Tool selection for argument visualization

Tool selection strategy for software-based visualization

in technical academic argument work

Lawrie HunterKochi University of Technology

http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/

33

Please download this ppt from

lawriehunter.com

Many more are available at

http:/lawriehunter.com/cv/presns/

Tool selection strategy for software-based visualization in technical academic argument workLawrie Hunter, Kochi University of Technology, Japan

Logic and argument have proven to be significant obstacles to second language English academic writing success, markedly so for research students from East Asian cultures. The technical research paper is a masked facsimile of an argument; thus novice technical academic writing tends to be formulaic, following document structure rather than argument structure. In this frame, novice writing of abstracts is problematic at the design level.

Linear text is not a particularly supportive medium for technical academic argument work. Relations between concepts can be marked in text by rhetorical signals, but the conceptual load economies of visualization are not available. Mind maps, concept maps and rhetorical structure maps, which all embody a number of visual metaphors, are promising tools for the support of novice technical academic argument work.

Software embodiments of the above mapping types are usually marketed without discussion of the information-structure related choices involved in the selection of map type and software. This paper, referring to Hunter's (2009) decision matrix, presents a negotiated strategic pathway to the selection of map type and software for technical academic writing task, taking the example of inferred argument of an informally reported study. Reference points in this pathway include Toulmin (1958), Cañas & Novak (2006) and Kowalski (2011).

Cañas, A. J., & Novak, J.D. (2006) Re-examining the foundations for effective use of concept maps. In Cañas, A. J., & Novak, J.D. (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping.Hunter, L. (2009) A Decision Matrix for the Use of Mapping and Mapping Software. Presented at EuroCALL 2009. http://www.lawriehunter.com/presns/eurocall09/Kowalski, R. (2011) Computational logic and human thinking. Cambridge UP.Toulmin, S. (1958) The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press.

Background

Argument

Argument in linear text

Marking relations

Map types

Mapping software design

Task design: inferred argument

Design choices: mapping types / tools

Outline

Background

Maths teacher trainer (Rabaul)

Maths teacherGuidance counsellor

ESL maths teacher(Vancouver)

EFL teacherTechnical editorSuper translation

ESP professor(Tokyo, Tokushima, Kochi)

ESL maths teacher (Cairns)

6

KUT scenario

Since 2002: - Japanese government scholarships

- for foreign students - in technical doctoral programmes.

! Graduation requirements:

- 2+ refereed papers in top journals in 3 years- NO extensions- dissertation in English

Further L2 acquisition to near-independence during the study period is NOT a realistic strategy.

7

Design Scenario

ESPESP

EAPEAP

EAPHUMANITIES

EAPHUMANITIESTAWTAW

EXEX EYEY EZEZ

English for specific purposesEnglish for academic purposesTechnical academic writing

8

TAW best practice

Niche languageacquisition to

near-independencein TAW

Writing workfocusing on

argument andinfo-structures

Training in use of

language models:Style Dossier

Preparationfor work with

an editor

Preparationfor work with

a mentor

9

Possible approaches:1. Process

Once the researcher has followed the research design and gotten results, it is time to expand the argument supporting the original research claim, and write it in the prescribed document format, obeying the relevant usage and other conventions, includinggrammar.

Possible approaches: 1. Process

research design/results

argument supporting claim

document format

usage/convention

grammar/surface features


usage/convention

document format

argumentsupporting claim

11

Possible approaches2. layer view



usage/convention

document format

argumentsupporting claim

12

Possible approaches2. layer view


most TAW writers start writing here

(simulacrum of argument)

RP language generation should start

here

most TAWprograms work here

Hunter, L. (2012) Technical Academic Writing. Minaminokaze Press.

KUT design 2012

Background

Argument


Identifying argument elements in text

Map types




Outline

Logic and argument - significant obstacles to- second language English academic writing success

- in East Asian cultures.

