Aleven, V. A. 1997. Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....and provide explanations on how each example is relevant for the problem solution. SHERLOCK (Gott, Lesgold, Kane, 1996) 4 provides expert solutions to troubleshooting problems, and helps students compare these solutions with their own solutions at the end of each problem solving task. CATO (Aleven Ashley, 1997) helps students building legal arguments by generating relevant example cases and by reifying the connection between the content of the cases and their use in the arguments. Besides using examples in a different instructional situation, none of these systems tries to encourage students to view the ....

Aleven, V., & Ashley, K. D. (1997). Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples: Empirical evalution of an intelligent learning environment. Paper presented at the Artificial Intelligence in Education, Kobe, japan.

....new skill. Thus, substantial research in the field of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) has been devoted to understand how to use examples to enhance learning. Most of this research has focused on how to select examples that can help a student during problem solving [e.g. Burrow and Weber 1996; Aleven and Ashley 1997] In this paper, we focus on how to describe an example solution so that a student can learn the most by studying it previous to problem solving. In particular, we address the issue of how to vary the level of detail of the presented example solution, so that the same example can be equally ....

Aleven, V. and K. Ashley. Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples: empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment. AIED'99, Kobe, Japan, August 1997.

....is negated, but not the observed symptoms. Relying only on the presence of not is not sufficient, one has to take the scope of the clause into account. For example, a typical sentence, which with minor variations can be found in a number of legal cases in the Case Database of our CATO program (Aleven 1997), is The information was unique and not generally known in the industry. This sentence is evidence for CATO s CBR indexing concept F15, Unique Product, because the information was not generally known. If everything in the sentence remained identical, and only the word not were moved in front ....

....a case are not concrete facts, like the names, locations or numbers typically extracted by an IE system, and the CBR task is more complex than retrieving text cases. Instead, these CBR systems reason with more abstract fact patterns or relevant lessons contained in a case. One such system is CATO (Aleven 1997), an intelligent tutoring environment for teaching skills of making arguments with cases to beginning law students. In the core of CATO is an expert model of case based argumentation. The system has a collection of about 150 cases from the domain of trade secret misappropriation. These cases are ....

Aleven, V. 1997. Teaching Case-Based Argumentation through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

....Prakken soning. However, systematic studies were and still are sparse, which justi es Berman Hafner s challenge. Since 1993, however, new developments have opened the prospects for progress. For instance, HYPO s architecture has been extended into the CATO system (Aleven and Ashley, 1997; Aleven, 1997), which represents knowledge about the relations of relevant factors in a factor hierarchy , and which is able to generate arguments on the relevance of factors in terms of more abstract factors. And advocates of logical methods have attempted to capture aspects of case based legal reasoning with ....

Aleven, V.: 1997, Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. PhD Dissertation University of Pittsburgh.

....to support students as they solve problems, not as a specific learning phase prior to and complementary to problem solving. These systems present students with relevant examples as they are solving problems and help students understand the connection between the example and the problems [12] 7] [1]. However, none of these systems monitor how students study and understand the presented examples. Moreover, the systems themselves, rather than the students, generate explanations to help the students understand the examples. The Geometry Tutor [2] explicitly encourages students to explain the ....

Aleven, V., & Ashley, K. D. (1997). Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples: Empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment. In Proc. of AIED `97, 8 th World Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Education, Kobe, Japan.

....cases that are likely to be important in the analysis of new cases, 2) whether SIROCCO s temporal knowledge contributes to the accuracy of its predictions. This work extends interpretive CBR techniques (Kolodner 1993) from the legal domain (Ashley, 1990; Branting, 1991; Rissland et al. 1996; Aleven, 1997) to a new domain. Arguments in practical ethics are more freeform in style and structure than legal arguments. Ethics cases do not have binary outcomes (e.g. plaintiff wins or loses) but may require creative middle way solutions (Harris et al. 1999, p. 64 72) SIROCCO contributes a detailed, ....

Aleven, V.A. 1997. Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. Diss., U. Pittsburgh.

....does not notify the proper authority [11] B. The Board cited this evidence that conflicts with their conclusion: Code # Status Grouped With Overrides Why Relevant Why Viol. Not Viol. Changed, or Not Appl. III.1, I.4 Not violated III.1. b None Engineer has a client [1] Engineer acts as a faithful agent or trustee . 12] III.4 Not violated None None Engineer obtains confidential information concerning the business affairs . of a former client [2, 3] Engineer does not disclose the confidential information [11] C. The Board cited ....

.... Analyzes = Inspects Node 6 Cost=0.83 76 4 1 Fact 2 = 90 5 1: Empty Node 9 Cost=0.53 76 4 1 Fact 3 = 90 5 1: Fact 9 Discovers That = Knows Node 10 Cost=0.27 76 4 1 Fact 3 = 90 5 1: Fact8 Discovers That = Discovers That Node 11 Cost=0. 93 76 4 1 Fact 3 = 90 5 1: Empty [1] [2] 3] 4] 5] Figure 8: Search Tree for Code III.4 Instantiation The search opens 11 nodes in finding the optimal path represented by [1] through [5] Each node is evaluated in terms of the A cost function, f (n) g(n) h (n) The mismatch cost g(n) is the degree of mismatch at each node up ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Aleven, V.A. 1997. Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples . Ph.D. Diss., U. Pittsburgh .

