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_3_effects-of-arg-mapping, 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, Rationale does not provide software- controlled training for learning rules 3-5 therefore (ArgScheme: disjunctive syllogism) in Rationale, rules 3-5 can only be learned by a lot of instructor-con- trolled training, the learner is not able to overcome the limitations posed by a Münchhausen Trilemma therefore (ArgScheme: modus tollens) cognitive schemata and strategies that we need to structure reasoning about problems and to sequence problem solution procedures can not be learned by internal and autonomous construction, if Rationale rules 3-5 are less specific than the main AGORA rule 1, then the 5 basic Rationale rules impose more extraneous cog- nitive load than the 6 basic AGORA rules therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) the 5 basic Rationale rules impose more extraneous cog- nitive load than the 6 basic AGORA rules, if it seems to be impossible that the Rationale user can learn the basic Rationale rules 3-5 without additional instruction, and if the AGORA software archi- tecture provides a scaffold by which the user can acquire the 1. main rule of argument construction (which contains Rationale rules 3-5), 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, 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, the 4 rules that the AGORA user has to keep in mind (besides the rule that is 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, cognitive schemata and strategies that we need to structure reasoning about problems and to sequence problem solution procedures need to be learned by external instruction therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) external instruction must either be provided by a lot of instructor-con- trolled training or by a lot of software-controlled training, more on this in Twardy, 2004 comments on A.1 Socrates is mortal (supported by) - Socrates is human - All humans are mortal, the support that the reason or a combination of reasons provide for the claim will be stronger if some basic rules are applied therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) students should apply some basic rules of argument construction, external instruction must either be provided by a lot of instructor-con- trolled training or by a lot of software-controlled training therefore (ArgScheme: disjunctive syllogism) in Rationale, rules 3-5 can only be learned by a lot of instructor-con- trolled training, if it is easier to learn rules of argument construction in AGORA than in Rationale, 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, 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, either the Rationale user has to learn the 6 basic rules in advance before s/he can construct good arguments or the 6 rules can be learned simply by using the software therefore (ArgScheme: disjunctive syllogism) the Rationale user has to learn the 6 basic rules in advance before s/he can construct good arguments, either there is cognitive load on working memory which will be the higher the more rules of argument cons- struction have to be pro- cessed at the same time, or cognitive schemata and strate- gies that are necessary for processing the rules of argument construction are stored and automated in long-term memory therefore (ArgScheme: disjunctive syllogism) during learning to work with Rationale there is cognitive load on working memory which will be the higher the more rules of argument construction have to be processed at the same time, 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, one goal of teaching critical thinking is to enable students to construct good arguments therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) students should learn to realize the 6 basic Rationale rules of argument con- struction, the user will correct his or her input as long as it takes to create an argument that fulfills rules 2-5 therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) using AGORA forms routines of argu- ment construction in the user's long- term memory that realize AGORA rules 2 to 5, in Rationale, the rules of argument construction are not enforced by the software therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) the 6 Rationale rules cannot be learned simply by using the software, 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