Design Requirements of Argument Mapping Software for Teaching Deliberation

Matthew Easterday
Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon

*Jordan Kanarek
Verizon Laboratories

*Maralee Harrell
Philosophy Department, Carnegie Mellon University

     Full text: Login to access
     Last modified: May 9, 2005

Abstract
Deliberation requires people to consider arguments about policies and causal phenomena. Most of us, however, lack even basic argument skills such as the ability to generate alternatives to our own beliefs or the ability to use evidence to judge arguments (Kuhn 1991). In fact, surprisingly few people even acknowledge that arguments can be judged on the basis of evidence, more typically insisting that either no plausible alternative exists (absolutism) or that if other alternatives are possible, neither position can be shown to be superior (relativism).

In this demo, we will review some of the recent work at CMU’s philosophy and HCI departments that supports the claim that reasoning skills can be improved by teaching students to use argument maps (Harrell 2004). We will demonstrate the software we have created and used to teach argument mapping, and discuss the set of design and usability features lacking in other applications such as Reasonable, Argutect, Illustrator, Omnigraffle, etc, but that are essential to effective argument mapping software. These features include:

1. the ability to add reasons and objections in any order
2. a directly manipulable graphical representation of the argument
3. automation of time-consuming tasks that are not semantically meaningful such as redrawing of connections between reasons
4. cross-platform compatibility

We will also demonstrate the new version of the software that allows groups of students (or citizens) to collaboratively construct arguments in real time, and our plans for evaluating how well the software improves students ability to use evidence to judge arguments.