Docstoc

Sem1Argumap_20lectureSYD

Document Sample
Sem1Argumap_20lectureSYD Powered By Docstoc
					Mind Mapping, Concept Mapping, Argument Mapping

The University of Melbourne

>

Dr Martin Davies Teaching and Learning Unit

Why Mapping?

The University of Melbourne
• If students can represent a complex set of relationships in a diagram, they are more likely to understand those relationships, remember them, and be able to analyse their component parts. This, in turn, promotes “deep” and not “surface” learning). (Biggs, 1987; Entwistle, 1981; Marton & Saljo, 1976, 1976; Ramsden, 1992). Maps are also much easier to follow than verbal or written descriptions (Larkin & Simon, 1987; Mayer & Gallini, 1990). Being visual information, maps utilise the often under-utilised parts of the brain associated with visual imagery. This enables more processing power to be used, and hence leading to a greater capacity for learning. Moreover, the work involved in map-making requires more active engagement on the part of their learner, and this too leads to greater learning (Twardy, 2004). Evidence from the cognitive sciences shows that visual displays do enhance learning (Vekiri, 2002; Winn, 1991). Maps allow the separate encoding of information in memory in visual and well as propositional form, a phenomenon called “conjoint retention” or “dual coding” (Kulhavy, Lee, & Caterino, 1985; Paivio, 1971, 1983; Schwartz, 1988).

>

• • • •

(Hay, et. al., 2008)

(Hay et. al., 2008)

Mind Mapping

Where has it been used?

The University of Melbourne
Mind mapping has been used in a variety of disciplines, including:
• • • • • • Finance (Biktimirov & Nilson, 2003, 2006) Economics (Nettleship, 1992) Marketing (Eriksson & Hauer, 2004) Executive Education (Mento, Martinelli, & Jones, 1999) Optometry (McClain, 1987) Medicine (Farrand, Hussain, & Hennessy, 2002).

>

Concept Mapping

Where has it been used?

The University of Melbourne
• Concept mapping has been widely used in academic disciplines
– Accounting (Leauby & Brazina, 1998; Mass & Leauby, 2005; van der Lann & Dean, 2007 forthcoming) – Finance (Irvine, Cooper, & Jones, 2005) – Engineering (Walker & King, 2002) – Statistics (Schau & Mattern, 1997) – Reading Comprehension (Mealy & Nist, 1989) – Biology (Kinchin, 2000) – Nursing (Baugh & Mellott, 1998; King & Shell, 2002; Schuster, 2000; Wilkes, Cooper, Lewin, & Batts, 1999) – Medicine (Hoffman, Trott, & Neely, 2002; McGaghie, McCrimmon, Mitchell, Thompson, & Ravitch, 2000; West, Pomeroy, & Park, 2000) – Veterinary Science (Edmonson, 1993)

>

Argument Mapping

Argument Mapping

A majority of people cannot reliably exhibit even the most basic general skills of argument.

Common Practice
The University of Melbourne
Produce and express reasoning Identify and evaluate reasoning

>

Common Practice…
Produce and express reasoning Identify and evaluate reasoning The University of Melbourne >

A because B and C although…

A because …??

Common practice
The University of Melbourne

>

Common Practice…
The University of Melbourne

>

Noughts and Crosses
The University of Melbourne

>

X O

X

4 x 4 Noughts and Crosses
The University of Melbourne

>

Example

The University of Melbourne
• Since the only animals in this house are cats, and no cat fails to kill mice, all animals in this house kill mice. Now, given that none but carnivores kill mice, it‟s clear that all animals in this house are carnivores. Of course, not animals are carnivorous, unless they prowl at night. So, all animals in this house prowl at night.

>

Bad Writing - Worse Arguments The University of Melbourne
• The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power. • Judith Butler, Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at the University of California. For further examples, see: http://www.miami.edu/phi/misc/badwrit3.htm.

