ROAD2H: Development and evaluation of an open-source explainable artificial intelligence approach for managing co-morbidity and clinical guidelines

Introduction

Clinical decision support (CDS) systems (CDSSs) that integrate clinical guidelines need to reflect real-world co-morbidity. In patient-specific clinical contexts, transparent recommendations that allow for contraindications and other conflicts arising from co-morbidity are a requirement. In this work, we develop and evaluate a non-proprietary, standards-based approach to the deployment of computable guidelines with explainable argumentation, integrated with a commercial electronic health record (EHR) system in Serbia, a middle-income country in West Balkans.

Methods

We used an ontological framework, the Transition-based Medical Recommendation (TMR) model, to represent, and reason about, guideline concepts, and chose the 2017 International global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease (GOLD) guideline and a Serbian hospital as the deployment and evaluation site, respectively. To mitigate potential guideline conflicts, we used a TMR-based implementation of the Assumptions-Based Argumentation framework extended with preferences and Goals (ABA+G). Remote EHR integration of computable guidelines was via a microservice architecture based on HL7 FHIR and CDS Hooks. A prototype integration was developed to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with comorbid cardiovascular or chronic kidney diseases, and a mixed-methods evaluation was conducted with 20 simulated cases and five pulmonologists.

Results

Pulmonologists agreed 97% of the time with the GOLD-based COPD symptom severity assessment assigned to each patient by the CDSS, and 98% of the time with one of the proposed COPD care plans. Comments were favourable on the principles of explainable argumentation; inclusion of additional co-morbidities was suggested in the future along with customisation of the level of explanation with expertise.

Conclusion

An ontological model provided a flexible means of providing argumentation and explainable artificial intelligence for a long-term condition. Extension to other guidelines and multiple co-morbidities is needed to test the approach further.

Debating claims of fact in public health: A pedagogical activity

This pedagogical activity asks instructors or workshop administrators to guide students through the process of evaluating evidence used to support health misinformation. In learning principles from argumentation and debate, students are asked to develop cases to refute or defend a factual claim about health, construct oral and written arguments for their cases, and share them with other students who will evaluate the strength and quality of evidence used by each side. Ultimately, students will learn how to: i) Understand how arguments are constructed that both support and refute a health claim; ii) evaluate evidence used for both sides of a claim of fact; and iii) identify health misinformation, particularly in an online context.

Student Perceptions of a New Course Using Argumentation in Medical Education

Purpose

Critical thinking and the ability to engage with others of differing views in a civil manner is essential to the practice of medicine. A new format for medical student education ("Argue-to-Learn") that uses staged debates followed by small group discussions was introduced into the curriculum of first year medical school at the Penn State College of Medicine. The goal was to create a structured environment for spirited, civil discourse, and to encourage students to think critically about clinically controversial topics. This manuscript describes the development of the program, and presents comparative data on student perceptions of the first two mandatory sessions that focused on the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis and on COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Methods

Quantitative results were gathered from standardized post-block student surveys for each session and compared to cumulative results of all other courses included in the learning block. Post-block surveys of students include four session-evaluation questions scored on a 5 point Likert scale. Scores were compared using Student's t-test. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was performed on a single open-ended response from the same survey.

Results

Compared to all other courses in the learning block, scores on each of the four questions were either the same or numerically higher for the Argue-to-Learn sessions, but none reached statistical significance. Two important qualitative themes were identified. First, students enjoyed the format, found it interesting and engaging and want more similar sessions. Second, students appreciated hearing opposing viewpoints and presenting their own viewpoints in a safe and supportive environment.

Conclusion

These findings support evidence from educational scholarship outside of medicine showing argumentation as a learning tool is well received by students. Further work is needed to determine whether it improves critical thinking skills and enhances learning in medical education.

Argumentation and explanation in the law

This article investigates the conceptual connection between argumentation and explanation in the law and provides a formal account of it. To do so, the methods used are conceptual analysis from legal theory and formal argumentation from AI. The contribution and results are twofold. On the one hand, we offer a critical reconstruction of the concept of legal argument, justification, and explanation of decision-making as it has been elaborated in legal theory and, above all, in AI and law. On the other hand, we propose some definitions of explanation in the context of formal legal argumentation, showing a connection between formal justification and explanation. We also investigate the notion of stable normative explanation developed elsewhere in Defeasible Logic and extend some complexity results. Our contribution is thus mainly conceptual, and it is meant to show how notions of explanation from literature on explainable AI and legal theory can be modeled in an argumentation framework with structured arguments.

Toward a Value-Based Therapy Recommendation Model

Patient value is an important factor in clinical decision making, but conventionally, it is not incorporated in the decision processes. Clinical decision making has some clinical guidelines as a reference. There are very few value-based clinical guidelines, but knowledge about how values affect decision making is mentioned in some scattered studies in the literature. We use a literature review method to extract evidence and integrate it as part of the decision-making model. In this paper, a value-based therapy recommendation comprehensive model is proposed. A literature analysis is conducted to collect value-based evidence. The patients' values are defined and classified with fine granularity. Categorized values and candidate therapies are used in combination as filtering keywords to build this literature database. The literature analysis method generates a literature database used as a source of arguments for influencing decision making based on values. Then, a formalism model is put forward to integrate the value-based evidence with clinical evidence, and the literature databases and clinical guidelines are collected and analyzed to populate the evidence repository. During the decision-making processes, the evidence repository is utilized to match patients' clinical information and values. Decision-makers can dynamically adjust the relative importance of the two pieces of evidence to obtain a treatment plan that is more suitable for the patient. A prototype system was implemented using a case study for breast cancer and validated for feasibility and effectiveness through controlled experiments.

Using an Observation Protocol To Evaluate Student Argumentation Skills in Introductory Biology Laboratories

Argumentation is vital in the development of scientific knowledge, and students who can argue from evidence and support their claims develop a deeper understanding of science. In this study, the Argument-Driven Inquiry instruction model was implemented in a two-semester sequence of introductory biology laboratories. Student's scientific argumentation sessions were video recorded and analyzed using the Assessment of Scientific Argumentation in the Classroom observation protocol. This protocol separates argumentation into three subcategories: cognitive (how the group develops understanding), epistemic (how consistent the group's process is with the culture of science), and social (how the group members interact with each other). We asked whether students are equally skilled in all subcategories of argumentation and how students' argumentation skills differ based on lab exercise and course. Students scored significantly higher on the social than the cognitive and epistemic subcategories of argumentation. Total argumentation scores were significantly different between the two focal investigations in Biology Laboratory I but not between the two focal investigations in Biology Laboratory II. Therefore, student argumentation skills were not consistent across content; the design of the lab exercises and their implementation impacted the level of argumentation that occurred. These results will ultimately aid in the development and expansion of Argument-Driven Inquiry instructional models, with the goal of further enhancing students' scientific argumentation skills and understanding of science.

Argument and explanation

In this paper, we bring together two closely related, but distinct, notions: argument and explanation. We clarify their relationship. We then provide an integrative review of relevant research on these notions, drawn both from the cognitive science and the artificial intelligence (AI) literatures. We then use this material to identify key directions for future research, indicating areas where bringing together cognitive science and AI perspectives would be mutually beneficial. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Cognitive artificial intelligence'.

Using model texts as a type of feedback in EFL writing

Recent work has established that model texts could be employed as a useful feedback technique. However, few studies have employed argumentative writing tasks and analyzed draft quality, and little is known about the role played by the language analytic ability in using model texts. The current study aimed to investigate what Chinese EFL learners (n = 60) noticed at the composition and comparison (comparing their texts with model texts) processes in a four-stage argumentative writing task and explore to what degree model texts can enhance the learners' subsequent writing. The four stages were: (1) writing (pre-test); (2) comparing (treatment); (3) rewriting (immediate post-test); (4) delayed writing (delayed post-test). The findings showed that learners primarily noticed lexical features in the composition and comparison stages. Higher language analytic ability (LAA) learners and guided noticing learners could notice and elicit more information from the model texts. Overall, the use of model texts was effective in improving learners' writing by providing alternative elements associated with lexis, grammar, content, and organization. In addition, the beneficial effect of model texts on writing could be maintained after 1 week. Some pedagogical implications are put forward to help teachers make better use of model texts to improve learners' writing. This study also provides new insights into how language analytic ability affects the effectiveness of using models and provides more information on the type of learner most likely to benefit from model texts.

Connecting Ethical Reasoning to Global Challenges through Analysis of Argumentation

Scientific literacy is built on critical thinking. The postbaccalaureate workforce enhances our economies and societies by contributing a wealth of knowledge and skill sets to local communities, respective industries, and beyond as our world becomes increasingly interconnected. Education in scientific literacy should teach students how to learn about science and how to cultivate and communicate a positive attitude about science. Learners in a 200-level nonmajors biotechnology course engaged with a series of ethical dilemmas after mastering the basic elements of argument structure and advanced tools in argument evaluation. To introduce collaboration as a constructive process in undergraduate education, student interactions with peers require guidance, flexibility, and compassion to learn from each other. Students gain critical thinking mastery from two modules addressing how we argue and evaluate claims. Students apply these critical thinking skills to various ethical arguments involving responsible conduct of research training. Using our structured and interdisciplinary approach, new scholars learn through practice how to read, analyze, and evaluate research scenarios and respond to potential ethical situations. This strategy allows students to develop important scholarly skills, including a systematic approach to evaluating credibility and applying generosity to theirs and others' understanding of their circumstances.

Linked Argumentation Graphs for Multidisciplinary Decision Support

Multidisciplinary clinical decision-making has become increasingly important for complex diseases, such as cancers, as medicine has become very specialized. Multiagent systems (MASs) provide a suitable framework to support multidisciplinary decisions. In the past years, a number of agent-oriented approaches have been developed on the basis of argumentation models. However, very limited work has focused, thus far, on systematic support for argumentation in communication among multiple agents spanning various decision sites and holding varying beliefs. There is a need for an appropriate argumentation scheme and identification of recurring styles or patterns of multiagent argument linking to enable versatile multidisciplinary decision applications. We propose, in this paper, a method of linked argumentation graphs and three types of patterns corresponding to scenarios of agents changing the minds of others (argumentation) and their own (belief revision): the collaboration pattern, the negotiation pattern, and the persuasion pattern. This approach is demonstrated using a case study of breast cancer and lifelong recommendations, as the survival rates of diagnosed cancer patients are rising and comorbidity is the norm.

Didactics of written argumentation with Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) students at university level in Algeria

The general objective of this research is to investigate the impact of a program focusing on the development of argumentation techniques on the improvement of critical essays by SFL students at the University of Algiers 2. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest study was carried out, where the indicators of textual levels obtained by the students were evaluated and compared, both before and after a learning intervention. The study involved 126 students studying SFL at the University of Algiers 2, whose essays were analyzed using Parodi and Núñez's (1999) analysis guidelines, in order to evaluate the students' argumentative competence at the three levels of microstructure, macrostructure and superstructure. Once the results were analyzed, statistically significant differences were observed in the indicators of the macrostructure, and superstructure. Furthermore, an improvement in the post-test means is observed in the indicators of these microstructure. Lastly, the intervention program strengthened students' argumentative abilities, which had a significant effect on their critical essays.

Achieving descriptive accuracy in explanations via argumentation: The case of probabilistic classifiers

The pursuit of trust in and fairness of AI systems in order to enable human-centric goals has been gathering pace of late, often supported by the use of explanations for the outputs of these systems. Several properties of explanations have been highlighted as critical for achieving trustworthy and fair AI systems, but one that has thus far been overlooked is that of descriptive accuracy (DA), i.e., that the explanation contents are in correspondence with the internal working of the explained system. Indeed, the violation of this core property would lead to the paradoxical situation of systems producing explanations which are not suitably related to how the system actually works: clearly this may hinder user trust. Further, if explanations violate DA then they can be deceitful, resulting in an unfair behavior toward the users. Crucial as the DA property appears to be, it has been somehow overlooked in the XAI literature to date. To address this problem, we consider the questions of formalizing DA and of analyzing its satisfaction by explanation methods. We provide formal definitions of naive, structural and dialectical DA, using the family of probabilistic classifiers as the context for our analysis. We evaluate the satisfaction of our given notions of DA by several explanation methods, amounting to two popular feature-attribution methods from the literature, variants thereof and a novel form of explanation that we propose. We conduct experiments with a varied selection of concrete probabilistic classifiers and highlight the importance, with a user study, of our most demanding notion of dialectical DA, which our novel method satisfies by design and others may violate. We thus demonstrate how DA could be a critical component in achieving trustworthy and fair systems, in line with the principles of human-centric AI.

Argumentation: A calculus for Human-Centric AI

This paper aims to expose and analyze the potential foundational role of Argumentation for Human-Centric AI, and to present the main challenges for this foundational role to be realized in a way that will fit well with the wider requirements and challenges of Human-Centric AI. The central idea set forward is that by endowing machines with the ability to argue with forms of machine argumentation that are cognitively compatible with those of human argumentation, we will be able to support a naturally effective, enhancing and ethical human-machine cooperation and “social” integration.

Argumentation in anonymous online discussions about decriminalising cannabis use

Aims:

In October 2019, a citizens’ initiative to decriminalise cannabis use started a large debate about drug policy in Finland. This study examines online discussions about the initiative to supplement the current knowledge about citizens’ drug opinions. The focus is especially on argumentation techniques that are used to support or object to the decriminalisation.

Design:

Methodologically, the study is based on discourse studies, new rhetoric, and argumentation analysis. The data of 1,092 messages were collected from a popular Finnish anonymous discussion forum Ylilauta.

Results:

Online discussions about the legal status of cannabis are highly polarised. Decriminalisation is often both supported and resisted in a strong and affective manner, and even hate speech is not rare in the data. Statements made by both discussion parties often lack any argumentation or are based on fallacies, especially ad hominem arguments. Some discussants refer to scientific studies and expert statements, even though such references are usually inaccurate. Cannabis is compared to alcohol more often than to other illegal drugs.

Conclusions:

The emotional responses and inadequate argumentation might be partially explained by the general nature of online discussions and the culture of the investigated website, but also by the powerful stigma related to illegal drugs and insufficient knowledge on the subject. A future objective is to create a societal atmosphere where the complex question of the legal status of cannabis could be discussed more neutrally and rationally.

Individual differences in risk perception and misperception of COVID-19 in the context of political ideology

The COVID‐19 pandemic has been characterized by misinformation, politicization of public health, and extreme differences in risk assessment. In two studies, we sought to understand factors that contribute to differences in people's understanding of the virus and associated risks. We found that conservative participants reported higher levels of acceptable risk, have lower risk estimates of activities, and endorsed more misinformation. Participants with personal health risk factors rated COVID‐19 risks as higher, more reflective participants had lower acceptable risk levels, and impulsive participants endorsed more misinformation. In our second study, we also found that reflective participants were more likely to wear a mask, get vaccinated, and maintain social distancing, and that participants judged arguments about COVID‐19 measures largely based on the claim rather than supporting reasons. By clarifying these individual differences, public health experts can more effectively create targeted interventions for at risk populations, and be better prepared for future outbreaks.

Implicit Teacher Theories Regarding the Argumentative Commentary of Multimodal Texts in the Teaching of Spanish as a Native and Foreign Language

The research works linked to the thinking of the teaching staff influence the relevant influence that implicit theories exert on decision-making about classroom practise and on the academic performance of students. In this sense, the present study focuses on the teaching belief system about the development of argumentation in the commentary of multimodal texts. For this, a quantitative methodology based on non-experimental or ex post facto design with semi-structured and closed survey-questionnaire-type instruments has been selected. From a target population made up of Spanish teachers, 502 respondents selected using the non-probabilistic sampling technique applied the accessibility criterion. An ad hoc questionnaire has been drawn up consisting of 28 items digitised electronically using the survey platform of the University of Murcia. It has been structured in two blocks: the first aimed at establishing the sociodemographic and professional profile of the participants and the second at collecting data related to the teachers' beliefs regarding the work of the text commentary in class. The results show five professional profiles defined based on the implicit theories and the pedagogical model to which they are associated. It is also found that the majority declare that they align themselves with non-conservative didactic trends or approaches, centred on the student body and oriented toward the construction of critical knowledge. In this regard, manifest contradictions are detected between his implicit and explicit epistemological convictions. The findings of this study offer guidelines for the design of an effective and efficient argumentative text commentary formative proposal.

Can exposure to arguments pro and contra extraversion affect self-reports of the trait and the attitude toward it?

OBJECTIVE

Changeability of personality over short-term intervals has increasingly become a focus of research. However, the role played by argumentation interventions in short-term variations has scarcely been examined.

METHODS

In two experiments (N = 363 and 320), we investigated how processing positive and negative argumentation regarding extraversion (Study 1: watching a lecture; Study 2: elaborating self-invented arguments) affects self-reports on this trait and attitude toward it. The experiments included three waves of measurements with argument manipulation (in favor of or against extraversion) immediately prior to Time 2 (Study 2 also included a control group).

RESULTS

Mean-level changes in extraversion across time moments, measured with the longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis, were consistently negligible. Conversely, there were some indications that argumentation about extraversion could have immediate short-term effects on attitudes toward this trait. The random-intercept cross-lagged model showed that rank-order consistency stemmed from a trait-like intercept, which was particularly large for trait extraversion compared with the attitude. The autoregressive and cross-lagged effects of residual within-person variation were consistently small and mostly nonsignificant.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that extraversion and the attitude toward it maintained their temporal continuity within 3 months, even under a single exposure to arguments pro and contra this trait.

Interactions between emotional and cognitive engagement with science on YouTube

This study aimed to map and characterize public engagement with science on YouTube. A two-part study was conducted. First, we collected and quantitatively analyzed trending videos on YouTube to evaluate the magnitude of public interaction with science content. Then, we assessed actual, rather than self-reports of, media interactions with science-related YouTube trending videos. We tested associations between behavioral engagement of viewing, liking, disliking or commenting, and emotional and cognitive engagement. Our findings affirm that science content attracts high public interest and that emotional and cognitive engagement with science on social media are distinct, but interrelated. We show that regardless of the valence of emotional engagement, emotion is linked to greater behavioral engagement of posting comments and to greater cognitive engagement of argumentative deliberation. Therefore, our findings suggest that social media interactions, which tend to evoke emotional responses, are a promising means of advancing person-to-person engagement with science.

Polydimensional Structure and Psychosocial Functions of the Direct Address in TV Series

Traditionally, in media studies research, the direct address or aside, i.e., a construction in which a speaker communicates a message directly to the audience breaking the continuity of the narrative flow, has been investigated mainly for its dramaturgical function. The present study aims to consider the direct address as a research object of the social psychology of communication to increase our understanding of this technique by going beyond the analysis of its dramaturgical function. In particular, the direct address will be examined through an integrated approach based on argumentative and conversational tools to highlight its less known polydimensional structure, i.e., diegetic and extra-diegetic dimensions and their interactions, and psychosocial functions, i.e., connecting the characters among each other within the show as well as with the audience. This objective will be achieved by analyzing two different direct addresses from the American TV series House of Cards. The analysis showed that the direct address performs its dramaturgical function by impacting both diegetic and extradiegetic levels. In the first case, as considered in previous studies, these plans are activated in parallel, aiming to build what we have defined as the “strategic subjectivity” of the character who employs this technique. Instead, in the second case—which comprises two direct addresses produced by two different characters—this technique involves the creation of what we will call “platforms of intersubjectivity.” In this occurrence, the dramaturgical action establishes a “bridge” between the diegetic and extradiegetic plans that act synergistically. In conclusion, the present study shows how an integrated approach based on argumentative and conversational tools of analysis permits to enlarge the traditional media studies perspective, highlighting the less investigated polydimensional structure and analyzing the psychosocial functions of the direct address, here considered as a research object of the social psychology of communication examined in its diegetic and extra-diegetic dimensions. The integration of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation with the interlocutory logic theory has brought to light a new modality of use of the direct address that can be termed “intersubjective aside,” a type of aside that can be added to the three already known, i.e., aside ad spectatores, monological aside, and dialogical aside.

Deliberative Teaching as an Emergent Field: The Challenge of Articulating Diverse Research Agendas to Promote Educational Experiences for Citizenship

Democracies are increasingly dependent upon sustainable citizenship, that is, active participation and engagement with the exercising of rights in a field of plural interests, often contradictory and in conflict. This type of citizenship requires not only social inclusion, habits of knowledge, and evidence-based reasoning but also argumentation skills, such as the individual and social capacity to dispute and exercise individual and social rights, and to deal peacefully with sociopolitical conflict. There is empirical evidence that educational deliberative argumentation has a lasting impact on the deep and flexible understanding of knowledge, argumentation skills, and political and citizenship education. However, these three trends of research have developed independently with insufficient synergy. Considering the relevance of deliberative education for contemporaneous democracies and citizenship, in this paper we seek to converge in a field of interlocution, calling it deliberative teaching. Our aim is to propose a way to increase the dialog and collaboration between the diffuse literature on argumentation and education, highlighting both the main theoretical and empirical gaps and challenges that remain and the possibilities to advance our knowledge and the educational impact that this integrating field could offer.

The influence of thinking dispositions on integration and recall of multiple texts

We investigated the association between thinking dispositions and two outcomes of multiple‐texts comprehension: integration of conflicting information in argumentative essays; and recall of inferential information as an index of deep comprehension. We focused on two thinking dispositions, need for cognition (NFC) and actively open‐minded thinking (AOT), as relevant individual differences in the processes involved in multiple‐texts comprehension. NFC is the tendency to engage in and enjoy cognitively demanding activities, whereas AOT is the tendency to rationally evaluate arguments and supporting evidence, without being influenced by biases from one's own prior beliefs and prior knowledge. 73 university students completed perceived topic knowledge, perceived exposure to argumentative writing, and perceived competence in argumentative writing, NFC and AOT questionnaires, read two contradictory texts, wrote an argumentative essay, and recalled the information read 1 month later. Argumentative essays were assessed by length and level of integration of conflicting perspective. Text recalls were assessed by number of valid inferences included. Research questions were investigated through a path analysis model. The path analysis model had a good fit. NFC was indirectly associated with argumentation quality of the essay via the essay length. AOT was directly associated with the inferences included in the recall task. The present study contributes to the literature on multiple‐texts comprehension by emphasizing the role of thinking dispositions.

Linguistic Traces of Subjectivity and Dissent. A Discursive Analysis of Inclusive Language in Argentina

In Argentina, the so-called "inclusive language" aims at avoiding the bias for a particular sex or gender and objects to a grammatical binary system (feminine - masculine). Although in most Spanish-speaking countries, inclusive language has been limited to the realms of activism, gender studies and a certain type of public administration, in Argentina, its use has been extended to different social spheres, mostly urban. Considering such context, this work aims to investigate the inclusive language in Spanish and characterize its most relevant resources in a series of public texts that circulated in Argentina between 2018 and 2020. On the one hand, its origin is explained, differentiating it from non-sexist language and the different theoretical positions around inclusive language are exposed. On the other hand, from the Dialogical Approach to Argumentation and Polyphony, this paper proposes to address inclusive language resources as subjectivity and polyphony marks which evidence certain aspects of the discourse of patriarchy, with respect to which there is dissent; therefore, inclusive language resources show viewpoints that were once silenced and rejected. For this, a corpus of various speeches is addressed, made up of outdoor urban inscriptions, flyers (advertisements), audiovisual informative speeches and digital press, written in inclusive language, between 2018 and 2020. Throughout the paper it is warns that the inclusive language marks, such as -e and x, are traces of the "heterogeneity shown marked" that object to grammatical binarism and convey comments by the subject about their own enunciation, alluding to the image of previous sexist and patriarchal discourses with whom they disagree. The analysis reveals that the words or expressions in which inclusive language resources are employed (-e and x) work as traces of harassed identities and manifest comments by the speaker on their own enunciation. This way, this research shows that gender inclusive language holds conflict linguistic marks which point to historically denied dissidence forms, linked to gender identity and the assertion of collective rights. Finally, this article aims at, on the one hand, contributing to the description of Argentinean Spanish, and on the other, promoting reflection in favor of linguistic education. Undoubtedly, opening instances of debate on the subject can have an impact on the deepening of linguistic reflection and the training of speakers who contribute to forging a more egalitarian society, one which is inclusive and respectful of differences.

Emotional Tension as a Frame for Argumentation and Decision-Making: Vegetarian vs. Omnivorous Diets

Argumentative discourse has a complexity that is not entirely captured by purely structural analyses. In arguments about socio-scientific issues (SSI), a range of dimensions, besides scientific knowledge, including values, ethical concerns, cultural habits, or emotions, are mobilized. The relationship between argumentation and emotions is now drawing attention of researchers. Our focus is on the dynamic interactions among emotions and scientific evidence. We draw from Plantin, who proposed that emotions are mobilized as argumentative resources alongside knowledge. The goal of our study is to examine in which ways emotional tension frames the construction of arguments about vegetarian vs. omnivorous diets (ODs) with a group of four preservice teachers. The results suggest that the interactions between the group emotional tension and the evaluation of evidence drive a change toward a decision that would be emotionally acceptable for all participants. Participants attended to the epistemic dimension, weighing evidence, and values about the choices, but the emotional framing took priority. We suggest that the analysis of this emotive framing may be a fruitful approach for sophisticated studies of argumentation beyond structural issues.

Theories of Creativity in Music: Students' Theory Appraisal and Argumentation

Most research on people's conceptions regarding creativity has concerned informal beliefs instead of more complex belief systems represented in scholarly theories of creativity. The relevance of general theories of creativity to the creative domain of music may also be unclear because of the mixed responses these theories have received from music researchers. The aim of the present study was to gain a better comparative understanding of theories of creativity as accounts of musical creativity by allowing students to assess them from a musical perspective. In the study, higher-education music students rated 10 well-known theories of creativity as accounts of four musical target activities-composition, improvisation, performance, and ideation-and argued for the "best theoretical perspectives" in written essays. The results showed that students' theory appraisals were significantly affected by the target activities, but also by the participants' prior musical experiences. Students' argumentative strategies also differed between theories, especially regarding justifications by personal experiences and values. Moreover, theories were most typically problematized when discussing improvisation. The students most often chose to defend the Four-Stage Model, Divergent Thinking, and Systems Theory, while theories emphasizing strategic choices or Darwinian selection mechanisms were rarely found appealing. Overall, students tended toward moderate theory eclecticism, and their theory appraisals were seen to be pragmatic and example-based, instead of aiming for such virtues as broad scope or consistency. The theories were often used as definitions for identifying some phenomena of interest rather than for making stronger explanatory claims about such phenomena. Students' theory appraisals point to some challenges for creativity research, especially regarding the problems of accounting for improvisation, and concerning the significance of theories that find no support in these musically well-informed adults' reasoning.

"Argue With Me": A Method for Developing Argument Skills

Philosophers, psychologists, and educators all acknowledge the need to support individuals to develop argument skills. Less clear is how to do so. Here, we examine a particular program, the “Argue with Me” dialogue-based pedagogical approach, having this objective. Reviewing approximately 30 studies that have used the “Argue with Me” (AWM) method with students of different backgrounds and educational levels—primary, middle, high school, and university—across five different countries, we examine its strengths and limitations in terms of what develops and how this development occurs. Dense engagement in goal-based activities involving extended dialogic practice and reflection is shown to be effective in fostering argument skills and dispositions. Studies examining the mechanisms of such development identify the role of meta-level understanding regarding the purpose of argument. This understanding is epistemological in nature and supports the development of dialogic skills at the strategic level. In addition to examining the AWM method as a means for supporting the development of argument skills, this review examines how empirical research employing the method in varying contexts provides insights into the nature of argument skills and their development, as well as the relations between argument skills and other skills or forms of understanding. For instance, we examine how studies employing the AWM method answer questions such as “How general or content-specific are argument skills?” or “How do dialogic argument and individual written or spoken argument connect as they develop?” We address these questions by examining evidence regarding the transfer of gains across topics, domains, and individual vs. dialogic modes of expression. Finally, the pedagogical implications of the “Argue with Me” approach are discussed, especially with regard to its potential both as a stand-alone method for developing argument skills and integrated into traditional literacy and social studies curricula.

SES Differences in Children's Argumentative Production

Recent studies have examined the argumentative strategies used by young children in everyday situations as well as in experimental settings. However, differences in argumentative production as a function of Socio-Economic Status (SES) have been minimally explored. This study aims to analyze eventual differences regarding social group in the use of argumentative strategies and connectors marking causal and adversative relationships within these strategies. The corpus is 615 disputes occurred during play situations in the homes of 39 4-year old children living in Buenos Aires, Argentina: 453 of mid SES children and 162 of low SES. Argumentative strategies were codified using a system of inductively derived categories: a) the reiteration of the child’s point of view; b) the narration of previous experiences; c) the anticipation of courses of action; d) generalization; e) the description of the characteristics of an object, event or internal state; f) referencing authority; g) the mitigation of the point of view; h) providing an alternative proposal. Results show that in both social groups the use of an argumentative strategy to sustain the point of view predominates over merely stating the point of view. Additionally, we found significant differences in a) Reiteration strategy, with the low SES group showing a greater use of this strategy and b) Generalization and Description strategies, with the mid SES children employing these ones more frequently. Regarding the connectors, significant differences were only detected in the use of consecutive and adversative markers. The mid SES group showed a greater use of these particular connectors.

Embodied Displays of "Doing Thinking." Epistemic and Interactive Functions of Thinking Displays in Children's Argumentative Activities

This study investigates moments in which one participant in an interaction embodies that he is “doing thinking,” a display that is commonly referred to as “thinking face. ” From an interactional perspective, it is assumed that embodied displays of “doing thinking” are a recurring social practice and serve interactive functions. While previous studies have examined thinking faces primarily in word searches and storytelling, the present study focuses on argumentative activities, in which children engage in processes of joint decision-making. The paper has two interrelated aims. The first aim is to describe how multiple modalities—beyond the face—are temporally coordinated to create multimodal gestalts of “doing thinking.” It is shown that thinking displays not only involve dynamic imaginative gaze but also stylized bodily postures. The second aim is to generate knowledge about the functions of thinking displays in children's argumentative activities. The analysis describes how both speakers and recipients use thinking displays in different turn positions and align them with verbal talk or silence. The data for this study comprise video recordings of decision-making processes in groups of older children. Drawing on a multimodal approach to situated interaction, it will be proposed that embodied displays of “doing thinking” provide a resource to shape participation frameworks, mark epistemic stances and create epistemic ecologies for collaborative reasoning. By investigating thinking displays in a particular conversational activity, the study sheds light on the diversity and context-sensitive functionality of thinking displays. It also contributes to recent research on children's collaborative reasoning as an embodied discursive practice.

Supporting Mathematical Argumentation and Proof Skills: Comparing the Effectiveness of a Sequential and a Concurrent Instructional Approach to Support Resource-Based Cognitive Skills

An increasing number of learning goals refer to the acquisition of cognitive skills that can be described as ‘resource-based,’ as they require the availability, coordination, and integration of multiple underlying resources such as skills and knowledge facets. However, research on the support of cognitive skills rarely takes this resource-based nature explicitly into account. This is mirrored in prior research on mathematical argumentation and proof skills: Although repeatedly highlighted as resource-based, for example relying on mathematical topic knowledge, methodological knowledge, mathematical strategic knowledge, and problem-solving skills, little evidence exists on how to support mathematical argumentation and proof skills based on its resources. To address this gap, a quasi-experimental intervention study with undergraduate mathematics students examined the effectiveness of different approaches to support both mathematical argumentation and proof skills and four of its resources. Based on the part-/whole-task debate from instructional design, two approaches were implemented during students’ work on proof construction tasks: (i) a sequential approach focusing and supporting each resource of mathematical argumentation and proof skills sequentially after each other and (ii) a concurrent approach focusing and supporting multiple resources concurrently. Empirical analyses show pronounced effects of both approaches regarding the resources underlying mathematical argumentation and proof skills. However, the effects of both approaches are mostly comparable, and only mathematical strategic knowledge benefits significantly more from the concurrent approach. Regarding mathematical argumentation and proof skills, short-term effects of both approaches are at best mixed and show differing effects based on prior attainment, possibly indicating an expertise reversal effect of the relatively short intervention. Data suggests that students with low prior attainment benefited most from the intervention, specifically from the concurrent approach. A supplementary qualitative analysis showcases how supporting multiple resources concurrently alongside mathematical argumentation and proof skills can lead to a synergistic integration of these during proof construction and can be beneficial yet demanding for students. Although results require further empirical underpinning, both approaches appear promising to support the resources underlying mathematical argumentation and proof skills and likely also show positive long-term effects on mathematical argumentation and proof skills, especially for initially weaker students.

Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information-A Literature Review

Many urgent problems that societies currently face—from climate change to a global pandemic—require citizens to engage with scientific information as members of democratic societies as well as to solve problems in their personal lives. Most often, to solve their epistemic aims (aims directed at achieving knowledge and understanding) regarding such socio-scientific issues, individuals search for information online, where there exists a multitude of possibly relevant and highly interconnected sources of different perspectives, sometimes providing conflicting information. The paper provides a review of the literature aimed at identifying (a) constraints and affordances that scientific knowledge and the online information environment entail and (b) individuals' cognitive and motivational processes that have been found to hinder, or conversely, support practices of engagement (such as critical information evaluation or two-sided dialogue). Doing this, a conceptual framework for understanding and fostering what we call online engagement with scientific information is introduced, which is conceived as consisting of individual engagement (engaging on one's own in the search, selection, evaluation, and integration of information) and dialogic engagement (engaging in discourse with others to interpret, articulate and critically examine scientific information). In turn, this paper identifies individual and contextual conditions for individuals' goal-directed and effortful online engagement with scientific information.

Anti-vaccine movements - a form of social activity for health care, ignorance or diversion aimed at destabilizing the health situation? Part 1. Epidemiological safety. Vaccinations - pros and cons

INTRODUCTION

Vaccinations are a way accepted by science of preventing infectious diseases. Because of their epidemiological significance, vaccinations are considered compulsory in many countries and their evasion is penalized. Anti-vaccine movements may pose a threat to the epidemiological situation in many countries. The study presents the arguments formulated by opponents of vaccination and provides counter-arguments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study is based on the analysis of data stored in scientific databases, information obtained from Google, Bing and Yahoo on the Internet, as well as newspapers, magazines and opinion-forming websites.

RESULTS

The slogans propagated by anti-vaccination movements are usually based on easily proven erroneous theories and lies, although there are also arguments expressing belief in the conspiracy of governments, politicians and vaccine manufacturers, or incompetence of scientists and practitioners.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years in Poland, the activity of movements against vaccination has increased significantly, and their propaganda, through its negative impact on social attitudes, threatens to destabilize the epidemiological situation. Analysis of arguments used by the opponents of vaccination suggests a lack of reliable knowledge, religious overtones (addressed to people with fundamentalist personalities), or the ill-will attitudes of anti-vaccine individuals/groups used for their own purposes. Familiarization with the arguments of anti-vaccine propaganda is necessary in order to implement effective methods of fighting such attitudes and beliefs.

Comparison of the Informed Health Choices Key Concepts Framework to other frameworks relevant to teaching and learning how to think critically about health claims and choices: a systematic review

Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects. The Key Concepts provide a framework for developing learning-resources to help people use the concepts when treatment claims are made, and when they make health choices.

Objective: To compare the framework provided by the IHC Key Concepts to other frameworks intended to promote critical thinking about treatment (intervention) claims and choices.

Methods: We identified relevant frameworks from reviews of frameworks, searching Google Scholar, citation searches, and contact with key informants. We included frameworks intended to provide a structure for teaching or learning to think critically about the basis for claims, evidence used to support claims, or informed choices. For a framework to be included, there had to be a description of its purpose; a list of concepts, competences, or dispositions; and definitions of key terms. We made independent assessments of framework eligibility and extracted data for each included framework using standardised forms.

Results: Twenty-two frameworks met our inclusion criteria. The purpose of the IHC Framework is similar to that of two frameworks for critical thinking and somewhat similar to that of a framework for evidence-based practice. Those frameworks have broader scopes than the IHC Framework. An important limitation of broad frameworks is that they do not provide an adequate basis (concepts) for deciding which claims to believe and what to do. There was at most some overlap between the concepts, competences, and dispositions in each of the 22 included frameworks and those in the IHC Framework.

Conclusions: The IHC Key Concepts Framework appears to be unique.  Our review has shown how it and other frameworks can be improved by taking account of the ways in which other related frameworks have been developed, evaluated, and made useful.

Dialogical construction of parental feeding strategies during family mealtimes

This study focuses on social interactions during family mealtimes to examine the types of arguments used by parents to convince their children to eat. The results of this study show that feeding practices during mealtimes are dialogically constructed by parents and children together. Parents mostly used arguments based on the quality and quantity of food, adapting their language to the child's level of understanding. Future research might consider the observations and the subtle qualitative analyses of social interactions among family members as examples of possible ways to recognize the dialogical construction of feeding practices during mealtimes.

Reflecting on shared decision making: A reflection-quantification study

Background

Reflecting (“stop‐and‐think”) before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self‐reported SDM measures.

Methods

We asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3‐item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open‐ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient.

Results

In Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores (“less” SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001).

Conclusion

Reflection‐before‐quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient‐reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.

A Bayesian Argumentation Framework for Distributed Fault Diagnosis in Telecommunication Networks

Traditionally, fault diagnosis in telecommunication network management is carried out by humans who use software support systems. The phenomenal growth in telecommunication networks has nonetheless triggered the interest in more autonomous approaches, capable of coping with emergent challenges such as the need to diagnose faults’ root causes under uncertainty in geographically-distributed environments, with restrictions on data privacy. In this paper, we present a framework for distributed fault diagnosis under uncertainty based on an argumentative framework for multi-agent systems. In our approach, agents collaborate to reach conclusions by arguing in unpredictable scenarios. The observations collected from the network are used to infer possible fault root causes using Bayesian networks as causal models for the diagnosis process. Hypotheses about those fault root causes are discussed by agents in an argumentative dialogue to achieve a reliable conclusion. During that dialogue, agents handle the uncertainty of the diagnosis process, taking care of keeping data privacy among them. The proposed approach is compared against existing alternatives using benchmark multi-domain datasets. Moreover, we include data collected from a previous fault diagnosis system running in a telecommunication network for one and a half years. Results show that the proposed approach is suitable for the motivational scenario.

An analysis of health promotion materials for Dutch truck drivers: Off target and too complex?

BACKGROUND

Despite various health promotion initiatives, unfavorable figures regarding Dutch truck drivers' eating behaviors, exercise behaviors, and absenteeism have not improved.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to obtain a better understanding of the low level of effectiveness of current health interventions for Dutch truck drivers by examining to what extent these are tailored to the target group's particular mindset (focus of content) and health literacy skills (presentation of content).

METHODS

The article analyzes 21 health promotion materials for Dutch truck drivers using a two-step approach: (a) an analysis of the materials' focus, guided by the Health Action Process Approach; and (b) an argumentation analysis, guided by pragma-dialectics.

RESULTS

The corpus analysis revealed: (a) a predominant focus on the motivation phase; and (b) in line with the aim of motivating the target group, a consistent use of pragmatic arguments, which were typically presented in an implicit way.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that existing health promotion materials for Dutch truck drivers are not sufficiently tailored to the target group's mindset and health literacy skills. Recommendations are offered to develop more tailored/effective health interventions targeting this high-risk, underserved occupational group.

"Learning Science Is About Facts and Language Learning Is About Being Discursive"-An Empirical Investigation of Students' Disciplinary Beliefs in the Context of Argumentation

Argumentation is considered crucial in numerous disciplines in schools and universities because it constitutes an important proficiency in peoples' daily and professional lives. However, it is unclear whether argumentation is understood and practiced in comparable ways across disciplines. This study consequently examined empirically how students perceive argumentation in science and (first) language lessons. Specifically, we investigated students' beliefs about the relevance of discourse and the role of facts. Data from 3,258 high school students from 85 German secondary schools were analyzed with multigroup multilevel structural equation modeling in order to disentangle whether or not differences in argumentation across disciplines exist and the extent to which variation in students' beliefs can be explained by gender and school track. Results showed that students perceived the role of facts as highly relevant for science lessons, whereas discursive characteristics were considered significantly less important. In turn, discourse played a central role in language lessons, which was believed to require less knowledge of facts. These differences were independent of students' gender. In contrast, school track predicted the differences in beliefs significantly. Our findings lend evidence on the existence of disciplinary school cultures in argumentation that may be the result of differences in teachers' school-track-specific classroom practice and education. Implications in terms of a teacher's role in establishing norms for scientific argumentation as well as the impact of students' beliefs on their learning outcomes are discussed.

Argumentation: A Methodology to Facilitate Critical Thinking

Caring is a difficult nursing activity that involves a complex nature of a human being in need of complex decision-making and problem solving through the critical thinking process. It is mandatory that critical thinking is facilitated in general and in nursing education particularly in order to render care in diverse multicultural patient care settings. This paper aims to describe how argumentation can be used to facilitate critical thinking in learners. A qualitative, exploratory and descriptive design that is contextual was used. Purposive sampling method was used to draw a sample and Miles and Huberman methodology of qualitative analysis was used to analyse data. Lincoln and Guba's strategies were employed to ensure trustworthiness, while Dhai and McQuoid-Mason's principles of ethical consideration were used. Following data analysis the findings were integrated within literature which culminated into the formulation of guidelines that can be followed when using argumentation as a methodology to facilitate critical thinking.

Arsenic-based Life: An active learning assignment for teaching scientific discourse

Among recent high profile scientific debates was the proposal that life could exist with arsenic in place of phosphorous in its nucleic acids and other biomolecules. Soon after its initial publication, scientists across diverse disciplines began to question this extraordinary claim. Using the original article, its claims, its scientific support, and the ensuing counterarguments, a two-day, active learning classroom exercise was developed focusing on the presentation, evaluation, and discussion of scientific argumentation and discourse. In this culminating assignment of a first semester biochemistry course, undergraduate students analyze the scientific support from the original research articles and then present and discuss multiple scientific rebuttals in a lively, civil classroom debate. Through this assignment, students develop a sense of skepticism, especially for the original arsenic-based life claims, and learn to clearly articulate their counterarguments with scientific support and critical reasoning. With its direct integration into first-semester biochemistry curriculum and the excitement surrounding arsenic based life, this assignment provides a robust, simple, and stimulating framework for introducing scientific discourse and active learning into the undergraduate molecular science curriculum. © 2016 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 45(1):40-45, 2017.