....in case based legal reasoning all must address this issue. Branting, 1994) for instance, sketches a computational model to bridge the gap between legal theories (similar in some respects to principles) and specific case facts focusing on how to determine a precedent s controlling effect. CATO (Aleven, 1997) employs a Factor Hierarchy that relates specific factors to more abstract factors and ultimately to legal issues. BankXX (Rissland et al., 1996) searches a legal network including legal theories for information benefiting a side in a dispute. In our own earlier work on ethics, we attempted to ....

Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

....from. We argue that adding domain knowledge can help overcome these problems and give illustrating examples. CBR over Textual Cases Case Based Reasoning has been successfully applied in various domains where the cases are available as text documents, e.g. Legal Reasoning and Argumentation (Aleven 1997), Ethical Dilemmas, Medical Applications, Tutoring, or Helpdesk systems. Up to now, the case bases for systems in these domains had to be constructed by hand. This leads to a bottleneck in creating and scaling up CBR systems, since manual indexing often involves inhibitory costs: Candidate cases ....

....words. They usually contain only important information, noisy or irrelevant information is filtered out in the indexing process. Cases can be compared along multiple important dimensions, and partial matches, can be adapted to a problem situation, using domain knowledge contained in the system (Aleven 1997). Thus, approaches based only on shallow statistical inferences over word vectors, are not appropriate or sufficient. Instead, mechanisms for mapping textual cases onto a structured representation are required. In the following sections, we will discuss our legal CBR application, and the problems ....

Aleven, V. 1997. Teaching Case-Based Argumentation through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Intelligent Systems Program.

....reasoning domain tasks. The program takes as inputs the raw texts of legal opinions and assigns as outputs the applicable factors. The program s training instances are drawn from a corpus of legal opinions whose textual descriptions of cases have been represented manually in terms of factors (Aleven 1997; Aleven Ashley 1997; Ashley Aleven 1997) If we are successful, using domain knowledge to guide automatic text classification could integrate information retrieval, machine learning and AI knowledge representation techniques, help scale up case based reasoning systems, and alleviate the ....

....domain tasks. The program takes as inputs the raw texts of legal opinions and assigns as outputs the applicable factors. The program s training instances are drawn from a corpus of legal opinions whose textual descriptions of cases have been represented manually in terms of factors (Aleven 1997; Aleven Ashley 1997; Ashley Aleven 1997) If we are successful, using domain knowledge to guide automatic text classification could integrate information retrieval, machine learning and AI knowledge representation techniques, help scale up case based reasoning systems, and alleviate the problem of assessing the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Aleven, V. 1997. Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

.... is tied to the user s questions in the course of acquiring knowledge, and the index assignment has to be assessed in the context of a model of the student s knowledge) The efficacy of the overall system can be determined by how well the students learn (for the evaluation of tutoring systems, see (Aleven 1997), and is some indication of the quality of the textual CBR in those systems, however, the evidence is only indirect and inconclusive. It is not possible reliably to assess the usefulness of the approach for other purposes or projects. The FallQ project treats help desk reports as cases, and finds ....

Aleven, V. 1997. Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

....reasoning domain tasks. The program takes as inputs the raw texts of legal opinions and assigns as outputs the applicable factors. The program s training instances are drawn from a corpus of legal opinions whose textual descriptions of cases have been represented manually in terms of factors (Aleven 1997; Aleven Ashley 1997; Ashley Aleven 1997) If we are successful, using domain knowledge to guide automatic text classification could integrate information retrieval, machine learning and AI knowledge representation techniques, help scale up case based reasoning systems, and alleviate the ....

....domain tasks. The program takes as inputs the raw texts of legal opinions and assigns as outputs the applicable factors. The program s training instances are drawn from a corpus of legal opinions whose textual descriptions of cases have been represented manually in terms of factors (Aleven 1997; Aleven Ashley 1997; Ashley Aleven 1997) If we are successful, using domain knowledge to guide automatic text classification could integrate information retrieval, machine learning and AI knowledge representation techniques, help scale up case based reasoning systems, and alleviate the problem of assessing the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Aleven, V., and Ashley, K. 1997. Teaching Case-Based Argumentation through a Model and Examples: Empirical Evaluation of an Intelligent Learning Environment. In Proceedings of the World Conferenceon Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 97), 87--94.

No context found.

Aleven, V. A. 1997. Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

No context found.

Aleven, V.A. 1997. Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. Diss., U. Pittsburgh.

No context found.

Aleven, V. & Ashley, K. D. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples: Empirical Evaluation of an Intelligent Learning Environment, Proceedings of AIED-97, 87-94.

No context found.

Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg.

No context found.

Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg.

No context found.

Aleven, V., and K. D. Ashley, 1997a. Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples: Empirical Evaluation of an Intelligent Learning Environment. In Artificial intelligence in Education, Proceedings of AI-ED 97 World Conference, edited by B. du Boulay and R. Mizoguchi, 87-94. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC