skip to main content
10.1145/3411763.3443422acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Designing Adaptive Argumentation Learning Systems Based on Artificial Intelligence

Published: 08 May 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Argumentation skills are an omnipresent foundation of our daily communication and thinking. However, the learning of argumentation skills is limited due to the lack of individual learning conditions for students. Within this dissertation, I aim to explore the potential of adaptive argumentation skill learning based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) by designing, implementing, and evaluating new technology-enhanced pedagogical concepts to actively support students in developing the ability to argue in a structured, logical, and reflective way. I develop new student-centered pedagogical scenarios with empirically evaluated design principles, linguistic corpora, ML algorithms, and innovative learning tools based on an adaptive writing support system and a pedagogical conversational agent. My results indicate that adaptive learning tools based on ML algorithms and user-centered design patterns help students to develop better argumentation writing skills. Thereby, I contribute to research by bridging the boundaries of argumentation learning and argumentation mining and by examining pedagogical scenarios for adaptive argumentation learning from a user-centered perspective.

References

[1]
Albert Bandura. 1991. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 2: 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
[2]
Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam. 2009. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21, 1: 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
[3]
Jan vom Brocke, Alexander Simons, Kai Riemer, Bjoern Niehaves, Ralf Plattfaut, and Anne Cleven. 2015. Standing on the shoulders of giants: Challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 37, 1: 205–224. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.03709
[4]
Glenn Rowe Chris Reed Raquel Mochales Palau and Marie-Francine Moens. 2008. Language Resources for Studying Argument. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08).
[5]
Mike Cohn. 2004. User Stories Applied For Agile Software Development.
[6]
Harris M. Cooper. 1988. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society 1, 1: 104–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03177550
[7]
Lingjia Deng and Janyce Wiebe. 2015. MPQA 3.0: An Entity/Event-Level Sentiment Corpus. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 1323–1328.
[8]
Charles Fadel, Maya Bialik, and Bernie Trilling. 2015. Four-dimensional education: the competencies learners need to succeed.
[9]
Leon Festinger. 1962. Cognitive Dissonance. Scientific American 207, 4: 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93
[10]
Jochen. Gläser and Grit. Laudel. 2010. Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. VS Verlag für Sozialwiss. Retrieved February 8, 2018 from http://www.springer.com/de/book/9783531172385
[11]
R De Groot, R Drachman, R Hever, B Schwartz, U Hoppe, A Harrer, M De Laat, R Wegerif, B M Mclaren, and B Baurens. 2007. Computer Supported Moderation of E-Discussions: the ARGUNAUT Approach. Retrieved January 11, 2019 from http://www.argunaut.org
[12]
Ivan Habernal and Iryna Gurevych. 2016. What makes a convincing argument? empirical analysis and detecting attributes of convincingness in web argumentation. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 1214–1223.
[13]
John Hattie and Helen Timperley. 2007. The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research 77, 1: 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
[14]
Alan R Hevner. 2007. A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems: 1–6. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=sjis
[15]
Alan R Hevner, Salvatore T March, Jinsoo Park, and Sudha Ram. 2004. Design Science in Information Systems Research. Design Science in IS Research MIS Quarterly 28, 1: 75. Retrieved April 11, 2019 from https://wise.vub.ac.be/sites/default/files/thesis_info/design_science.pdf
[16]
Sebastian Hobert and Raphael Meyer Von Wolff. 2019. Say Hello to Your New Automated Tutor – A Structured Literature Review on Pedagogical Conversational Agents. 14th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Siegen, Germany.
[17]
Chenn Jung Huang, Shun Chih Chang, Heng Ming Chen, Jhe Hao Tseng, and Sheng Yuan Chien. 2016. A group intelligence-based asynchronous argumentation learning-assistance platform. Interactive Learning Environments 24, 7: 1408–1427. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1016533
[18]
Deanna Kuhn. 1992. Thinking as Argument. Harvard Educational Review 62, 2: 155–179. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1
[19]
Jack Mezirow. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA 94104-1310.
[20]
