Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Concepts Using Dialectic Arguments vs. Didactic Explanations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2363))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We compared two automated approaches to teaching distinguishing, a fundamental skill of case-based reasoning that involves assessing the relevant differences among cases in a context-sensitive way. The approaches are implemented in two versions of CATO, an ITS designed to teach law students basic skills of case-based legal argument. The original version of CATO employed a didactic explanatory dialogue. The newer version, CATO-Dial, teaches the same skill with a simulated dialectic argument in a courtroom setting. Our hypothesis was that students would learn better by engaging in the simulated argument than by receiving interactive explanation. We showed that students in the dialectic argument simulation group performed significantly better on certain sections of the post-test aimed at assessing transfer of their skills of distinguishing.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 9720359. We thank Professor Kevin Deasy, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, for his many contributions to this work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aleven, V. (1997) Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples, Ph.D. Dis., U. Pittsburgh, unnumbered Tech. Rep. LRDC/ISP.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aleven, V. and Ashley, K.D. (1997) “Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples’. Proc. 8th World Conf. AI in Ed. Soc. 87–94. IOS Press: Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ashley, K.D., (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. The MIT Press / Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ashley, K. D. (2000) “Designing Electronic Casebooks That Talk Back: The CATO Program”. In Jurimetrics Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 275–319.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ashley, K.D. (2002) “An AI Model of Case-Based Legal Argument from a Jurisprudential Viewpoint.” In Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law. Kluwer: Dordrecht, Neth.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carbonell, J.R. (1970). AI in CAI: An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Computer Aided Instruction. IEEE Transactions on Man Machine Systems 11(4) 190–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Centinia, F., T. Routen, A. Hartmann, and C. Hegarty (1995) “STATUTOR: Too Intelligent By Half?” In Legal Knowledge Based Systems JURIX’ 95. 121–132. Lelystad: Koninklijke.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chi, Michelene T.H., S. Silver, H. Jeong, T. Yamauchi, and R. Hausmann (2001) “Learning From Human Tutoring” in Cognitive Science, Vol. 25, pp. 471–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Collins, A. and Stevens, A. L. (1982). “Goals and Strategies of inquiry Teachers”. In Advances In Instructional Psychology, R Glaser (ed.) pp. 65–119. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Retalis, S., H. Pain and M. Haggith. (1996) “Arguing with the Devil; Teaching in Controversial Domains”. Int. Tutoring Sys., 3d Intl Conf., ITS-96. 659–667. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rissland, E.L. (1990) “Artificial Intelligence and Law: Stepping Stones to a Model of Legal Reasoning”. Yale Law Journal 99. 1957-1981. June 1990. Number 8.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rose C. P., J. D. Moore, K. VanLehn, D. Allbritton. (2001) “A Comparative Evaluation of Socratic versus Didactic Tutoring”, 2001 LRDC Tech Report LRDC-BEE-1.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Span, G. (1993) “LITES, an Intelligent Tutoring System for Legal Problem-Solving in the Domain of Dutch Civil Law”. In Proc. 4th Intl Conf. AI and Law, 76–81. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Thompson, L., Gentner, D. and Loewenstein, J. (2000) “Avoiding Missed Opportunities in Managerial Life.” in Org. Behavior and Human Decision Proc., 82, No. 1. May. pp. 60–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wong, L., C. Quek, and C. Looi. (1997) “PADI-2: An Inquiry-based Geography Tutor”. In AI in Education, Proc. AI-ED 97 World Conf. 47–54. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 15260

    Kevin D. Ashley, Ravi Desai & John M. Levine

Authors
  1. Kevin D. Ashley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ravi Desai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John M. Levine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. LIRMM, University of Montpellier II and CNRS, Montpellier, France

    Stefano A. Cerri

  2. LIUPPA, IUT de Bayonne - University of Pau, Bayonne, France

    Guy Gouardères

  3. Department of Information Technologies, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, Brazil

    Fàbio Paraguaçu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ashley, K.D., Desai, R., Levine, J.M. (2002). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Concepts Using Dialectic Arguments vs. Didactic Explanations. In: Cerri, S.A., Gouardères, G., Paraguaçu, F. (eds) Intelligent Tutoring Systems. ITS 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2363. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47987-2_60

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47987-2_60

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43750-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47987-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation