WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: cognitive-effects-of-arg-mapping-2, if the AGORA software architecture challenges the user to reflect on the acceptability and well-formedness of all those premises that can guaran- tee, in conjunction, the strongest possible argument and motivates the user to revise the argument's structure and formulations as long as it takes to create the best possible argument, and if Rationale does not challenge the user to assess the quality of arguments, then AGORA is more effective in challenging the user to reflect on his or her reasoning than Rationale therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) AGORA is more effective in challenging the user to reflect on his or her reasoning than Rationale, children who can count up to six without any visible reference to external objects can count up to 22 when they count wooden blocks see mastering the count list is an "extremely demanding skill necessary for success on counting tasks." The problem: "Once children identify the string of sounds that are relevant, they have to memorize a long list of words that lacks inherent structure. There is nothing about each of the sounds to indicate which one will follow. Children also need to cope with the information-processing demands involved in a successful output. For example, they have to coordinate the drawing of tags with points and separate counted from to-be-counted items" (Cordes and Gelman 2005, 130), the 5 rules that the AGORA has to keep in mind (besides) the rules that are embedded in the software architecture) are clear enough for comparing the quality of arguments therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) AGORA is more effective in challenging the user to reflect on his or her reasoning than Rationale, Rationale does not provide a criterion to compare the quality of A.1, A.2, and A3 supports since any claim can be supported by more than one combination of reasons that fulfill the Rabbit Rule and the Holding Hands Rule, it should be necessary to compare the quality of the resulting arguments. Rationale, however, does not provide any criteria for such a comparison, if the necessary rules of argument construction can be learned easier and more effectively in AGORA than in Rationale, and if it is easier to learn rules of argu- ment construction in AGORA than in Ratio- nale, then critical thinking can better be learned with AGORA than with Rationale therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) Critical thinking can better be learned with AGORA than with Rationale, the human working memory is "limited in capacity and in duration when dealing with novel information. It can combine, contrast or manipulate no more than four information elements at one time." Although working memory "limitations disappear when dealing with information from long-term memory, where information is organized into higher order units called cognitive schemata, ... the limitations of working memory make it difficult for the learner to assimilate multiple information elements simultaneously" (Schnotz-Kürschner 2007, 474-5) supports when dealing with novel information that contains more than four different elements, the working memory must retrieve cognitive schemata from long-term memory, if in AGORA the rules of argument construction become visible in the output that the software generates automatically based on user input, and if in AGORA there is no need to retrieve the rules of argument con- struction from long-term memory when constructing an argument, then in AGORA cognitive load is off-loaded to the software therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) in AGORA, cognitive load is off-loaded to the software, the human working memory is "limited in capacity and in duration when dealing with novel information that contains more than four different elements therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) when dealing with novel information that contains more than four different elements, the working memory must retrieve cognitive schemata from long-term memory, since any claim can be supported by more than one combination of reasons that fulfill the Rabbit Rule and the Holding Hands Rule, it should be necessary to compare the quality of the resulting arguments. Rationale, however, does not provide any criteria for such a comparison see the two examples in Tutorial 2 for the Rabit Rule and the Holding Hands Rule A.1 Socrates is mortal (supported by) - Socrates is human - All humans are mortal, if AGORA allows only the creation of deductively valid arguments, and if deductively valid arguments allow but one choice: Either accept its conclusion or defeat one of its premises, then the AGORA software architecture challenges the user to reflect on the acceptability and well-formedness of all those premises that can guaran- tee, in conjunction, the strongest possible argument and motivates the user to revise the argument's structure and formulations as long as it takes to create the best possible argument therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) the AGORA software architecture challenges the user to reflect on the acceptability and well-formedness of all those premises that can guaran- tee, in conjunction, the strongest possible argument and motivates the user to revise the argument's structure and formulations as long as it takes to create the best possible argument, The more sophisticated and specific a system is, the less ambiguous its visualiza- tions, but the harder to learn (van Bruggen, Boshuizen, & Kirschner, 2003). supports extraneous cognitive load can be reduced by chosing a system of representation that finds the right balance between sophisti- cation and specificity on the one hand, and the ease by which users can learn how to use it efficiently, A.1 Socrates is mortal (supported by) - Socrates is human - All humans are mortal the Rabbit Rule and the Holding Hands Rule are also fulfilled by the following arguments A.2 Socrates is mortal (supported by) - Socrates's fame guarantees immortality - All fame that guarantees immortality is mortal, the AGORA software architecture challenges the user to reflect on the acceptability and well-formedness of all those premises that can guaran- tee, in conjunction, the strongest possible argument and motivates the user to revise the argument's structure and formulations as long as it takes to create the best possible argument therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) AGORA is more effective in challenging the user to reflect on his or her reasoning than Rationale, if AGORA creates auto- matically an enabler based on user input or provides deductively valid argument schemes for user input which include an enabler, and if an argument’s enabler represents the inferential relation between reasons and claims, then AGORA challenges the arguer to reflect on his or her background assumptions therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) AGORA challenges the arguer to reflect not only on his or her reasons, but also on the inferential relation between reasons and claims, since any claim can be supported by more than one combination of reasons that fulfill the Rabbit Rule and the Holding Hands Rule, it should be necessary to compare the quality of the resulting arguments. Rationale, however, does not provide any criteria for such a comparison see the two examples in Tutorial 2 for the Rabit Rule and the Holding Hands Rule There should be lots of stars in the Apollo pictures (supported by) - If we go out on a clear night and lookup, we see many stars - The Apollo pictures should show what we see when we go out on a clear night and look up, all those argument visualization tools that constrain the freedom of expression less than LAM tools (Rationale focuses on supporting claims by "because" statements and to think about possible ob- jections by "but" statements includes IBIS-based systems like cohere, an argument’s enabler represents the inferential relation between reasons and claims therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) AGORA challenges the arguer to reflect not only on his or her reasons, but also on the inferential relation between reasons and claims, "The other system applies to small-scale forms and allows for recognition and categorization of objects by their shapes" (870). together "Together, the two systems capture all of the fundamental properties of Euclidean geometry: distance, angle, and directional relationships. Together, moreover, they allow for a common description of small-scale objects and of large-scale spatial layouts." (874), the quality of an argument depends on the strength of support that the reason or a combination of reasons provide for the claim based on An argument is defined as a set of statements --one claim and at least one reason--in which the reason or a combination of reasons support the claim, or are at least intended to support the claim, deductively valid arguments allow but one choice: Either accept its conclusion or defeat one of its premises therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) the AGORA software architecture challenges the user to reflect on the acceptability and well-formedness of all those premises that can guaran- tee, in conjunction, the strongest possible argument and motivates the user to revise the argument's structure and formulations as long as it takes to create the best possible argument