DOCSLIB.ORG

A Review of Argumentation for the Social Semantic Web

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Review of Argumentation for the Social Semantic Web Undefined 0 (0) 1 1 IOS Press A Review of Argumentation for the Social Semantic Web Jodi Schneider a, Tudor Groza a;b, and connected arguments posted by individuals to express Alexandre Passant a their opinions in a structured manner” [5]. a Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National Arguments on the Web can be used in decision con- University of Ireland, Galway, texts. Decision-making often requires discussion not fi[email protected] just of agreement and disagreement, but also the prin- b School of ITEE, The University of Queensland, ciples, reasons, and explanations driving the choices Australia, [email protected] between particular options. Furthermore, arguments expressed online for one audience may be of inter- est to other (sometimes far-flung) audiences. And it can be difficult to re-find the crucial turning points of an argumentative discussion in which we have partic- Abstract. Argumentation represents the study of views and ipated. Yet on the Web, we cannot subscribe to argu- opinions expressed by humans with the goal of reaching a ments or issues, nor can we search for them. Nor can conclusion through logical reasoning. Beginning with the we summarize the rationale behind a group’s decision, 1950’s, several models were proposed to capture the essence even when the discussion took place entirely in public of informal argumentation in different settings. With the venues such as mailing lists, blogs, IRC channels, and emergence of the Web, and then the Semantic Web, this Web forums. modeling shifted towards ontologies, while from the de- velopment perspective, we witnessed an important increase By providing common languages and principles to in Web 2.0 human-centered collaborative deliberation tools. model and query information on the Web (such as Through a review of more than 150 scholarly papers, this ar- RDF [6], RDFS [7], OWL [8], SPARQL [9], Linked ticle provides a comprehensive and comparative overview of Data principles [10], etc.), the Semantic Web [11] is the argumentation domain for the Social Semantic Web. We an appropriate means to represent arguments and ar- start from theoretical foundational models and investigate gumentation uniformly on the Web, and to enable, for how they have influenced Social Web tools. We also look into instance, browsing distributed argumentation patterns Semantic Web argumentation models. Finally we end with that appear in various places on the Web. Indeed, re- Social Web tools for argumentation, including online appli- searchers have shown that the Semantic Web can be cations combining Web 2.0 and Semantic Web technologies, used for visualization and comparison in decision ra- following the path to a global World Wide Argument Web. tionale [12]. Keywords: Argumentation, Semantic Web, Social Web, Se- In this context, this paper discusses argumentation mantic Web, Ontologies in relation to the Social Semantic Web [13,14,15], fo- cusing on foundational models of argumentation, their applications in the Social Web, and on ontologies (as 1. Introduction in Computer Science [16]). In particular, our purpose is to investigate ontolo- In recent years, large-scale argumentation on the gies and tools which may be useful for argumentation Web has attracted the attention of scholars from fields on the Social Semantic Web, a field where the afore- such as artificial intelligence [1], communication the- mentioned Semantic Web technologies support Social ory [2], business management [3] and e-government Web [17] applications, while at the same time Social [4]. At the same time, argumentation researchers be- Web paradigms are used to generate Semantic Web gan establishing the foundations for a World Wide Ar- data collaboratively and at large scale. This conver- gument Web (WWAW) as “a large-scale Web of inter- gence aims at providing new and improved ways to 0000-0000/0-1900/$00.00 c 0 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved 2 Schneider et al. / A Review of Argumentation for the Social Semantic Web integrate and discover data, following the vision of we convince ourselves and others of our points of Social Machines provided by Berners-Lee [18], both view. Informal argumentation occurs throughout con- on the Web and in the enterprise [19]. In the context versations, online and off, often in conjunction with of argumentation, this could help to aggregate argu- persuasion or with joint decision-making. Social me- ments from various websites — for instance a discus- dia’s diverse decision-making happens in many online sion starting on Twitter and followed up on a mailing discussion fora such as standardization bodies’ list- list, later frozen on a wiki once consensus is reached servs, Wikipedia editors’ wiki pages, and open source — providing new means to follow argumentative dis- communities’ IRC channels, bug reports, and listservs. cussions on the Web. This would enable an argument- Even logically sound decisions may involve choices centric view of the Web. based on values and preference judgements: people Moreover, the Social Web does not yet have widely- may agree on the facts of a situation yet disagree on used argumentative ontologies, though this problem the preferred outcome or decision to be taken. That is has been noted [20], along with the need for federation vitally different from disagreeing on the facts of a sit- infrastructures [21]. Thus, in order to identify how dif- uation (in which case more information is called for). ferent argumentation models and tools can be used for the Social Semantic Web, this paper offers a review of more than 150 research papers on the topic, from 1945 to 2011, from which we compare: – 13 theoretical models of argumentation – 14 Semantic Web models for argumentation (i.e. ontologies) – 37 tools for representing argumentation on the Web. Fig. 1. Common argument patterns, from [23]. As the focus is on human-centered argumentation [22], with the goal of improving access and visualiza- There are a variety of common argument structures tion, this article will briefly mention, but not analyze, [23]. A single premise may directly support a conclu- the agent-based argumentation domain. sion (as in Figure 1(i)), but more commonly, they are Following the introduction, we provide brief overviews combined to come to a conclusion. Premises and con- of argumentation (Section 2.1) and of the Social Web clusions may also be chained (as in Figure 1(iv)). (Section 2.2), then discuss requirements for support- ing argumentation on the Social Semantic Web (Sec- 2.2. Social Semantic Web tion 3). We next present theoretical models of argu- mentation (Section 4) from a variety of fields, compare The interaction of users around the Web has been them (Section 5), and present applications of these the- shifting from individual siloed Web systems, towards oretical models (Section 6). Subsequently we present more open and interlinked social applications1. In dis- (Section 7) and compare (Section 8) Semantic Web cussion environments, such interlinkage is particu- models of argumentation. Then we move on to review- larly important: the same community may discuss top- ing tools: in Section 9 we highlight thirteen notewor- ics across multiple sites, and use multiple types of thy features of Social Web argumentation tools, based sites, such as blogs and microblogs, discussion forums, on a comprehensive analysis of thirty-seven relevant and wikis. Crosslinking the discussions of these sys- tools (see the Appendix for full details). Finally we tems is a first step, which has been taken by SIOC conclude the paper in Section 10. – Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities [24]. Yet the internal structure of these discussions – such 2. Background as whether the participants agree or disagree, are con- tributing diverse ideas, or debating in circles – is still 2.1. Argumentation not represented in SIOC. Capturing such underlying Argumentation is the study of agreement, disagree- 1http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/ ment, and of the dialogues and writing through which what-is-web-20.html Schneider et al. / A Review of Argumentation for the Social Semantic Web 3 arguments would be valuable, and research is begin- ception, refinement, and pronomial anaphora and call ning to address this for instance by identifying argu- for a modular architecture “where different relation- ment schemes used in Amazon reviews [25] and by ships or debate components may be added systemati- modeling the speech acts in Twitter conversations [26]. cally” [27]. Yet infrastructure for argumentation on the Social Se- mantic Web is still needed. 3.1. Example Applications & Requirements We envision two main approaches to argumentation 3. Requirements on the Social Semantic Web: 1. Focusing on the real-time, dialogical nature of What are the requirements for supporting argu- the Social Web, i.e. by soliciting arguments from mentation on the Social Semantic Web? Arguments humans through conversation and real-time ex- must be identified, resolved, represented and stored, change. queried, and presented to users. Identification involves 2. Focusing on the Social Web as a source of ar- mining arguments, in the form of claims, from text tifacts, i.e. by using existing natural language (Section 6.11.2, page 15), eliciting them from users, conversations and reconfiguring the traces and or some combination of these approaches. Resolving archives of these conversations. involves indicating the relationships between the indi- vidual claims that make up arguments: are they on the Examples of the first case would be a chatbot or same topic? Do they agree or disagree? Representing an interactive webform; these could help populate a and Storing arguments uses a suitable ontology to rep- knowledge base or enable argumentative interaction resent claims and the relationships between them. This between humans and intelligent agents. Examples of supports Querying and enables Presenting the Social the second case would be summaries or interactive Semantic Argument Web, i.e. using these ontologies conversation browsers; a discussion summary could to facilitate access to conversations, summarizing the highlight the agreement and disagreement about a contentious and agreed-upon points of a discussion.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Impact of Guided Practice in Argument Analysis And
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations Summer 2020 The Impact of Guided Practice in Argument Analysis and Composition via Computer-Assisted Argument Mapping Software on Students’ Ability to Analyze and Compose Evidence-Based Arguments Donna Lorain Grant Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons Recommended Citation Grant, D. L.(2020). The Impact of Guided Practice in Argument Analysis and Composition via Computer- Assisted Argument Mapping Software on Students’ Ability to Analyze and Compose Evidence-Based Arguments. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/6079 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE IMPACT OF GUIDED PRACTICE IN ARGUMENT ANALYSIS AND COMPOSITION VIA COMPUTER -ASSISTED ARGUMENT MAPPING SOFTWARE ON STUDENTS’ ABILITY TO ANALYZE AND COMPOSE EVIDENCE -BASED ARGUMENTS by Donna Lorain Grant Bachelor of Arts University of South Carolina—Upstate, 2000 Master of Education Converse College, 2007 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Education in Curriculum and Instruction College of Education University of South Carolina 2020 Accepted by: Rhonda Jeffries , Major Professor Yasha Becton, Committee Member Leigh D’Amico, Committee Member Kamania Wynter-Hoyte, Committee Member Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School © Copyright by Donna Lorain Grant, 2020 All Rights Reserved. ii DEDICATION To my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ who made me for a purpose and graced me with the ability to fulfill it To my father, Donald B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential of Argument Mapping As a Tool for Teaching Critical Thinking in Secondary School
    Linköping University | Department of Computer and Information Science Master thesis, 30 ECTS | Cognitive Science 2018 | LIU-IDA/KOGVET-A--18/002--SE The Potential of Argument Mapping as a Tool for Teaching Critical Thinking in Secondary School Potentialen av argument mapping som ett verktyg för att undervisa kritiskt tänkande i högstadiet Tim Lidåker Supervisor : Annika Silvervarg Examiner : Arne Jönsson Linköpings universitet SE–581 83 Linköping +46 13 28 10 00 , www.liu.se Copyright The publishers will keep this document online on the Internet – or its possible replacement – for a period of 25 years starting from the date of publication barring exceptional circum- stances. The online availability of the document implies permanent permission for anyone to read, to download, or to print out single copies for his/hers own use and to use it unchanged for non-commercial research and educational purpose. Subsequent transfers of copyright cannot revoke this permission. All other uses of the document are conditional upon the con- sent of the copyright owner. The publisher has taken technical and administrative measures to assure authenticity, security and accessibility. According to intellectual property law the author has the right to be mentioned when his/her work is accessed as described above and to be protected against infringement. For additional information about the Linköping Uni- versity Electronic Press and its procedures for publication and for assurance of document integrity, please refer to its www home page: http://www.ep.liu.se/. Upphovsrätt Detta dokument hålls tillgängligt på Internet – eller dess framtida ersättare – under 25 år från publiceringsdatum under förutsättning att inga extraordinära omständigheter uppstår.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Structure of Debate
    Mapping the Structure of Debate JEFFREY YOSHIMI University a/California, Merced Abstract:Although debate is a richly struc­ Resume: Bien que Ie debat soit un type de tured and prevalent form of discourse, it has discours repandu et structurellement riche, il received little scholarly attention. Logicians a refYu peu d' attention savante. Les logiciens have focused on the structure of individual ont mis au point la microstructure arguments-how they divide into premises d'arguments particuliers: ils ont distingue les and conclusions, which in turn divide into premisses des conclusions et ensuite ont various constituents. In contrast, I focus on identifie divers elements qui constituent les the structure of sets of arguments, showing premisses et les conclusions. Par contraste how arguments are themselves constituents avec cette approche, je mets au point la in high-level dialectical structures. I represent macrostructure d'ensemble d'arguments et debates and positions by graphs whose ver­ demontre comment les arguments sont eux­ tices correspond to arguments and whose memes des elements composant des edges correspond to two inter-argument re­ structures dialectiques. l' emploie des lations: "dispute" and "support," respec­ graphiques pour representer les debats, les tively. On this basis I develop a theory of positions dans ceux-ci, les desaccords et the structure of debate. I'appui. Je developpe une theorie de debat a partir de ces representations. Keywords: debate, argumentation analysis, argument diagrams, argument visualization, dialectics, discourse analysis. 1. Introduction From 1992 to 1997, I took part in a project mapping out the artificial intelligence debate (Hom, Yoshimi, Deering, & McBride, 1998).1 It was a daunting effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Research Tools
    Online Research Tools A White Paper Alphabetical URL DataSet Link Compilation By Marcus P. Zillman, M.S., A.M.H.A. Executive Director – Virtual Private Library [email protected] Online Research Tools is a white paper link compilation of various online tools that will aid your research and searching of the Internet. These tools come in all types and descriptions and many are web applications without the need to download software to your computer. This white paper link compilation is constantly updated and is available online in the Research Tools section of the Virtual Private Library’s Subject Tracer™ Information Blog: http://www.ResearchResources.info/ If you know of other online research tools both free and fee based feel free to contact me so I may place them in this ongoing work as the goal is to make research and searching more efficient and productive both for the professional as well as the lay person. Figure 1: Research Resources – Online Research Tools 1 Online Research Tools – A White Paper Alpabetical URL DataSet Link Compilation [Updated: August 26, 2013] http://www.OnlineResearchTools.info/ [email protected] eVoice: 800-858-1462 © 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 Marcus P. Zillman, M.S., A.M.H.A. Online Research Tools: 12VPN - Unblock Websites and Improve Privacy http://12vpn.com/ 123Do – Simple Task Queues To Help Your Work Flow http://iqdo.com/ 15Five - Know the Pulse of Your Company http://www.15five.com/ 1000 Genomes - A Deep Catalog of Human Genetic Variation http://www.1000genomes.org/
    [Show full text]
  • Using Argumentation Schemes to Find Motives and Intentions of a Rational
    Argument & Computation 10 (2019) 233–275 233 DOI 10.3233/AAC-190480 IOS Press Using argumentation schemes to find motives and intentions of a rational agent Douglas Walton † Centre for Research on Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada Abstract. Because motives and intentions are internal, and not directly observable by another agent, it has always been a problem to find a pathway of reasoning linking them to externally observable evidence. This paper proposes an argumentation- based method that one can use to support or attack hypotheses about the motives or intentions of an intelligent autonomous agent based on verifiable evidence. The method is based on a dialectical argumentation approach along with a commitment-based theory of mind. It is implemented using the Carneades Argumentation System, which already has 106 programmed schemes available to it and has an argument search tool. The method uses schemes, notably ones for abductive reasoning, argument from action to intention, argument from action to motive, and some new ones. Keywords: Multiagent systems, evidential reasoning in law, finding intentions, artificial intelligence 1. Introduction Research on intention recognition carried out in computer science for over thirty years has addressed the problem of identifying the intentions of an intelligent autonomous agent based on evidence from the agent’s environment, including its known actions. As shown in Section 2, some researchers in this area have devised computational systems that use abductive reasoning to support evidence-based conjectures about an automated agent’s intentions. A comparable problem in the study of intelligent autonomous agents arises for goals and motives.
    [Show full text]
  • Concept Mapping, Mind Mapping and Argument Mapping: What Are the Differences and Do They Matter?
