Developing a Conversational Agent’s Capability to Identify Structural Wrongness in Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Model of Arguments

This article discusses the usefulness of Toulmin’s model of arguments as structuring an assessment of different types of wrongness in an argument. We discuss the usability of the model within a conversational agent that aims to support users to develop a good argument. Within the article, we present a study and the development of classifiers that identify the existence of structural components in a good argument, namely a claim, a warrant (underlying understanding), and evidence. Based on a dataset (three sub-datasets with 100, 1,026, 211 responses in each) in which users argue about the intelligence or non-intelligence of entities, we have developed classifiers for these components: The existence and direction (positive/negative) of claims can be detected a weighted average F1 score over all classes (positive/negative/unknown) of 0.91. The existence of a warrant (with warrant/without warrant) can be detected with a weighted F1 score over all classes of 0.88. The existence of evidence (with evidence/without evidence) can be detected with a weighted average F1 score of 0.80. We argue that these scores are high enough to be of use within a conditional dialogue structure based on Bloom’s taxonomy of learning; and show by argument an example conditional dialogue structure that allows us to conduct coherent learning conversations. While in our described experiments, we show how Toulmin’s model of arguments can be used to identify structural problems with argumentation, we also discuss how Toulmin’s model of arguments could be used in conjunction with content-wise assessment of the correctness especially of the evidence component to identify more complex types of wrongness in arguments, where argument components are not well aligned. Owing to having progress in argument mining and conversational agents, the next challenges could be the developing agents that support learning argumentation. These agents could identify more complex type of wrongness in arguments that result from wrong connections between argumentation components.

Argumentointimallit fysiikan tiedon kuvaamisessa

Argumentointi on tunnistettu tärkeäksi koulutuksen tavoitteeksi, minkä vuoksi sitä on painotettu luonnontieteiden opetuksessa. Painotus on avannut lupaavia mahdollisuuksia, mutta myös ongelmia, joiden ymmärtämiseksi tarkastelemme neljää argumentoinnin mallia. Tavoitteena on ymmärtää, millaisella mallilla voitaisiin kattavasti kuvata fysiikan tiedon argumentointia opettajakoulutuksen kontekstissa. Toulmin kuvaa argumentin rakennetta ottamatta kantaa sisältötiedon oikeellisuuteen. Böttcher ja Meisert kuvaavat argumentointia selitysmallien kehittymisen näkökulmasta. Sampson tarkastelee argumentointia koulukokeellisuuden näkökulmasta. Sandoval ja Millwood käsittelevät argumentin käsitteellistä ja episteemistä laatua. Argumentointimallit ovat ansiokkaita, mutta riittämättömiä fysiikan tiedon luonteen kuvaamiseksi. Niistä puuttuu muun muassa fysiikan tiedonmuodostuksen kannalta keskeinen teorialähtöisen päätelmän näkökulma. Fysiikan tiedon argumentointiin tarvitaankin fysiikan tiedon luonteesta kumpuava malli. Argumentation Models in Illustrating Physics Knowledge Abstract Understanding scientific argumentation is an important educational goal. To emphasize argumentation in science class, we need suitable models to illustrate what argumentation is. We review four argumentation models to find perspectives for specifically physics argumentation. Toulmin’s model identifies argumentative moves. Böttcher and Meisert see argumentation as comparing data and explanatory models. Sampson looks at the use of evidence. Sandoval and Millwood study the conceptual and epistemic quality of an argument. Deductive reasoning, which is a relevant part of physics knowledge, is not for example lacking in some argumentation models. Physics argumentation needs a model, which raises from the nature of physics knowledge. Keywords: argumentation, argumentation models, physics

Norms That Regulate the Theorem Construction Process in an Inquiry Classroom of 3D Geometry: Teacher’s Management to Promote Them

This paper aims to illustrate how a teacher instilled norms that regulate the theorem construction process in a three-dimensional geometry course. The course was part of a preservice mathematics teacher program, and it was characterized by promoting inquiry and argumentation. We analyze class excerpts in which students address tasks that require formulating conjectures, that emerge as a solution to a problem and proving such conjectures, and the teacher leads whole-class activities where students’ productions are exposed. For this, we used elements of the didactical analysis proposed by the onto-semiotic approach and Toulmin’s model for argumentation. The teacher’s professional actions that promoted reiterative actions in students’ mathematical practices were identified; we illustrate how these professional actions impelled students’ actions to become norms concerning issues about the legitimacy of different types of arguments (e.g., analogical and abductive) in the theorem construction process.

Preschool children’s mathematical arguments in play-based activities

The present study examines the structure and mathematical content of children’s mathematical arguments as part of communication in play-based activities. It shows how Nordin and Boistrup’s (The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 51:15–27, 2018) framework for identifying and reconstructing mathematical arguments, which includes Toulmin’s model of argumentation, the notion of anchoring (Lithner, Educational Studies in Mathematics 67:255–276, 2008) and a multimodal approach, can be used to identify and explore preschool children’s mathematical arguments. Two different types of argument that occurred during play-based activities were identified: partial arguments and full arguments. The findings reveal the extensive use of multimodal interactions in all parts of the children’s mathematical arguments. Moreover, the findings point to the crucial role of adults as dialogue collaborators in the argumentation that emerges in the play-based activities.