>

Pentonville Road runs from east to west, then turns into City Road, which comes to a T-junction where East Road meet Moorgate City Road. Running roughly south from Pentonville Road is first Gray’s Inn Road and then King’s Cross Road, which turns into Farringdon Road after the intersection with Clerkenwell Road. Where Pentonville Road turns into City Road, St. John’s Street runs south. As you go along City Road, you come to Goswell Road (which turns into Aldersgate Street) and Bunhill Row running south. As you go down Gray’s Inn Road, the first intersection is with Guildford Street, which continues to a T-junction with King’s Cross Road. The next intersection, as you continue down Gray’s The University Road, though you could Inn Road, is with Theobald’s Rd, which at that point turns into Clerkenwellof Melbourne veer of NE along Rosebery Avenue which crosses King’s Cross Road before it joins St. John’s Street near the junction of Pentonville Road and City road. Gray’s Inn Road terminates at High Holborn, a major E-W road which, as you go east, turns into Newgate Street and then Cheapside. St. Paul’s Cathedral is between Newgate Street and Fleet Street, which runs roughly parallel to Newgate. Southhampton Row goes south intersecting with Guildford Street, Theobald’s Road and High Holborn, where it becomes Kingsway, which continues south to a T-junction with the curve of Aldwych, which begins and ends on Fleet Street. From Roseberry Road you can head east along Lever Street, which crosses St. John’s Street and Goswell Road before finishing at Bunhill Row where it meets City Road. Heading south down St. John’s Road, you cross Lever Street and then Clerkenwell Road. Goswell Road also crosses Lever Street and Clerkenwell Road (which at that point becomes Old Street). Goswell Road becomes Aldersgate Street. Hatton Garden goes between Clerkenwell Road and High Holborn. Streets running south from High Holborn are Kingsway, Chancery Lane and Farringdon Road. Chancery Lane is a short street finishing at Fleet Street. Fleet Street ends at a large intersection just east of St. Paul’s. Aldersgate Street continues past London Museum (which is at the corner of Alsdersgate and London Wall) down to Newgate Street. Beech Street runs E from Aldersgate, turning into Chiswell Street before it meets City Road. East Road runs south, past the intersection of City Road, over Old Street and London Wall, where it becomes Moorgate Street.

>

Pentonville Road runs from east to west, then turns into City Road, which comes to a T-junction where East Road meet Moorgate City Road. Running roughly south from Pentonville Road is first Gray’s Inn Road and then King’s Cross Road, which turns into Farringdon Road after the intersection with Clerkenwell Road. Where Pentonville Road turns into City Road, St. John’s Street runs south. As you go along City Road, you come to Goswell Road (which turns into Aldersgate Street) and Bunhill Row running south. As you go down Gray’s Inn Road, the first intersection is with Guildford Street, which continues to a T-junction with King’s Cross Road. The next intersection, as you continue down Gray’s The University Road, though you could Inn Road, is with Theobald’s Rd, which at that point turns into Clerkenwellof Melbourne veer of NE along Rosebery Avenue which crosses King’s Cross Road before it joins St. John’s Street near the junction of Pentonville Road and City road. Gray’s Inn Road terminates at High Holborn, a major E-W road which, as you go east, turns into Newgate Street and then Cheapside. St. Paul’s Cathedral is between Newgate Street and Fleet Street, which runs roughly parallel to Newgate. Southhampton Row goes south intersecting with Guildford Street, Theobald’s Road and High Holborn, where it becomes Kingsway, which continues south to a T-junction with the curve of Aldwych, which begins and ends on Fleet Street. From Roseberry Road you can head east along Lever Street, which crosses St. John’s Street and Goswell Road before finishing at Bunhill Row where it meets City Road. Heading south down St. John’s Road, you cross Lever Street and then Clerkenwell Road. Goswell Road also crosses Lever Street and Clerkenwell Road (which at that point becomes Old Street). Goswell Road becomes Aldersgate Street. Hatton Garden goes between Clerkenwell Road and High Holborn. Streets running south from High Holborn are Kingsway, Chancery Lane and Farringdon Road. Chancery Lane is a short street finishing at Fleet Street. Fleet Street ends at a large intersection just east of St. Paul’s. Aldersgate Street continues past London Museum (which is at the corner of Alsdersgate and London Wall) down to Newgate Street. Beech Street runs E from Aldersgate, turning into Chiswell Street before it meets City Road. East Road runs south, past the intersection of City Road, over Old Street and London Wall, where it becomes Moorgate Street.

>

The University of Melbourne

>

Coalition of the willing? Make that war criminals
February 26 2003 The initiation of a war against Iraq by the self-styled "coalition of the willing" would be a fundamental violation of international law. International law recognises two bases for the use of force. The first, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allows force to be used in self-defence. The attack must be actual or imminent. The second basis is when the UN Security Council authorises the use of force as a collective response to the use or threat of force. However, the Security Council is bound by the terms of the UN Charter and can authorise the use of force only if there is evidence that there is an actual threat to the peace (in this case, by Iraq) and that this threat cannot be averted by any means short of force (such as negotiation and further weapons inspections). Members of the "coalition of the willing", including Australia, have not yet presented any persuasive arguments that an invasion of Iraq can be justified at international law. The United States has proposed a doctrine of "pre-emptive self-defence" that would allow a country to use force against another country it suspects may attack it at some stage. This doctrine contradicts the cardinal principle of the modern international legal order and the primary rationale for the founding of the UN after World War II - the prohibition of the unilateral use of force to settle disputes. The weak and ambiguous evidence presented to the international community by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to justify a pre-emptive strike underlines the practical danger of a doctrine of pre-emption. A principle of pre-emption would allow particular national agendas to completely destroy the system of collective security contained in Chapter Seven of the UN Charter and return us to the pre-1945 era, where might equalled right. Ironically, the same principle would justify Iraq now launching pre-emptive attacks on members of the coalition because it could validly argue that it feared attack. But there is a further legal dimension for Saddam Hussein on the one hand and George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard and their potential coalition partners on the other to consider. Even if the use of force can be justified, international humanitarian law places significant limits on the means and methods of warfare. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 Protocols set out some of these limits: for example, the prohibitions on targeting civilian populations and civilian infrastructure and causing extensive destruction of property not justified by military objectives. Intentionally launching an attack knowing that it will cause "incidental" loss of life or injury to civilians "which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated" constitutes a war crime at international law. The military objective of disarming Iraq could not justify widespread harm to the Iraqi population, over half of whom are under the age of 15. The use of nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive attack would seem to fall squarely within the definition of a war crime. Until recently, the enforcement of international humanitarian law largely depended on the willingness of countries to try those responsible for grave breaches of the law. The creation of the International Criminal Court last year has, however, provided a stronger system of scrutiny and adjudication of violations of humanitarian law. The International Criminal Court now has jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity when national legal systems have not dealt with these crimes adequately. It attributes criminal responsibility to individuals responsible for planning military action that violates international humanitarian law and those who carry it out. It specifically extends criminal liability to heads of state, leaders of governments, parliamentarians, government officials and military personnel. Estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq suggest that up to quarter of a million people may die as a result of an attack using conventional weapons and many more will suffer homelessness, malnutrition and other serious health and environmental consequences in its aftermath. From what we know of the likely civilian devastation caused by the coalition's war strategies, there are strong arguments that attacking Iraq may involve committing both war crimes and crimes against humanity. Respect for international law must be the first concern of the Australian Government if it seeks to punish the Iraqi Government for not respecting international law. It is clearly in our national interest to strengthen, rather than thwart, the global rule of law. Humanitarian considerations should also play a major role in shaping government policy. But, if all else fails, it is to be hoped that the fact that there is now an international system to bring even the highest officials to justice for war crimes will temper the enthusiasm of our politicians for this war.

The University of Melbourne

>

Reasoning can get complicated…

Where has it been used?