The technical research paper - masked facsimile of an argument

Novice technical academic writing – formulaic, following document structure

-not argument structure

Novice writing of abstracts - problematic at the design level.

Argument

Background

Argument



Map types




Outline

Linear text:

Not a particularly supportive medium for technical academic argument work.

TAW learners are predominantly-reading for information

-in a genre structure


Background

Argument



Map types




Outline

Relations between concepts -can be marked in text

-by rhetorical signals.

Text signalling of relations: -lacks the conceptual load economies

of visualization.

Marking relations in text

Tennis Players’ Grunts Slow Opponents DownThose loud grunts could give players an extra edge by slowing their opponents’ reaction time.

The loud grunts tennis players make when hitting the ball could be distracting for their opponents.These noises can actually slow an opponent’s reaction time.Some players’ grunts register at 100 decibels.Players such as Maria Sharapova and Rafael Nadal are notorious for their grunting.Those loud grunts some tennis players make when hitting the ball could actually have a negative effect on their opponents by distracting them and slowing their reaction time, scientists said Friday.Players such as Maria Sharapova and Rafael Nadal are notorious for their grunting, a practice which often triggers complaints in professional tennis, said Scott Sinnett, lead author of the report that appeared in the journal Public Library of Science ONE.Researchers played 384 video clips of a tennis player hitting a ball to either the left or right of a video camera, to 33 students at the University of British Columbia in western Canada.The students were asked to quickly determine whether the ball was hit to the right or left. For some of the shots, a loud white noise was played as the racquet hit the ball.“When an additional sound occurs at the same time as when the ball is struck, participants are significantly slower… and make significantly more decision errors,” said the study.A growing body of research shows that noise “distracts you from your ability to pay attention to what is going on,” said Sinnett in a telephone interview. “A grunt doesn’t allow you to place all your attention on what’s happening. It blocks the ability to pay attention to a multi-sensory event.”Grunting could cause a tennis player to perceive a ball traveling 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour to be “two feet (60 centimeters) closer to the opponent than it actually is,” said Sinnett. “This could increase the likelihood that opponents are out of position and make returning the ball more difficult.”“A lot of people have complained about grunting in the tennis world, that it’s distracting, and even some professionals have said it’s pretty much cheating,” said Sinnett, who conducted the research as a post-doctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia, and is now an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii at Mnoa.“The study raises a number of interesting questions for tennis. For example, if Rafael Nadal is grunting and Roger Federer is not, is that fair?” he added.Scientifically regulating tennis-players’ grunts — some of which register at 100 decibels — “could be looked toward, because if it’s distracting to opponent, then it’s basically cheating,” he said.

http://news.discovery.com/human/tennis-players-grunting-distraction.html

Marking relations in text: example

Marking relations in text: example

1. isolate argument content

2. infer procedure,observations, conclusions

Tennis Players’ Grunts Slow Opponents DownThose loud grunts could give players an extra edge by slowing their opponents’ reaction time.

The loud grunts tennis players make when hitting the ball could be distracting for their opponents.These noises can actually slow an opponent’s reaction time.Some players’ grunts register at 100 decibels.Players such as Maria Sharapova and Rafael Nadal are notorious for their grunting.Those loud grunts some tennis players make when hitting the ball could actually have a negative effect on their opponents by distracting them and slowing their reaction time, scientists said Friday.Players such as Maria Sharapova and Rafael Nadal are notorious for their grunting, a practice which often triggers complaints in professional tennis, said Scott Sinnett, lead author of the report that appeared in the journal Public Library of Science ONE.Researchers played 384 video clips of a tennis player hitting a ball to either the left or right of a video camera, to 33 students at the University of British Columbia in western Canada.The students were asked to quickly determine whether the ball was hit to the right or left. For some of the shots, a loud white noise was played as the racquet hit the ball.“When an additional sound occurs at the same time as when the ball is struck, participants are significantly slower… and make significantly more decision errors,” said the study.A growing body of research shows that noise “distracts you from your ability to pay attention to what is going on,” said Sinnett in a telephone interview. “A grunt doesn’t allow you to place all your attention on what’s happening. It blocks the ability to pay attention to a multi-sensory event.”Grunting could cause a tennis player to perceive a ball traveling 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour to be “two feet (60 centimeters) closer to the opponent than it actually is,” said Sinnett. “This could increase the likelihood that opponents are out of position and make returning the ball more difficult.”“A lot of people have complained about grunting in the tennis world, that it’s distracting, and even some professionals have said it’s pretty much cheating,” said Sinnett, who conducted the research as a post-doctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia, and is now an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii at Mnoa.“The study raises a number of interesting questions for tennis. For example, if Rafael Nadal is grunting and Roger Federer is not, is that fair?” he added.Scientifically regulating tennis-players’ grunts — some of which register at 100 decibels — “could be looked toward, because if it’s distracting to opponent, then it’s basically cheating,” he said.

