. Learning Technologies, 2013, doi:10.1109/TLT.2013.4.
[16] D.W. Johnson and R.T. Johnson, Learning Together and Alone: Cooperation, Competition, and Individualization, p. 53. Prentice Hall, 1991.
[17] N.L. Kerr, "Motivation Losses in Small Groups: A Social Dilemma Analysis," J. Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 45, pp. 819-828, 1983.
[18] M.W. Berkowitz and J.C. Gibbs, "Measuring the Developmental Features of Moral Discussion," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, vol. 29, pp. 399-410, 1983.
[19] B.M. McLaren, O. Scheuer, and J. Mikšátko, "Supporting Collaborative Learning and E-Discussions Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques," Int'l J. Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1-46, 2010.
[20] B.B. Schwarz and A. Glassner, "The Role of Floor Control and of Ontology in Argumentative Activities with Discussion-Based Tools," Int'l J. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 449-478, 2007.
[21] H.U. Hoppe and K. Gaßner, "Integrating Collaborative Concept Mapping Tools with Group Memory and Retrieval Functions," Proc. Conf. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, G. Stahl, ed., pp. 716-725, 2002.
[22] M. Baker, J. Andriessen, K. Lund, M. van Amelsvoort, and M. Quignard, "Rainbow: A Framework for Analyzing Computer-Mediated Pedagogical Debates," Int'l J. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 2, nos. 2/3, pp. 247-272, 2007.
[23] R. Wegerif, B.M. McLaren, M. Chamrada, O. Scheuer, N. Mansour, J. Mikšátko, and M. Williams, "Exploring Creative Thinking in Graphically Mediated Synchronous Dialogues," Computers & Education, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 613-621, 2009.
[24] A. Harrer, S. Ziebarth, A. Giemza, and U. Hoppe, "A Framework to Support Monitoring and Moderation of E-Discussions with Heterogeneous Discussion Tools," Proc. IEEE Eighth Int'l Conf. Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 41-45, 2008.
[25] E. Friedman-Hill, Jess in Action: Java Rule-Based Systems, p. 38. Manning, 2003.
[26] D. Suthers, J. Connelly, A. Lesgold, M. Paolucci, E. Toth, J. Toth, and A. Weiner, "Representational and Advisory Guidance for Students Learning Scientific Inquiry," Smart Machines in Education: The Coming Revolution in Educational Technology, K.D. Forbus and P.J. Feltovich, eds., pp. 7-35, AAAI/MIT, 2001.
[27] V.J. Shute, "Focus on Formative Feedback," Rev. of Educational Research, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 153-189, 2008.
[28] M. Hall, E. Frank, G. Holmes, B. Pfahringer, P. Reutemann, and I.H. Witten, "The WEKA Data Mining Software: An Update," SIGKDD Explorations, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 10-18, 2009.
[29] O. Scheuer and B.M. McLaren, "Helping Teachers Handle the Flood of Data in Online Student Discussions," Proc. Ninth Int'l Conf. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, B. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, and S. Lajoie, eds., pp. 323-332, 2008.
[30] C.R. Twardy, "Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking," Teaching Philosophy, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 95-116, 2004.
[31] K. VanLehn, "The Behavior of Tutoring Systems," Int'l J. Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 227-265, 2006.
79 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool