CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in EducationOnline Learning and Analytics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

AL: An Adaptive Learning Support System for Argumentation Skills

Wambsganss, Thiemo, Niklaus, Christina, Cetto, Matthias, Söllner, Matthias, Handschuh, Siegfried, Leimeister, Jan Marco·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3313831.3376732
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) bear the opportunity to analyze the argumentation quality of texts. This can be leveraged to provide students with individual and adaptive feedback in their personal learning journey. To test if individual feedback on students' argumentation will help them to write more convincing texts, we developed AL, an adaptive IT tool that provides students with feedback on the argumentation structure of a given text. We compared AL with 54 students to a proven argumentation support tool. We found students using AL wrote more convincing texts with better formal quality of argumentation compared to the ones using the traditional approach. The measured technology acceptance provided promising results to use this tool as a feedback application in different learning settings. The results suggest that learning applications based on NLP may have a beneficial use for developing better writing and reasoning for students in traditional learning settings.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3313831.3376732

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Rob Abbott, Brian Ecker, Pranav Anand, and Marilyn Walker. 2016. Internet Argument Corpus 2.0: An SQL schema for Dialogic Social Media and the Corpora to go with it. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), Nicoletta Calzolari (Conference Chair), Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Sara Goggi, Marko Grobelnik, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Helene Mazo, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk, and Stelios Piperidis (Eds.). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Paris, France.
  2. 10.18653/v1/W17-5112 · DOI
  3. 10.2307/256219 · DOI
  4. 10.1007/s11092-008--9068--5 · DOI
  5. Elena Cabrio and Serena Villata. 2014. Towards a Benchmark of Natural Language Arguments. CoRR abs/1405.0941 (2014). · arXiv
  6. 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), Bente Maegaard Joseph Mariani Jan Odijk Stelios Piperidis Daniel Tapias Nicoletta Calzolari (Conference Chair), Khalid Choukri (Ed.). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Marrakech, Morocco.
  7. 10.1007/BF03177550 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 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. Technical Report. http://www.argunaut.org · DOI
  9. 10.3115/v1/N15-1146 · DOI
  10. 10.1002/(SICI)1098--237X(200005)84: · DOI
  11. 10.18653/v1/D15-1267 · DOI
  12. 10.4324/9780203811306 · DOI
  13. 10.1037/0022--3514.67.3.382 · DOI
  14. 10.1038/scientificamerican1062--93 · DOI
  15. Jürgen Flender, Ursula Christmann, and Norbert Groeben. 1999. Entwicklung und erste Validierung einer Skala zur Erfassung der passiven argumentativ-rhetorischen Kompetenz. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie 20, 4 (9 1999), 309--325. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1024//0170--1789.20.4.309 · DOI
  16. R Flesch. 1943. Marks of readable style; a study in adult education. Teachers College Contributions to Education 897 (1943), ix + 69--ix + 69.
  17. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.037 · DOI
  18. Ivan Habernal and Iryna Gurevych. 2015. Exploiting Debate Portals for Semi-Supervised Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse. Technical Report. 17--21 pages. https://github.com/habernal/emnlp2015 · DOI
  19. 10.1080/10494820.2015.1016533 · DOI
  20. 10.1007/s11423-009--9143--8 · DOI
  21. Barbara Konat, John Lawrence, Joonsuk Park, Katarzyna Budzynska, and Chris Reed. 2016. A Corpus of Argument Networks: Using Graph Properties to Analyse Divisive Issues. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), Nicoletta Calzolari (Conference Chair), Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Sara Goggi, Marko Grobelnik, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Helene Mazo, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk, and Stelios Piperidis (Eds.). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Paris, France.
  22. Klaus Krippendorff. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Methodology. Sage Publications, Inc., Beverly Hills, CA. http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0803914989/ref=wl_it_dp/702-0885532--1303250?ie=UTF8& coliid=I3UJ8HY4GH9OWF&colid=1DVGN4EKR6AVM
  23. 10.1007/s11135-004--8107--7 · DOI
  24. 10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1 · DOI
  25. Katja Lehmann, Matthias Söllner, and Jan Marco Leimeister. 2016. Design and Evaluation of an IT-based Peer Assessment to Increase Learner Performance in Large-Scale Lectures. (12 2016). https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/249309/
  26. 10.1145/2850417 · DOI
  27. Jack Mezirow. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA 94104--1310.
  28. 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. ACM, 21--30.
  29. 10.1007/s11412-007--9025--1 · DOI
  30. OECD. 2018. The Future of Education and Skills Education 2030. (2018). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/2018-06--15
  31. 10.1002/tea.21316 · DOI
  32. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  33. 10.1086/443876 · DOI
  34. Niels Pinkwart Kevin Ashley Collin Lynch and Vincent Aleven. 2009. Evaluating an Intelligent Tutoring System for Making Legal Arguments with Hypotheticals. Technical Report. 401--424 pages. http://iaiedsoc.org/pub/1302/file/19_4_05_Pinkwart.pdf · DOI
  35. 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. Technical Report. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329450233
  36. 10.3115/v1/W15-0508 · DOI
  37. 10.1007/s10648-007--9046--3 · DOI
  38. Oliver Scheuer. 2015. Towards adaptive argumentation learning systems. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298087259
  39. 10.1007/s11412-009--9080-x · DOI
  40. Parinaz Sobhani, Diana Inkpen, and Stan Matwin. 2015. From argumentation mining to stance classification. NAACL HLT 2015 (2015), 67--77.
  41. Elliot Soloway, Mark Guzdial, and Kenneth E Hay. 1994. Learner-Centered Design The Challenge For WC1 In The Xst Century. Interactions (1994), 36--48.
  42. Yi Song Michael Heilman Beata Beigman Klebanov and Paul Deane. 2014. Applying Argumentation Schemes for Essay Scoring. Technical Report. 69--78 pages. http://acl2014.org/acl2014/W14--21/pdf/W14--2110.pdf · DOI
  43. Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. 2014a. Annotating Argument Components and Relations in Persuasive Essays. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers ,. 1501--1510. http://www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de
  44. Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. 2014b. Identifying Argumentative Discourse Structures in Persuasive Essays. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2014)(Oct. 2014), Association for Computational Linguistics. 46--56. www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de
  45. 10.1162/COLI · DOI
  46. Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. 2017b. Recognizing Insufficiently Supported Arguments in Argumentative Essays. Technical Report. 980--990 pages. www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de · DOI
  47. 10.1007/s11251-011--9174--5 · DOI
  48. Pontus Stenetorp, Sampo Pyysalo, and Goran Topi. 2012. BRAT : a Web-based Tool for NLP-Assisted Text Annotation. Figure 1 (2012), 102--107.
  49. Stephen E. Toulmin. 1984. Introduction to Reasoning. · DOI
  50. 10.1111/j.1540--5915.2008.00192.x · DOI
  51. 10.5555/2017197.2017202 · DOI
  52. 10.1007/s12599-018-0544--2 · DOI
  53. 10.17705/1CAIS.03709 · DOI
  54. 10.1007/978-3-642-54903-8_10 · DOI
  55. Marilyn Walker, Jean Fox Tree, Pranav Anand, Rob Abbott, and Joseph King. 2012. A Corpus for Research on Deliberation and Debate. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2012). Istanbul, Turkey, 812--817. ACL Anthology Identifier: L12--1643.
  56. Thiemo Wambsganss and Roman Rietsche. 2019. Towards Designing an Adaptive Argumentation Learning Tool. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2019, 1--9.
  57. 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 112

Metadata

Authors
Wambsganss, T., Niklaus, C., Cetto, M., Söllner, M., Handschuh, S., & Leimeister, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of St.Gallen (CH)
  • University of Kassel (DE)
  • University of Passau (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-04-21
Pages
1-14
DOI
10.1145/3313831.3376732
OpenAlex
W3028947997
Cited by
101
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.86
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Alexandria (UniSG) (University of St.Gallen) (acceptedVersion)
  • Alexandria (UniSG) (University of St.Gallen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
argumentation skills, individual feedback, argumentation structure, argumentative writing, technology acceptance, writing instruction, reasoning skills

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review