http://news.discovery.com/human/tennis-players-grunting-distraction.html



Researchers played 384 video clips of a tennis player hitting a ball to either the left or right of a video camera, to 33 students at the University of British Columbia in western Canada.The students were asked to quickly determine whether the ball was hit to the right or left. For some of the shots, a loud white noise was played as the racquet hit the ball.“When an additional sound occurs at the same time as when the ball is struck, participants are significantly slower… and make significantly more decision errors,” said the study.

2. infer observations, conclusions

Citation as subject Results as subject Claim as subject

claims (that)

proposes (that)

implies (that)

suggests (that)

infers (that)

observes (that)

reveals (that)

demonstrates (that)

indicates (that) disproves

proves (that)

implies (that)

is supported by

is contradicted by

is in agreement with

is in opposition to

assumes (that)

Scaffolding for inferred abstract writing: -use only these verbs as main clause subjects:

2. infer observations, conclusions

Learner inference of observations and conclusion:

-slow-inarticulate-unstructured-text-based scaffolding ineffective

Background

Argument



Map types




Outline

Mind mapsConcept maps Rhetorical structure diagrams

- embody a number of visual metaphors

-promising tools for support of novice TAW* work.

Map types

*TAW = technical academic argument

Map types and relations

Mind mapping á la Tony Buzan

Mindmap links are all associations-i.e. zero granularity


Mind mapping

FreeMind software http://freemind.sourceforge.net/

FreeMind software View online


Directed-link maps

http://www.inspiration.com/

Textured-link* maps

boilNH3

Makesteam

Rotateturbines

Generateelectricity

Boil aliquid

older typeplants

OTECplants

boilH2O

seawaterheat

fossil orN-heat

steam20C

steam500C

lowpower

highpower

zeroenergy cost

highenergy cost

!

!

!

*graphically textured (here: Hunter’s Ismap system)

*textually textured

Textured-link* maps

Background

Argument



Map types

Mapping software: design



Outline

Software embodiments of

Mind mapsConcept maps Rhetorical structure diagrams

are usually marketed without discussion of the information-structure related choices involved in the selection of map type and software.


Background

Argument



Map types




Outline

Task design: inferred argument using mapping

Researchers played 384 video clips of a tennis player hitting a ball to either the left or right of a video camera, to 33 students at the University of British Columbia in western Canada.The students were asked to quickly determine whether the ball was hit to the right or left. For some of the shots, a loud white noise was played as the racquet hit the ball.“When an additional sound occurs at the same time as when the ball is struck, participants are significantly slower… and make significantly more decision errors,” said the study.

41

Sample argument map

Findings of Vancouver study

reaction timedecision errors

reaction to video of tennis strokes

reaction to videoof tennis strokes

random noise

at time of stroke

<

Vancouver study

play video clips

tennisstrokesto right or left

tennis strokesto right or left

subjects quicklydecide

measurereaction time,correctness

randomnoisewith

stroke

ISmaps with rhetorical frames:

argument in Sinnett (2010)

Background

complaints aboutgrunting

in pro tennis

study of response

time in tennis

hunter systems

Target behavior?

GroundsGrounds ModalityModality Claim

WarrantWarrant

BackingBacking

since

on account of

Toulmin model of argument

Target behavior?

GroundsGrounds ModalityModality Claim

WarrantWarrant

BackingBacking

RebuttalRebuttal

since

on account of

unless

Enhanced Toulmin model of argument

Target behavior?

Receiver makes more errors and is

slowersince

because

unlessWhite noise in video caused reaction error and slowness

Server grunts during stroke

in tennis

Video reaction is not

equivalent to tennis

reactionWhite noise has the same

effect as grunting

It is highly likely that

Toulmin model of argument in Sinnett (2010)

Target behavior?

Citation as subject Results as subject Claim as subject

claims (that)

proposes (that)

implies (that)

suggests (that)

infers (that)

observes (that)

reveals (that)

demonstrates (that)

indicates (that) disproves

proves (that)

implies (that)

is supported by

is contradicted by

is in agreement with

is in opposition to

assumes (that)

Exploratory constraint: use only these links in your argument map

Traditional Pest Control

Is in agreement

with

Chikaku Niiho

The ineffectiveness of wrapping pine tree

during winterEffective for trapping

harmful insects

55 Percent of beneficial insects

4 Percent of harmful insects

Spiders Assassinbugs

Implies

A pine wilttree decease

Reveals

Wrapping of pine tree during winter

Burning straw mats after beneficial

insects leave

Demonstrates

Is supported by

Is supported by

Implies

Infers that

Suggests that

Implies Implies

Himeji Castle officers

Moth Caterpillars

Long-hornBeetles

Nematodes inhibition in trunk

Is supported by

Is supported by

reveals

reveals

W S-UTechnical Writing II

HW 6.0May 22, 2008

Sinnett (2010)Sinnett (2010)

claims that

is supported by

assumes that

White noise is equivalent to

grunts

Server grunts during stroke

in tennis cause receiver slowness and

error

Video reaction is equivalent to

tennis reaction

Subject error and slowness in video

response with white noise bursts

Novakian rhetoric map of argument

in Sinnett (2010)

Target behavior

Background

Argument



Map types




Outline

Rhetorical mapping

Information structure mapping

Syntactic mapping

Grammatical mapping (pseudo)

Association mapping

Types of maps, info structuresDegree of abstraction in mapping

Rhetorical structures

Info structures

Syntactic structures

Grammatical structures

Associations

Types of maps, info structuresReducing cognitive load in tasks

e.g.

Input(text)

Output(text)


Info structures



Associations


e.g.

Input(graphical)

Output(text)


Info structures



Associations


e.g.

Input(text) Output

(graphical)

Hunter’s framework for text analysis

Key content Background Persuasion

Rhetorical structure

Information organization

Information structures

Hunter’s framework subsets

Key content Background Persuasion

Rhetorical structure

Information organization

Information structures

Rhetorical analysis

Structure analysis

A negotiated strategic pathway to the selection of map type and software for technical academic writing task.

Design choices: mapping types Design choices: mapping tools

Design choices: mapping types Design choices: mapping tools

Node content Link content

Noun / noun phrase

Clause

Ø Mind map

Verb Cmap Cmap

Constrained verb Hunter’s argument maps Horne’s argument maps

Hunter’s argument maps

Logic link

ISmaps: Description

/Classification /Comparison

ISmaps: Sequence / Cause-effect

Rhetorical signal Argument map RST* diagram

*RST: rhetorical structure theory diagram

References page 1

Baddeley, A. D. & Hitch, G. (2001). Working memory in perspective: Foreword. In J. Andrade (Ed.), Working memory in perspective (pp. xv-xix). Hove: Psychology Press.