The University of Melbourne
• Several papers published demonstrating its impact on student learning, especially improvements in critical thinking (Twardy, 2004; van Gelder, 2001; van Gelder, Bissett, & Cumming, 2004). • The former study demonstrated a 0.72 gain of standard deviations, i.e., an improvement in critical thinking skills as measured by a standard instrument in pre- and post-test scores. The latter studied demonstrated even higher gains of 0.8 standard deviations. • Economics (Davies, Higher Education, 2009)

>

Simple Arguments
The University of Melbourne People who are unlucky in love are often unlucky when they gamble as well, according to new research. A survey of 2000 adults showed that men and women in stable relationships were more likely to win competitions than divorcees.
Age Odd Spot, 11 Dec 03

>

Simple Argument Analysed
The University of Melbourne

>

People who are unlucky in love are often unlucky when they gamble as well, according to new research. A survey of 2000 adults showed that men and women in stable relationships were more likely to win competitions than divorcees. Age Odd Spot, 11 Dec 03

Simple Arguments
The University of Melbourne
People who are unlucky in love are often unlucky when they gamble as well, according to new research.
Contention

>

A survey of 2000 adults showed that men and women in stable relationships were more likely to win competitions than divorcees.

Reason

Arguments and Language
The University of Melbourne
• „Critical thinking‟ operates at the level of statements, not commands, questions or exclamations • Statements are independent of language • „Il pleut‟, • „Es regnet‟

>

If P then Q P Therefore Q If P then Q If Q then R Therefore If P then R

Arguments and Meaning
The University of Melbourne

>

Arguments are independent of meaning:
All Masdocks are Primpletons This X is a Masdock Therefore, this X is a Primpleton

All Ms are Ps This X is a M Therefore this M is a P

Good Reasoning?
The University of Melbourne
Odd as it sounds, men may apologize to their spouses more often than women do, according to a recent survey by the Princeton-based Opinion Research Corp. The study is part of a publicity campaign to mark the 70th anniversary of the Parker Brothers game Sorry! According to the survey, when asked whom they say sorry to most often, 56 percent of men said their wives. Just 41 percent of wives, on the other hand, said they apologize most to their husbands. Americans hate to apologize? Who can blame us? By Alfred Lubrano Inquirer Staff Writer

>

Good Argument?
The University of Melbourne

>

• Men apologise to their spouses more than women (56% men; 41 % women) • [Therefore] Americans hate to apologise

A More Complex Argument
The University of Melbourne

>

 If men have obtained advantages through past discrimination in their favour, then we may discount men's advantages when selecting people for jobs.

Argument Analysed
The University of Melbourne

>

P1: If men have obtained advantages through past discrimination, then we should discount men's advantages when selecting people for jobs P2: Men have obtained advantages in the past from discrimination in their favour (assumed) C: We should discount men's advantages when selecting people for jobs

Argument Mapped: Co-premises
The University of Melbourne

>

Look out for Conclusion Indicators
The University of Melbourne

>

• let us conclude that...; we conclude that...; we can conclude that...; concluding...; thus...; therefore...; so...; consequently...; hence...; then...;

Look Out for Premise Indicator Words
The University of Melbourne

>

• since...; as...; for...; because...; assuming that...; supposing that...; given that...; for the reason that...; if such and such....;

Look for Argument Sequences
The University of Melbourne
• • • • • • • • • (premise)....then... (premise)...shows that... (premise)...indicates that... (premise)...proves that... (premise)...entails that... (premise)...implies that... (premise)...establishes that … (conclusion) (conclusion) (conclusion) (conclusion) (conclusion) (conclusion) (conclusion) • • • • • • • (conclusion)... then ... (conclusion)...is shown by... (conclusion)...is indicated by … (conclusion)...is proven by... (conclusion)...is entailed by... (conclusion)...is implied by... (conclusion)...is established by... (premise) (premise) (premise) (premise) (premise) (premise) (premise)

>

(premise)...allows us to infer that … (conclusion) (premise) … gives us reasons for believing that (conclusion)

Another Example
The University of Melbourne

>

• Some of the matter found today is radioactive. Radioactive matter decays in a finite time. Therefore, the matter in the universe must have been created a finite time ago.

Example Analysed
The University of Melbourne

>

P1: Radioactive matter which decays in a finite time must have been created a finite time ago P2: Some matter in the universe found today is radioactive C: Some of the matter in the universe must have been created a finite time ago.

Argument Mapped
The University of Melbourne

>

Your Turn …
The University of Melbourne

>

 No system can exist half matter and half antimatter, because the two forms of matter annihilate each other.

Argument Mapped
The University of Melbourne

>

Another Example

The University of Melbourne

>

• There is no war going on between the US and Al Qaeda because wars happen only between countries and states. • Watch out for TACIT premise!

Example Mapped

The University of Melbourne

>

Have a go
The University of Melbourne
• Bollywood films are great because they are entertaining and culturally interesting. They have great singing and dancing and they show a culture very different from my own, so I can learn a lot from them. However, Bollywood films are also very long. But on the other hand, great films (such as Citizen Kane) are often long.

>

Separate Premises and Objections and Rebuttals The University of Melbourne

>

Even More Complex …
The University of Melbourne

>

 If you want a new car now is the time and Hindmarsh is the place.  Is this: a) simple claim or b) an argument for a proposition  Is something being concluded?

Find the Central Proposition/Contention
The University of Melbourne

>

(1) [Therefore] if you want a new car now is the time and Hindmarsh is the place. (2) If you want a new car [therefore] now is the time and Hindmarsh is the place. (3) If you want a new car now is the time and [therefore] Hindmarsh is the place.

Part 1
The University of Melbourne

>

P1: If you want a new car, now is the time and Hindmarsh is the place (to borrow) P2: You do want a new car C: Now is the time and Hindmarsh is the place (to borrow)

Part 2
The University of Melbourne

>

• P3: If now is the time to buy a car and Hindmarsh is the place, then you should borrow from Hindmarsh • P4: Now is the time to buy and Hindmarsh is the place • C2: You should borrow from Hindmarsh.

Argument Analysed
The University of Melbourne

>

Higher = More General
The University of Melbourne

>

• The “higher” the level, the more abstract or general the argument
More general or abstract
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
More detailed or particular

Note: “high” levels have low level numbers

Level Consistency
The University of Melbourne

>

All arguments at a level should be similar in generality or abstraction
These arguments should all be similar in abstraction – even across branches

Determine Missing Rungs
The University of Melbourne

>

Add Missing Rungs
The University of Melbourne

>

Dog Show
The University of Melbourne

>

Dog Show (Fixed)

Dog Show
The University of Melbourne

>

Dog Show - Fixed
The University of Melbourne

>

Great Plains
The University of Melbourne

>

Great Plains

Great Plains - Fixed
The University of Melbourne

>

Group arguments underneath an intermediate level of abstraction

How to Evaluate (1)
The University of Melbourne
• First design your argument map • Then switch to “Evaluation Mode” • Then Evaluate reasoned claim: – Definitely true – Probably true – No verdict – Probably false – Definitely false

>

How to Evaluate (2)
The University of Melbourne
• Double click each reason and select a ground for the reason:
– – – – – – – Common knowledge Personal knowledge Expert opinion Testimony Considered plausibility Necessary truth No grounds

>

Example

The University of Melbourne
• Since the only animals in this house are cats, and no cat fails to kill mice, all animals in this house kill mice. Now, given that none but carnivores kill mice, it‟s clear that all animals in this house are carnivores. Of course, not animals are carnivorous, unless they prowl at night. So, all animals in this house prowl at night.

>

The Differences

The University of Melbourne

>

• Mind Mapping:
– Associative, free form, radial structure

• Concept mapping
– Relational, structured, hierarchical

• Argument mapping
– Inferential, structured, hierarchical

Imagine …

The University of Melbourne

>

• If the advantages of concept mapping amnd argument mapping could be combined … • Students demonstrate understanding of relationships • THEN: drill down to provide arguments.

MIND MAP (High level of generality)

Decreasing generality CONCEPT MAP (Medium level of generality)

ARGUMENT MAP (low level of generality—high specificity)

Where to get Rationale
The University of Melbourne
• http://www.austhink.com/ • http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/reason/ • New version: Rationale

>

• http://crmhub.austhink.com/MelbUni/default .aspx


				
DOCUMENT INFO