Toward Legal Argument Instruction with Graph Grammars and Collaborative Filtering Techniques

This paper presents an approach for intelligent tutoring in the field of legal argumentation. In this approach, students study transcripts of US Supreme Court oral argument and create a graphical representation of argument flow as tests offered by attorneys being challenged by hypotheticals posed by Justices. The proposed system, which is based on the collaborative modeling framework Cool Modes, is capable of detecting three types of weaknesses in arguments; when it does, it presents the student with a self explanation prompt. This kind of feedback seems more appropriate than the “strong connective feedback” typically offered by model-tracing or constraint-based tutors. Structural and context weaknesses in arguments are handled by graph grammars, and the critical problem of detecting and dealing with content weaknesses in student contributions is addressed through a collaborative filtering approach, thereby avoiding the critical problem of natural language processing in legal argumentation. An early version of the system was pilot tested with two students.

[1]  Peter Brusilovsky,et al.  Social Navigation Support Through Annotation-Based Group Modeling , 2005, User Modeling.

[2]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  Dimension-based analysis of hypotheticals from supreme court oral argument , 1988, ICAIL '89.

[3]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Automated Advice-Giving Strategies for Scientific Inquiry , 1996, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[4]  Niels Pinkwart Collaborative modeling in graph based environments , 2005 .

[5]  Andy Schürr,et al.  Defining and Parsing Visual Languages with Layered Graph Grammars , 1997, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[6]  Chris Reed,et al.  Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation , 2004, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[7]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning Processes , 2003 .

[8]  Kristina Höök,et al.  Designing Information Spaces: The Social Navigation Approach , 2003, Computer Supported Cooperative Work.

[9]  S. Toulmin The uses of argument , 1960 .

[10]  Paul Brna,et al.  User Modeling 2005, 10th International Conference, UM 2005, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 24-29, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, User Modeling.

[11]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A Computer Supported Environment for the Teaching of Legal Argument , 1998, Journal of Information, Law and Technology.

[13]  Chad S. Carr Using Computer Supported Argument Visualization to Teach Legal Argumentation , 2003, Visualizing Argumentation.

[14]  Joseph A. Konstan,et al.  Collaborative Filtering: Supporting Social Navigation in Large, Crowded Infospaces , 2003, Designing Information Spaces.

[15]  Kevin D. Ashley Modeling legal argument - reasoning with cases and hypotheticals , 1991, Artificial intelligence and legal reasoning.

[16]  Silke Schworm,et al.  Learning by Solved Example Problems: Instructional Explanations Reduce Self-Explanation Activity , 2002 .

[17]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: A computational model and an intelligent learning environment , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[18]  T. Gelder Argument Mapping with Reason ! Able , 2002 .

[19]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Legal argumentation and evidence , 2002 .