@phdthesis{Boehne2019, author = {B{\"o}hne, Sebastian}, title = {Different degrees of formality}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42379}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-423795}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {VI, 167}, year = {2019}, abstract = {In this thesis we introduce the concept of the degree of formality. It is directed against a dualistic point of view, which only distinguishes between formal and informal proofs. This dualistic attitude does not respect the differences between the argumentations classified as informal and it is unproductive because the individual potential of the respective argumentation styles cannot be appreciated and remains untapped. This thesis has two parts. In the first of them we analyse the concept of the degree of formality (including a discussion about the respective benefits for each degree) while in the second we demonstrate its usefulness in three case studies. In the first case study we will repair Haskell B. Curry's view of mathematics, which incidentally is of great importance in the first part of this thesis, in light of the different degrees of formality. In the second case study we delineate how awareness of the different degrees of formality can be used to help students to learn how to prove. Third, we will show how the advantages of proofs of different degrees of formality can be combined by the development of so called tactics having a medium degree of formality. Together the three case studies show that the degrees of formality provide a convincing solution to the problem of untapped potential.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Peldszus2017, author = {Peldszus, Andreas}, title = {Automatic recognition of argumentation structure in short monological texts}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-421441}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {xiv, 252}, year = {2017}, abstract = {The aim of this thesis is to develop approaches to automatically recognise the structure of argumentation in short monological texts. This amounts to identifying the central claim of the text, supporting premises, possible objections, and counter-objections to these objections, and connecting them correspondingly to a structure that adequately describes the argumentation presented in the text. The first step towards such an automatic analysis of the structure of argumentation is to know how to represent it. We systematically review the literature on theories of discourse, as well as on theories of the structure of argumentation against a set of requirements and desiderata, and identify the theory of J. B. Freeman (1991, 2011) as a suitable candidate to represent argumentation structure. Based on this, a scheme is derived that is able to represent complex argumentative structures and can cope with various segmentation issues typically occurring in authentic text. In order to empirically test our scheme for reliability of annotation, we conduct several annotation experiments, the most important of which assesses the agreement in reconstructing argumentation structure. The results show that expert annotators produce very reliable annotations, while the results of non-expert annotators highly depend on their training in and commitment to the task. We then introduce the 'microtext' corpus, a collection of short argumentative texts. We report on the creation, translation, and annotation of it and provide a variety of statistics. It is the first parallel corpus (with a German and English version) annotated with argumentation structure, and -- thanks to the work of our colleagues -- also the first annotated according to multiple theories of (global) discourse structure. The corpus is then used to develop and evaluate approaches to automatically predict argumentation structures in a series of six studies: The first two of them focus on learning local models for different aspects of argumentation structure. In the third study, we develop the main approach proposed in this thesis for predicting globally optimal argumentation structures: the 'evidence graph' model. This model is then systematically compared to other approaches in the fourth study, and achieves state-of-the-art results on the microtext corpus. The remaining two studies aim to demonstrate the versatility and elegance of the proposed approach by predicting argumentation structures of different granularity from text, and finally by using it to translate rhetorical structure representations into argumentation structures.}, language = {en} } @article{BaselHarmsPrechtletal.2014, author = {Basel, Nicolai and Harms, Ute and Prechtl, Helmut and Weiss, Thomas and Rothgangel, Martin}, title = {Students' arguments on the science and religion issue: the example of evolutionary theory and Genesis}, series = {Journal of biological education}, volume = {48}, journal = {Journal of biological education}, number = {4}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0021-9266}, doi = {10.1080/00219266.2013.849286}, pages = {179 -- 187}, year = {2014}, abstract = {Treating creationism as a controversial topic within the science and religion issue in the science classroom has been widely discussed in the recent literature. Some researchers have proposed that this topic is best addressed by focusing on sociocognitive conflict. To prepare new learning opportunities for this approach, it is necessary to know the concrete arguments that students use in their discussions on this issue. Therefore, this study aimed to provide a systematic description of these arguments. For this purpose, upper secondary students (N=43) argued for either the acceptance of evolutionary theory or faith in Genesis in a written speech. The study was conducted during their regular biology and religious education classes. Generated arguments were analysed by qualitative content analysis. Three dimensions of the arguments were described: the content (science or religion), the valuation of the argument (positive or negative), and whether the argument consisted of a descriptive or normative argumentation. The results indicate that students found it easier to generate arguments about the scientific side of the issue; however, these arguments were negatively constructed. The results are discussed with regard to implications for educational approaches for teaching controversial issues at the high-school level.}, language = {en} } @article{BaselHarmsPrechtl2013, author = {Basel, Nicolai and Harms, Ute and Prechtl, Helmut}, title = {Analysis of students' arguments on evolutionary theory}, series = {Journal of biological education}, volume = {47}, journal = {Journal of biological education}, number = {4}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0021-9266}, doi = {10.1080/00219266.2013.799078}, pages = {192 -- 199}, year = {2013}, abstract = {A qualitative exploratory study was conducted to reveal students' argumentation skills in the context of the topic of evolution. Transcripts from problem-centred interviews on secondary students' beliefs about evolutionary processes of adaptation were analysed using a content analysis approach. For this purpose two categorical systems were deductively developed: one addressing the complexity of students' arguments, the other focusing on students' use of argumentation schemes. Subsequently, the categorical systems were inductively elaborated upon the basis of the analysed material showing a satisfactory inter-rater reliability. Regarding the arguments' complexity, students produced mainly single claims or claims with a single justification consisting of either data or warrants. With regard to argumentation schemes students drew their arguments mainly using causal schemes, analogies, or illustrative examples. Results are discussed in light of possible implications for teaching evolutionary theory using classroom argumentation.}, language = {en} }