Raquel Mochales Palau and Aagje Ieven. 2009. Creating an argumentation corpus: do theories apply to real arguments? {A} case study on the legal argumentation of the {ECHR}. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2009), Twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 2009)., Barcelona, Spain, 8-12 June 2009, 21–30.
[21]
OECD. 2018. The Future of Education and Skills - Education 2030. https://doi.org/2018-06-15
[22]
Jonathan F. Osborne, J. Bryan Henderson, Anna MacPherson, Evan Szu, Andrew Wild, and Shi Ying Yao. 2016. The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 53, 6: 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21316
[23]
Jean Piaget, Terrance Brown, and Kishore Julian Thampy. 1986. The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures: The Central Problem of Intellectual Development. Jean Piaget, Terrance Brown, Kishore Julian Thampy. American Journal of Education 94, 4: 574–577. https://doi.org/10.1086/443876
[24]
Niels Pinkwart, Kevin Ashley, Collin Lynch, and Vincent Aleven. 2009. Evaluating an Intelligent Tutoring System for Making Legal Arguments with Hypotheticals. IOS Press. Retrieved January 11, 2019 from http://iaiedsoc.org/pub/1302/file/19_4_05_Pinkwart.pdf
[25]
Eric Ries. 2011. The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. Crown Books.
[26]
Roman Rietsche, Kevin Duss, Jan Martin Persch, and Matthias Söllner. 2018. Design and Evaluation of an IT-based Formative Feedback Tool to Foster Student Performance Understanding and Designing Trust in Information Systems View project Future of Collaboration View project. In Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems. Retrieved January 11, 2019 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329450233
[27]
Sherry Ruan, Liwei Jiang, Justin Xu, Bryce Joe-Kun Tham, Zhengneng Qiu, Yeshuang Zhu, Elizabeth L. Murnane, Emma Brunskill, and James A. Landay. 2019. QuizBot: A Dialogue-based Adaptive Learning System System for Factual Knowledge. Chi: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300587
[28]
Oliver Scheuer. 2015. Towards adaptive argumentation learning systems. Retrieved January 11, 2019 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298087259
[29]
Julia E. Seaman, I. E. Allen, and Jeff Seaman. 2018. Higher Education Reports - Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved February 17, 2020 from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/highered.html
[30]
Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. 2014. Identifying Argumentative Discourse Structures in Persuasive Essays. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2014)(Oct. 2014), Association for Computational Linguistics, p.(to appear), 46–56. Retrieved October 23, 2018 from www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de
[31]
Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. 2014. Annotating Argument Components and Relations in Persuasive Essays. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, 1501–1510. Retrieved October 17, 2018 from http://www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de
[32]
Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. 2017. Recognizing Insufficiently Supported Arguments in Argumentative Essays. Retrieved October 23, 2018 from www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de
[33]
Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. 2017. Parsing Argumentation Structures in Persuasive Essays. Computational Linguistics 43, 3: 619–659. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00295
[34]
Daniel D Suthers and Christopher D Hundhausen. 2001. European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Retrieved January 11, 2019 from http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/papers/2001/Suthers-Hundhausen-Euro-CSCL-2001.pdf
[35]
Heikki Topi. 2018. Using competencies for specifying outcome expectations for degree programs in computing: Lessons learned from other disciplines. 2018 SIGED International Conference on Information Systems Education and Research.
[36]
Stephen E. Toulmin. 2003. The uses of argument: Updated edition. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005
[37]
Viswanath Venkatesh and Hillol Bala. 2008. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences 39, 2: 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
[38]
Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. 1980. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
[39]
Thiemo Wambsganss, Nikolaos Molyndris, and Matthias Söllner. 2020. Unlocking Transfer Learning in Argumentation Mining: A Domain-Independent Modelling Approach. In 15th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik. https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_c9-wambsganss
[40]
Thiemo Wambsganss, Christina Niklaus, Matthias Cetto, Matthias Söllner, Jan Marco Leimeister, and Siegfried Handschuh. 2020. AL: An Adaptive Learning Support System for Argumentation Skills. In ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–14.
[41]
Thiemo Wambsganss, Christina Niklaus, Matthias Söllner, Siegfried Handschuh, and Jan Marco Leimeister. 2020. A Corpus for Argumentative Writing Support in German. In 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling).
[42]
Thiemo Wambsganss and Roman Rietsche. 2020. Towards designing an adaptive argumentation learning tool. In 40th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2019, 1–9.
[43]
Thiemo Wambsganss, Matthias Söllner, and Jan Marco Leimeister. 2020. Design and Evaluation of an Adaptive Dialog-Based Tutoring System for Argumentation Skills. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).
[44]
Thiemo Wambsganss, Florian Weber, Tobias Staufenberg, Leopold Bott, and Matthias Söllner. 2020. Systematische Entwicklung eines Lerntools zur Erhöhung der Argumentationsfähigkeiten von Studierenden. In 15th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, 449–464. https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_d6-wambsganss
[45]
Thiemo Wambsganss, Rainer Winkler, Pascale Schmid, and Matthias Söllner. 2020. Unleashing the Potential of Conversational Agents for Course Evaluations: Empirical Insights from a Comparison with Web Surveys. In Twenty-Eighth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), 1–18.
[46]
Thiemo Wambsganss, Rainer Winkler, Matthias Söllner, and Jan Marco Leimeister. 2020. A Conversational Agent to Improve Response Quality in Course Evaluations. In ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
[47]
Jane Webster and Richard T Watson. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner . Further reproduction prohibited without permission . MIS Quarterly 26, 2: xiii–xxiii. https://doi.org/10.1.1.104.6570
[48]
R. Winkler and M. Söllner. 2018. Unleashing the Potential of Chatbots in Education: A State-Of-The-Art Analysis . In: Academy of Management. Meeting, Annual Chicago, A O M. Retrieved from https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/254848/1/JML_699.pdf
[49]
Rainer Winkler, Claudio Büchi, and Matthias Söllner. 2019. Improving Problem-Solving Skills with Smart Personal Assistants: Insights from a Quasi Field Experiment. Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Oecd 2014: 1–17.
[50]
Rainer Winkler, Sebastian Hobert, Antti Salovaara, Matthias Söllner, and Jan Marco Leimeister. 2020. Sara, the Lecturer: Improving Learning in Online Education with a Scaffolding-Based Conversational Agent. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376781
[51]
N. Zierau, T Wambsganss, Andreas Janson, Sofia Schöbel, and Jan Marco Leimeister. 2020. The Anatomy of User Experience with Conversational Agents: A Taxonomy and Propositions of Service Clues. In: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Decision-making systems improvement based on explainable artificial intelligence approaches for predictive maintenanceEngineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence10.1016/j.engappai.2024.109601139:PBOnline publication date: 1-Jan-2025
  • (2024)Enhancing legal writing skills: The impact of formative feedback in a hybrid intelligence learning environmentBritish Journal of Educational Technology10.1111/bjet.1352956:2(650-677)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2024
  • (2021)Ethical Design of Conversational Agents: Towards Principles for a Value-Sensitive DesignInnovation Through Information Systems10.1007/978-3-030-86790-4_37(539-557)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2021

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CHI EA '21: Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
May 2021
2965 pages
ISBN:9781450380959
DOI:10.1145/3411763
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 May 2021

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Adaptive Skill Learning
  2. Argumentation Learning
  3. Argumentation Mining
  4. Pedagogical Conversational Agents

Qualifiers

  • Extended-abstract
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

CHI '21
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,164 of 23,696 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

CHI 2025
ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
April 26 - May 1, 2025
Yokohama , Japan

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)74
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8
Reflects downloads up to 20 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Decision-making systems improvement based on explainable artificial intelligence approaches for predictive maintenanceEngineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence10.1016/j.engappai.2024.109601139:PBOnline publication date: 1-Jan-2025
  • (2024)Enhancing legal writing skills: The impact of formative feedback in a hybrid intelligence learning environmentBritish Journal of Educational Technology10.1111/bjet.1352956:2(650-677)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2024
  • (2021)Ethical Design of Conversational Agents: Towards Principles for a Value-Sensitive DesignInnovation Through Information Systems10.1007/978-3-030-86790-4_37(539-557)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2021

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media