Toward assessing law students' argument diagrams

ABSTRACT

The development of graphical argument models is an active and growing area of research in Artificial Intelligence and Law. The aim is to develop models which may be readily used by legal professionals and novices to produce and parse arguments. If this goal is to be realized it is important to develop models that human reasoners can manipulate and assess consistently. We report on an ongoing study of graph agreement in the context of the LARGO system.

REFERENCES

• 1: Kevin Ashley , Collin Lynch , Niels Pinkwart , Vincent Aleven, A Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals, Proceeding of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference, p.1-10, July 08, 2008
• 2: Chad S. Carr, Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation, Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, Springer-Verlag, London, 2003
• 3: J. Cohen. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1): 37--46, 1960.
• 4: Matthew W. Easterday , Vincent Aleven , Richard Scheines, 'Tis Better to Construct than to Receive? The Effects of Diagram Tools on Causal Reasoning, Proceeding of the 2007 conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Technology Rich Learning Contexts That Work, p.93-100, June 08, 2007
• 5: Thomas F. Gordon , Henry Prakken , Douglas Walton, The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof, Artificial Intelligence, v.171 n.10-15, p.875-896, July, 2007 [doi>10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.010]
• 6: J. Landis and G. G. Koch. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics., 33: 159--174, 1977.
• 7: K. Lund, G. Molinari, A. Sjourn, and M. Baker. How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(273).
• 8: J. McClure, B. Sonak, and H. K. Suen. Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4): 475--492, 1999.
• 9: Niels Pinkwart , Vincent Aleven , Kevin Ashley , Collin Lynch, Evaluating Legal Argument Instruction with Graphical Representations Using LARGO, Proceeding of the 2007 conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Technology Rich Learning Contexts That Work, p.101-108, June 08, 2007
• 10: Henry Prakken , Chris Reed , Douglas Walton, Dialogues about the burden of proof, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 06-11, 2005, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/1165485.1165503]
• 11: C. Reed and G. Rowe. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int. Journal of AI Tools, 13(4): 961--980, 2004.
• 12: D. D. Suthers and C. D. Hundhausen. Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, and K. Hakkarainen, editors, European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Proc. of the 1^st European Conference on CSCL., pages 577--584. Maastricht, the Netherlands., 2001.
• 13: T. van Gelder. The rationale for rational. Law, Probability and Risk: Special Issue on Graphic and Visual Representations of Evidence and Inference in Legal Settings., 6(1--4): 23--42, 2007.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.1 Applications and Expert Systems
          Subjects: Law

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.3 Deduction and Theorem Proving

  J. Computer Applications
  J.4 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
      Subjects: Psychology

General Terms:
Legal Aspects

Keywords:
argument diagrams, argument models, hypothetical legal reasoning, intelligent tutoring systems