Crucial aspects of software development for modeling deliberative argumentation
Abstract
In the 90s of the XX c., the development of information and communication technologies led to the creation of the software designed for visualization and modeling of deliberative intellectual activity for solving various tasks, including the educational ones. In this study, we formulate and substantiate a group of the criteria for developing the software designed to model the deliberative argumentation. In doing so we rely on the conceptual foundations for classifying of the software for modeling discussions and argumentation, which we have identified earlier at the first stage of our research; the examination of the available specialized software; and on our own experience of using such software in teaching argumentation and critical thinking skills. We pay special attention to the perspectives of implementing functions for evaluating arguments and finding solutions. As a necessary element of the software for modeling deliberative argumentation, we propose employing ontologies and modify a reliable AIF ontology to DelibAIF; and suggest an architecture of the software which accounts for the formulated criteria. The criteria will be used to classify the relevant software.
Full Text:
PDF (Russian)References
DOI:10.25559/INJOIT.2307-8162.09.202112.68-82
Zagorulko Yu.A., Garanina N.O., Borovikova O.I., Domanov O.A. Argumentation modeling in popular science discourse using ontologies // Ontology of Designing. 2019. Т. 9. №4(34). С.496-509. DOI: 10.18287/2223-9537-2019-9-4-496-509. [In Russian]
Lapshin V.A. Ontologies in computer systems, Moscow, Nauchny mir, 2010. [In Russian]
Lisanyuk E.N. Argumentacija i ubezhdenie. SPb, Nauka. 2015. [In Russian]
Lisanyuk E. N., Mazurova M. R. Argumentation, Peer Disagreement and the Truth Birth in Dispute // Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2019. VOL. 56. № 1. PP. 81-100. [In Russian]
Lisanyuk E.N., Prokudin D.E. Conceptual Bases of Software Functioning for the Representation of Deliberative Argumentation // Information Society: Education, Science, Culture and Technology of Future. Issue 4 (Trudy XXIII Mezhdunarodnoy ob"edinennoy nauchnoy konferentsii «Internet i sovremennoe obshchestvo», IMS-2020 (sbornik nauchnykh statey). — SPb: Universitet ITMO, 2020. P. 34-41. DOI: 10.17586/2587-8557-2020-4-34-41. [In Russian]
Lisanyuk E.N., Prokudin D.E. Modelling argumentation with OVA and Rationale (a case-study) // Internet i sovremennoe obshchestvo: sbornik tezisov dokladov [Elektronnyy resurs] / Trudy XXI Mezhdunarodnoy ob"edinennoy nauchnoy konferentsii « Internet i sovremennoe obshchestvo» (IMS-2018), Sankt-Peterburg, 31 maya – 2 iyunya 2018 g. — Elektron, dan. — SPb: Universitet ITMO, 2018. — 123 p. — Rezhim dostupa: http://ojs.ifmo.ru/index.php/IMS/issue/view/34, svobodnyy. — Zagl. s ekrana. P. 14-17. URL: http://ojs.itmo.ru/index.php/IMS/article/view/719. [In Russian]
Lisanyuk E.N., Prokudin D.E. Software for the representation of deliberative argumentation: the conceptual foundations and the properties of classification and use // International Journal of Open Information Technologies. 2020. Vol 8. № 11. P. 49-56. URL: http://injoit.org/index.php/j1/article/view/1025. [In Russian]
Svidetel'stvo № 2020665092. Programmnyy kompleks dlya modelirovaniya i analiza argumentatsii v nauchno-populyarnykh tekstakh ArgNetBank Studio : № 2020663982 : zayavl. 09.11.2020 : opubl. 20.11.2020 / Zagorul'ko Yu.A., Sidorova E.A., Seryy A.S., Borovikova O.I., Domanov O.A., Kononenko I.S., Shestakov V.K., Akhmadeeva I.R. 1 s. [In Russian]
Sidorova E.A., Akhmadeeva I.R., Zagorulko Yu.A., Sery A.S., Shestakov V.K. Research platform for the study of argumentation in popular science discourse // Ontology of designing. 2020. Vol. 10(4). P. 489-502. DOI: 10.18287/2223-9537-2020-10-4-489-502. [In Russian]
Aleven V., Ashley, K. D. Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples: Empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment // Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 1997). Amsterdam, IOS. 1997. P. 87–94.
Atkinson K., Bench-Capon T., Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems // Artificial Intelligence. 2007. No. 171. P. 855–874.
Berg T., Gelder T. van, Patterson F., Teppema S. Critical Thinking: Reasoning and Communicating with Rationale, Amsterdam, Pearson Education Benelux, 2009.
Bex F.J., Reed C.A. Schemes of Inference, Conflict and Preference in a Computational Model of Argument, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 2011.
Buckingham Shum S.J., Selvin A.M., Sierhuis M., Conklin J., Haley C.B., Nuseibeh B. Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC // Rationale management in software engineering / A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, B. Paech (Eds.). Berlin: Springer. 2006. P. 111–132.
Chesñevar C.I., McGinnis J., Modgil S., Rahwan I., Reed C., Simari G., South M., Vreeswijk G., Willmott S. Towards an argument interchange format // The knowledge engineering review. 2006. Vol. 21(4). P. 293-316.
