Puerta Melguizo: Visualizing argumentation

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 Changein 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

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

argumentation

Argumentmapping

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

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

argumentation

Argumentmapping

Why

Wigmore (1931): maps of complex legal argumentation

introduction

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

argumentation

Argumentmapping

Why

Toulmin (1958): a simple argument mapping schema

introduction

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

argumentation

Argumentmapping

Why

Horn: argument maps of very complex debates

introduction

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

argumentation

Argumentmapping

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 we’re good visual/spatial thinkers

� In collaborative environments� To explicate and share representation among

people� To maintain focus� To maintain consistency, accuracy and plausibility

introduction

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

argumentation

Argumentmapping

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

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

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…

�������������� ���������� �����������������������������������������������������

����� �� ������ ����������� �������������������� � �� �� ����� ���������������� �����

������������ ���

introduction

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

Problem solving

collaborative

Data, format, operators, criteria and macro-operatorsDimensions 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

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

Problem solving

collaborative

Cognitive and communicative demands in collaborative problem solving

introduction

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

components

characteristics

support

examples

Suthers, 2001In 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

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

components

characteristics

support

examples

CSAV helps problem solvers to reach their goals?� Specificity and disambiguationThe 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

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

components

characteristics

support

examples

Araucaria 2

Araucaria 2Reed and Rowe, 2002. University of Dundee, Australia

introduction

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

components

characteristics

support

examples

Reason!Able

Reason!Ablevan Gelder, 2003.

introduction

Argumentationapproach

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

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

components

characteristics

support

examples

ProSupportintroduction

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

components

characteristics

support

examples

introduction

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

components

characteristics

support

examples

ProSupport

introduction

Argumentationapproach

CSAV tools

components

characteristics

support

examples

ProSupport