    Concept Mapping, Mind Mapping and Argument Mapping: What are the Differences and Do They Matter? W. Martin Davies The University of Melbourne, Australia [email protected] Abstract: In recent years, academics and educators have begun to use software mapping tools for a number of education-related purposes. Typically, the tools are used to help impart critical and analytical skills to students, to enable students to see relationships between concepts, and also as a method of assessment. The common feature of all these tools is the use of diagrammatic relationships of various kinds in preference to written or verbal descriptions. Pictures and structured diagrams are thought to be more comprehensible than just words, and a clearer way to illustrate understanding of complex topics. Variants of these tools are available under different names: “concept mapping”, “mind mapping” and “argument mapping”. Sometimes these terms are used synonymously. However, as this paper will demonstrate, there are clear differences in each of these mapping tools. This paper offers an outline of the various types of tool available and their advantages and disadvantages. It argues that the choice of mapping tool largely depends on the purpose or aim for which the tool is used and that the tools may well be converging to offer educators as yet unrealised and potentially complementary functions. Keywords: Concept mapping, mind mapping, computer-aided argument mapping, critical thinking, argument, inference-making, knowledge mapping. 1. INTRODUCTION The era of computer-aided mapping tools is well and truly here. In the past five to ten years, a variety of software packages have been developed that enable the visual display of information, concepts and relations between ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking
    Teaching Philosophy, 27:2, June 2004 95 Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking CHARLES TWARDY Monash University I’ve been skeptical about claims for various approaches to teaching critical thinking, including those for argument maps coming from nearby University of Melbourne. Indeed, confident in our skepticism, we at Monash Philosophy accepted a challenge to compare our meth- ods with theirs on pre- and post-test gains on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) developed by Peter Facione (1990, 1992). The Monash students did a bit better than theirs on the pre-test, raising our hopes. But when Melbourne University’s post-test results showed far higher performance gains, I thought their method worth a closer look. In short, I think computer-based argument mapping is the key to Melbourne’s success, and that it should feature centrally in any critical thinking course. In fact, it is useful quite beyond critical thinking courses. I will describe the method, my experiences with it, and the results. Introduction Being soundly trounced on improvement scores only convinced us that something over there was working. I thought the approach was fine, and argument maps were certainly helpful, but suspected that most of the gains were due to founder effect: the Melbourne teacher (Tim van Gelder) developed the Reason! approach to critical thinking, the Reason!Able software,1 and the course materials used at Melbourne. In addition, he had been the sole teacher since they adopted this ap- proach, so it was very likely that a lot of the result was because of his founder’s enthusiasm, a well-known effect in education.
    [Show full text]
  • Step by Step Argument Map in Learning Environments: an Example of the Subject of Lenses1
    Online Science Education Journal, 2018; 3(2): 15-25. Online Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 2018; 3(2): 15-25. Step by Step Argument Map in Learning Environments: An Example of the Subject of Lenses1 Büşra Nur ÇAKAN AKKAŞ, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, Kastamonu University, Turkey, [email protected] Elif SÖNMEZ, Department of Primary Education, Kastamonu University, Turkey, [email protected] Esra KABATAŞ MEMİŞ, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Kastamonu University, Turkey, [email protected] To refer to this article Çakan Akkaş, B. N., Sönmez E., & Kabataş Memiş, E. (2018). Step by step argument map in learning environments: An example of the subject of lenses. Online Science Education Journal, 3(2): 15-25. ABSTRACT Argument is defined as a whole of claim that have presumptive relationships with each other. Argument map, on the other hand, is used in visually presenting arguments that have a presumptive structure with the help of graphical techniques. Argument maps help individuals to visualize and evaluate reasoning processes. In learning environments, argument mapping helps to establish connections between the data and think at a higher level. The purpose of the study is to enable preservice science teachers to create individual and interactive argument maps using the RationaleTM program within the scope of the subject of lenses. Argument mapping process was realized on the basis of “RationaleTM”, which is an online computer program. The aforementioned program allows us to examine argument maps that are taught in the subtopic of “Lenses” in the subject of “Optic” at higher education level. Also, discussions were made concerning how to use argument mapping in learning environments and examples of relevant argument maps were presented within the scope of the study.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Guide to Argument Mapping
    A Brief Guide to Argument Mapping Shamik Dasgupta January 15, 2018 1. Introduction We all have opinions and views. Sometimes we support our views with arguments. By an argument I mean a reason to believe the view in question. Argument maps are visual representations of these arguments. Suppose you believe that it’s wrong to eat meat, and you support your view with the following speech: “Look, it’s wrong to eat meat. Why? Because eating meat causes animal pain, and it’s wrong to cause animal pain.” Congratulations, you just gave an argument! We can represent the argument visually as follows: Map 1: The claim at the top, “It’s wrong to eat meat”, is called the contention. It’s the claim that the argument tries to support. The other claims, 1A-a and 1A-b, are called premises. They’re the reasons offered in support of the contention; they’re the reason to believe the contention. The green line represents this idea that 1A-a and 1A-b support the contention. The line can be read as “because” or “therefore”, depending on whether you’re reading the argument map top-down or bottom up: Top-down: It’s wrong to eat meat because eating meat causes animal pain and it’s wrong to cause animal pain. Bottom-up: Eating meat causes animal pain and it’s wrong to cause animal pain. Therefore, it’s wrong to eat meat. That’s the basic idea: every argument map consists of a contention, some premises, and lines of support. Constructing argument maps is an extremely valuable skill.
    [Show full text]
  • Argument Visualization for Eparticipation: Towards a Research Agenda and Prototype Tool
    Argument Visualization for eParticipation: Towards a Research Agenda and Prototype Tool Neil Benn1 Ann Macintosh1 1Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK {N.J.L.Benn, A.Macintosh}@leeds.ac.uk Abstract. This paper describes research that aims to develop an argument visualization tool and associated method for supporting eParticipation and online deliberation. Based on the state-of-the- art in the field of computer-supported argument visualization, the tool will support the work of relevant eParticipation actors by enabling them to navigate through arguments contained in relevant consultation and policy documents. This tool will form the core of our investigation into the mediating role that large, Web-based argument maps can play in eParticipation scenarios. In particular, we intend to investigate the method and practice of how various eParticipation actors use the tool in the policy-making process. To this end, this paper sets out a clear research agenda for research at the intersection of eParticipation and computer-supported argument visualization. Keywords: Argument visualization, technologies for eParticipation, online deliberation 1 Introduction This paper describes research and development on an argument visualization tool (AVT) for supporting eParticipation and online deliberation. The AVT is part of a larger suite of tools being developed within the EU-funded IMPACT project. The project began January 1, 2010 and will run for three years. The aims of the IMPACT project include addressing the four overarching problems outlined in [1], namely: 1. How can the various actors determine the relationships between contributions to policy development, whether taken from expert papers, consultations or public forum discourse, and appreciate how these contributions are taken through to decisions? 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Argument Mapping at Work Some Questions Answered
    Argument Mapping at Work Some questions answered Inside: • What is Argument Mapping? • How does Argument Mapping differ from other kinds of mapping? • Why would I map? • When would I use Argument Mapping? • How would I use Argument Mapping? • Sample maps © Critical Thinking Skills BV Govert Flinckstraat 59, 1072 EC Amsterdam The Netherlands. Phone + 31 085 8771268 [email protected] www.ReasoningLab.com , www.RationaleOnline.com What is Argument Mapping? Argument mapping is a way of laying out visually reasoning and evidence for and against a statement or claim. A good map clarifies and organizes thinking by showing the logical relationships between thoughts that are expressed simply and precisely. Argument maps are driven by the question, ‘ Why should I believe that? ’. The statement in the top box is the contention under consideration. The top level of boxes underneath the contention are the reasons for (green) and against (red) it. The lower levels show further reasoning or evidence supporting or opposing claims immediately above. You can produce two kinds of argument maps in Rationale TM : 1. Reasoning maps, which lay out arguments in a quick, intuitive way 2. Analytic maps, which enable a more careful and rigorous analysis of an argument. You can see some samples of each type at the end of this booklet. How does Argument Mapping differ from other kinds of mapping? Different kinds of map are defined by the nature of the relationships they depict – what the boxes and lines mean. What kind of map something is depends on: • what goes in the boxes; and • what the connecting lines indicate.
    [Show full text]
  • Concept Mapping, Mind Mapping and Argument Mapping: What Are the Differences and Do They Matter?
    High Educ (2011) 62:279–301 DOI 10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6 Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? Martin Davies Published online: 27 November 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 Abstract In recent years, academics and educators have begun to use software map- ping tools for a number of education-related purposes. Typically, the tools are used to help impart critical and analytical skills to students, to enable students to see rela- tionships between concepts, and also as a method of assessment. The common feature of all these tools is the use of diagrammatic relationships of various kinds in preference to written or verbal descriptions. Pictures and structured diagrams are thought to be more comprehensible than just words, and a clearer way to illustrate understanding of complex topics. Variants of these tools are available under different names: ‘‘concept mapping’’, ‘‘mind mapping’’ and ‘‘argument mapping’’. Sometimes these terms are used synonymously. However, as this paper will demonstrate, there are clear differences in each of these mapping tools. This paper offers an outline of the various types of tool available and their advantages and disadvantages. It argues that the choice of mapping tool largely depends on the purpose or aim for which the tool is used and that the tools may well be converging to offer educators as yet unrealised and potentially comple- mentary functions. Keywords Concept mapping Á Mind mapping Á Computer-aided argument mapping Á Critical thinking Á Argument Á Inference-making Á Knowledge mapping Introduction In the past 5–10 years, a variety of software packages have been developed that enable the visual display of information, concepts and relations between ideas.
    [Show full text]