Conklin J., Begeman M.L. gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion // Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ‘88). New York: ACM. 1988. P. 140–152.
Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement / Nabatchi T., Weiksner M., Gastil J., Leighninger M. (eds.). Oxford, Oxford univ. press. 2013. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899265.001.0001.
Eemeren F.H. van, Grootendorst R. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Gordon T.F., Prakken H., Walton D. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof // Artificial Intelligence. 2007. Vol. 171(10-15). P. 875–896.
Janier M., Lawrence J., Reed C. OVA+: an Argument Analysis Interface // Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2014). IOS Press, Pitlochry. 2014. P. 463-464. URL: http://www.arg.dundee.ac.uk/people/chris/publications/2014/comma2014-ova.pdf
Karacapilidis N., Papadias D. Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the Hermes system // Information Systems. 2001. Vol. 26(4). P. 259-277.
Klein M., Iandoli L. Supporting Collaborative Deliberation Using a Large-Scale Argumentation System: The MIT Collaboratorium // Proceedings of the Eleventh Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing Symposium and the Third International Conference on Online Deliberation (DIAC_ 2008/OD 2008), Berkeley, California. 2008. P. 5-12. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1099082
Kunz W., Rittel H. Issues as elements of information systems. Working paper #131. Institut für Grundlagen der Planung I.A. University of Stuttgart, Germany. 1970. URL: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.134.1741&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Loll F., Pinkwart N. Collaboration Support in Argumentation Systems for Education via Flexible Architectures // Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 2009. P. 707-708. DOI: 10.1109/ICALT.2009.55. /27
Loll F., Pinkwart N. LASAD: Flexible representations for computer-based collaborative argumentation // International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.2013. Vol. 71. Iss. 1. P. 91-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.04.002. /25
Loll F., Pinkwart N., Scheuer O., McLaren B.M. How Tough should it be? Simplifying the Development of Argumentation Systems Using a Configurable Platform // Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills // Pinkwart, N., McLaren, B. (eds). Bentham Science Publishers, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. 2012. P. 169-197. DOI: 10.2174/978160805015411201010169 /24
Loll F., Scheuer O., McLaren B.M., Pinkwart N. Learning to Argue Using Computers – A View from Teachers, Researchers, and System Developers // Aleven V., Kay J., Mostow J. (eds). Intelligent Tutoring Systems. ITS 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 2010. Vol. 6095. P. 377-379. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-13437-1_76. /26
Mahadevan N., Dubey A., Balasubramanian D., Karsai G. Deliberative, search-based mitigation strategies for model-based software health management // Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering. Springer London, 2013. P. 1-26.
Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice / Davies T., Gangadharan S.P. (eds.). Stanford, CSLI Publications. 2009
Pinkwart N., Aleven V., Ashley K., Lynch, C. Toward legal argument instruction with graph grammars and collaborative filtering techniques // M. Ikeda, K. Ashley, T.W. Chan (Eds.). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2006). 2006. Berlin, Springer. P. 227–236.
Prakken H. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments, Argument and Computation 1 (2010) 93–124.
Rahwan I., Banihashemi B., Reed C., Walton D., Abdallah S. Representing and classifying arguments on the semantic web, The Knowledge Engineering Review 26.4 (2011) 487-511.
Ranney M., Schank, P. Toward an integration of the social and the scientific: Observing, modeling, and promoting the explanatory coherence of reasoning. // Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior / S. Read, L. Miller (Eds.). Mahwah, Erlbaum. 1998. P. 245–274.
Scheuer O., Loll F., Pinkwart N. et al. Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art // Computer Supported Learning. 2010. Vol. 5. P. 43–102. DOI: 10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x. /33
Scheuer O., McLaren B., Loll F., Pinkwart N. Automated Analysis and Feedback Techniques to Support and Teach Argumentation: A Survey // Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills / Pinkwart, N., McLaren, B. (eds). Bentham Science Publishers, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. 2012. P. 71-124. DOI: 10.2174/978160805015411201010071 /32
Scheuer O., McLaren B.M., Loll F., Pinkwart N. An Analysis and Feedback Infrastructure for Argumentation Learning Systems // Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Learning Systems that Care: From Knowledge Representation to Affective Modelling. IOS Press, NLD. 2009. P. 629–631. /34
Suthers D.D. Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry // Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments / J. Andriessen, M.J. Baker, & D.D. Suthers (Eds.). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic. 2003. P. 27–46.
Suthers D.D., Connelly J., Lesgold A., Paolucci M., Toth E.E., Toth J., et al. Representational and advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry / K. D. Forbus, P. J. Feltovich (Eds.). Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology. Menlo Park. AAAI/MIT 2001. P. 7–35.
Toulmin S.E. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press. 1958.
Verheij B. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation // Artificial Intelligence. 2003. Vol. 150(1–2). P. 291–324.
Walton D., Reed Ch., Macagno F. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge UP, 2008.
Wigmore J. H. The Principles of Judicial Proof / 2nd Edition. Little, Brown & Co. 1931.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Abava Кибербезопасность MoNeTec 2024
ISSN: 2307-8162