Cañas, A. J., & Novak, J.D. (2006) Re-examining the foundations for effective use of concept maps. In Cañas, A. J., & Novak, J.D. (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping.Cañas, A. J., Hill, G., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., Eskridge, T., Gomez, G., Arroyo, M. and Carvajal, R. (2004) Cmaptools: A knowledge modeling and sharing environment. Downloaded April 8, 2008 from http://cmc.ihmc.us/papers/cmc2004-283.pdf

Chandler, P. and J. Sweller (1992) The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology 62: 233-246.

Chun, D. M. and Plass, J. L. 1997. Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments. Language learning and technology 1(1): 60-81.

Cmap tools. Institute for Human & Machine Cognition. http://cmap.ihmc.us/

Dansereau, D.F. (2005) Node-Link Mapping Principles for Visualizing Knowledge and Information. In Tergan, S. and Keller, T. (Eds.) Node-Link Mapping Principles for Visualizing Knowledge and Information. Springer. 61-81.

Fulkerson, R. (1996) Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Goldman, S.R., & Rakestraw, J.A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M.L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 311-335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gopen, G.D. and Swan, J.A. (1990) The Science of Scientific Writing. American Scientist (Nov-Dec 1990), Volume 78, 550-558. Downloadable as a pdf from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jcgs/sci.pdf

Grow, G. (1996) Serving the strategic reader: cognitive reading theoryand its implications for the teaching of writing. Viewed June 30, 2007 at http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow/StrategicReader/index.html

Horn, R. E. (1998) Visual Language: Global Communication for the 21st Century. Bainbridge Island, WA: MacroVU Press. http://www.macrovu.com

References page 2

Hunter L. (2005) Technical Hypertext Accessibility: Information Structures and Rhetorical Framing . Presentation at HyperText 2005, Salzburg. http://www.lawriehunter.com/presns/%20HT05poster0818.htm

Hunter, L. (2002) Information structure diagrams as link icons. Learning Technology 4(3) July 2002. ISSN 1438-0625. 2002. http://lttf.ieee.org/learn_tech/issues/july2002/index.html#1

Hunter, L. (1998) Text nouveau, visible structure in text presentation. Computer Assisted Language Learning 11 (4) October 1998.

Mann, B. (1999) An introduction to rhetorical structure theory (RST). http://www.sil.org/mannb/rst/rintro99.htm

Moffett, J. (1992). Detecting growth in language. New Hampshire: Boynton/Cook.Mohan, B.A. (1986) Language and content. Addison-Wesley.

Novak, J.D. and Cañas, A.J. (2006) The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC), 2006. Viewed April 8, 2008 at http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryCmaps/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.htm

Olive, Thierry (2004) Working memory in writing: Empirical evidence from the dual-task technique. European psychologist 9(1), pp. 32-42. Working paper downloaded from http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15431008

Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Explained at http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/introductory/sw.html

Taboada, M. and Mann, W.C. (2006) Rhetorical Structure Theory: looking back and moving ahead. Discourse studies 8: 423-459

Tufte, E.R. (1990) Envisioning information. Cheshire, CONN: Graphics Press.

Ueta, R., Hunter, L. & Ren, X. Text usability for non-native readers of English. Proceedings, Information Processing Society of Japan, Vol. 2003.7. Pp. 199-200.

Thank you for your attention.

You can download this .ppt fromhttp://www.lawriehunter.com/

It will be archived athttp://www.lawriehunter.com/presns/

Lawrie HunterKochi University of Technology

http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/

Lawrie Hunter is a professor at Kochi University of Technology. His infostructure maps provide the underlying structure of "Critical Thinking" (Greene & Hunter, Asahi Press 2002) and "Thinking in English" (Hunter, Cengage 2008). His recent work with task constraint caused disarray at the 3rd Concept Mapping Conference in Tallinn/Helsinki. http://www.lawriehunter.com

Tool selection for argument visualization

Education

background argument

argument structure

uses of argument

example of inferred

concept mapping

technical research paper

softwarebased visualization

software embodiments