Logical Fallacy Argumentation on Testimonials on Homeshopping Television Show

The decision to purchase a product is inseparable from the buyer's trust in a product. Testimonials are a tool for marketers to eliminate consumer barriers about the product to be purchased. Testimonials on home shopping television products tend to be controllable. The selection of sources, the use of scripts, and the editing process can be a form of media control over the information received by the public. This study focus on analyzing testimonials from the logical side of the testimony content. The method used to analyze this logical fallacy is qualitative content analysis. The text is separated using Toulmin's model into three parts, namely claim, ground, and warrant. This research uses a logical fallacy as a tool to evaluate the logic of the testimony in terms of content. The results of this study found that there was a logical fallacy in the testimony content. The fallacies include generalization fallacy, fallacy fallacies, fallacy of composition, appeal to wealth fallacy, appeal to pity, dan appeal to force.

What can we know about the future? Epistemology and the credibility of claims about the world ahead

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the results of futures studies are knowledge or if not, what it is that futures studies actually produce. Five types of representations of the future are the result of these studies. As the value of futures studies depends on no small measure of their credibility, the standards for carrying out and reporting these studies are identified along with a description of how Toulmin’s model of informal logic can be used to best improve their credibility. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a multi-disciplinary literature review and integrative analysis. Findings Using epistemological criteria for knowledge as truth, belief and rationale, the results of futures studies are not and cannot be knowledge. Instead, futures studies produce five kinds of “representations of the future”: predictions, projections and forecasts, scenarios, visions and structures for action. Six standards for conducting and reporting the results of futures studies are provided which will increase the credibility of these studies. Toulmin’s informal logic format will provide the foundation for the most persuasive basis of such studies. Practical implications Futurists will understand that the products of their studies are not knowledge and why this is the case. They will also understand that the type of futures studies they are conducting are either conditional, contingent propositions or normative prescriptions in nature. There are six guidelines for carrying out and reporting futures studies which can also be used to assess the quality of published studies. They will see how the use of a certain kind of informal logic can establish the most credible foundations for their studies. Originality/value As an integrative literature review, it incorporates and simplifies widely disparate existing contributions to the topic of the nature of knowledge regarding futures studies and the criteria for making such studies as credible as possible.

Decoupling Representations and the Chain of Arguments

In this paper, I propose to understand argumentative decoupling—that is, the structural fact of the argumentative chain self-referring to one (or more) of its constituents (reason, data, conclusion, point of view) in subsequent arguments—as part of the way in which cognitive decoupling representation works. In order to support this claim, I make use of part of the discussion developed in cognitive studies and evolutionary theories that describes this phenomenon when explaining intentional communication. By using Toulmin’s model, I exemplify how decoupling representation may be seen as part of a chain of arguments in which a second argumentative move is usually oriented to action. I conclude by reflecting on the relationship between this human cognitive capacity and the problem of recursion to hold that these two concepts are not synonymous but stand in a subordinated and complementary relation to each other.

That Was Then…This is Now: Utilizing the History of Mathematics and Dynamic Geometry Software

Pre-service mathematics teacher (PST) education often addresses within Geometry Classes how to utilize Dynamic Geometric Software (DGS). Other classes may also incorporate teaching pre-service teachers about the history of mathematics. Although research has documented the use of Dynamic Geometric Software (DGS) in teaching the history of mathematics (HoM) (Zengin, 2018), the focus of this research specifically targets the development of proof for pre-service teachers by utilizing DGS to revisit historical proofs with a modern lens. The findings concur with Fujita et.al. (2010), Zengin (2018), and Conners (2007) work on proof. The novelty of this article was the combination of incorporating the history of mathematics (HoM), dynamic geometry software (DGS), and Toulmin’s model of argumentation. A pedagogical approach appeared to emerge: DGS’s dynamic nature allowed PSTs to see several examples of a method to provide them with an illustration that may be used in proofs.

Analysing ESL Persuasive Essay Writing Using Toulmin’s Model of Argument

In Malaysian universities, writing in English is taught in several settings: writing for general purposes, writing for academic purposes and writing for specific purposes. Writing in these settings allows learners to learn to write in different genres, such as research, reports, and persuasive writing genres. One of the standard genres is persuasive because it is used to convince readers of what is researched or reported. To be competent in persuading or arguing, using the appropriate rhetorical and linguistic structure is crucial. The appropriate rhetorical and linguistic elements will help to achieve the writers' objective and intention. This paper will examine rhetorical and linguistic structures used by the ESL writers in producing a persuasive essay. Fifteen persuasive essays written by tertiary learners were analysed in this study. The researchers employed Stephen Toulmin's Model of argument (1969) as the tool of analysis in identifying the rhetorical and linguistic structures realised in the students' essays. The analysis outcome indicates that the 15 ESL writers under investigation comply with Toulmin's model except for the rebuttal stage, which was not visible in the essays. The findings will explain the common and uncommon rhetorical and linguistic elements used based on the model that Toulmin has developed. The implications from the findings are twofold; first, academic writing teachers can focus on the necessary elements to produce competent persuasive ESL writers, and secondly, textbook developers may produce their books based on the findings drawn from this study.