Arguments from Developmental Order

In this article, I investigate a special type of argument regarding the role of development in theorizing about psychological processes and cognitive capacities. Among the issues that developmental psychologists study, discovering the ontogenetic trajectory of mechanisms or capacities underpinning our cognitive functions ranks highly. The order in which functions are developed or capacities are acquired is a matter of debate between competing psychological theories, and also philosophical conceptions of the mind - getting the role and the significance of the different steps in this order right could be seen as an important virtue of such theories. Thus, a special kind of strategy in arguments between competing philosophical or psychological theories is using developmental order in arguing for or against a given psychological claim. In this article, I will introduce an analysis of arguments from developmental order, which come in two general types: arguments emphasizing the importance of the early cognitive processes and arguments emphasizing the late cognitive processes. I will discuss their role in one of the central tools for evaluating scientific theories, namely in making inferences to the best explanation. I will argue that appeal to developmental order is, by itself, an insufficient criterion for theory choice and has to be part of an argument based on other core explanatory or empirical virtues. I will end by proposing a more concerted study of philosophical issues concerning (cognitive) development, and I will present some topics that also pertain to a full-fledged 'philosophy of development.'

Arguing collaboratively: Argumentative discourse types and their potential for knowledge building

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in using argumentative discourse in educational settings. However, in a previous study, we found that discourse goals (persuasion vs. consensus) while arguing can affect student outcomes in both content learning and reasoning.

AIMS

In this study, we look at argumentative discourse data from a previous study to ask how differences in discourse might account for the differences we observed in learning and reasoning outcomes.

SAMPLE

One hundred and five dialogues (57 disputative, 48 consensus) between 7th grade science students attending a public high school near Tarragona, Spain.

METHODS

Participants were randomly assigned to conditions and paired with peers who disagreed with them on three topics related to renewable energy sources. After instruction on each topic, they were asked to either 'argue to convince' (persuasion condition) or 'argue to reach consensus' (consensus condition) on that topic. Conversations were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis.

RESULTS

Students in the persuasion condition engaged in shorter conversational exchanges around argumentative claims and were more likely to use moves that foreclosed discussion, whereas students in the consensus condition were more likely to use moves that elicited, elaborated on, and integrated their partners' ideas.

CONCLUSIONS

When arguing to reach - rather than defend - a conclusion, students are more likely to coconstruct knowledge by exchanging and integrating arguments. These findings are consistent with predictions about the potential of argumentation for knowledge building and suggest that teachers must attend to discourse goals when using argumentation to support learning and reasoning.

Using argument notation to engineer biological simulations with increased confidence

The application of computational and mathematical modelling to explore the mechanics of biological systems is becoming prevalent. To significantly impact biological research, notably in developing novel therapeutics, it is critical that the model adequately represents the captured system. Confidence in adopting in silico approaches can be improved by applying a structured argumentation approach, alongside model development and results analysis. We propose an approach based on argumentation from safety-critical systems engineering, where a system is subjected to a stringent analysis of compliance against identified criteria. We show its use in examining the biological information upon which a model is based, identifying model strengths, highlighting areas requiring additional biological experimentation and providing documentation to support model publication. We demonstrate our use of structured argumentation in the development of a model of lymphoid tissue formation, specifically Peyer's Patches. The argumentation structure is captured using Artoo (www.york.ac.uk/ycil/software/artoo), our Web-based tool for constructing fitness-for-purpose arguments, using a notation based on the safety-critical goal structuring notation. We show how argumentation helps in making the design and structured analysis of a model transparent, capturing the reasoning behind the inclusion or exclusion of each biological feature and recording assumptions, as well as pointing to evidence supporting model-derived conclusions.

It will be a disaster! How people protest against things which have not yet happened

In the field of science and technology studies, recent works have analyzed the multiplication of promises and predictions as a major evolution of science management. The authors involved in this "sociology of technical expectations" have documented the role played by promises in the elaboration of scientific projects and their impact on the social reception of scientific issues. Yet, little attention has been paid to the predictions regarding undesirable technological futures. This article proposes therefore to analyze the discursive and argumentative practices through which journalists, scientists, and politicians denounce and propose to counter a public issue "which does not exist yet": gene doping (no case of gene doping has been recorded to date). After a literature review of the field of the sociology of technological expectations and a presentation of the corpus, the article describes the structure of predictions and analyzes the discursive strategies according to which social actors predict a disaster in the making. The analysis is based on the study of media discourses about gene doping, in a corpus of 163 French language articles from European newspapers, published between 1998 and 2012.

Viewpoint discrimination and contestation of ideas on its merits, leadership and organizational ethics: expanding the African bioethics agenda

The 3rd Pan-African Ethics Human Rights and Medical Law (3rd EHRML) conference was held in Johannesburg on July 7, 2013, as part of the Africa Health Congress. The conference brought together bioethicists, researchers and scholars from South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Nigeria working in the field of bioethics as well as students and healthcare workers interested in learning about ethical issues confronting the African continent. The conference which ran with a theme of "Bioethical and legal perspectives in biomedical research and medical practice in Africa with a focus on: Informed consent, HIV-AIDS & Tuberculosis, leadership & organizational ethics, patients and healthcare workers rights," was designed to expand the dialogue on African bioethics beyond the traditional focus on research ethics and the ethical dilemmas surrounding the conduct of biomedical research in developing countries. This introductory article highlights some of areas of focus at the conference including issues of leadership, organizational ethics and patients and healthcare workers rights in Africa. We analyze the importance of free speech, public debate of issues, argumentation and the need to introduce the teaching and learning of ethics to students in Africa in accordance with UNESCO guidelines. This article also focuses on other challenges confronting Africa today from an ethical standpoint, including the issues of poor leadership and organizational ethics which are main contributors to the problems prevalent in African countries, such as poverty, poor education and healthcare delivery systems, terrorism, social inequities, infrastructural deficits and other forms of 'structural violence' confronting vulnerable African communities. We believe that each of the eight articles included in this supplement, which have been rigorously peer-reviewed are a good example of current research on bioethics in Africa, and explore some new directions towards broadening the African bioethics agenda as we move forward to a new dawn for Africa in the 21st century.

An approach for representing sensor data to validate alerts in Ambient Assisted Living

The mainstream of research in Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) is devoted to developing intelligent systems for processing the data collected through artificial sensing. Besides, there are other elements that must be considered to foster the adoption of AAL solutions in real environments. In this paper we focus on the problem of designing interfaces among caregivers and AAL systems. We present an alert management tool that supports carers in their task of validating alarms raised by the system. It generates text-based explanations—obtained through an argumentation process—of the causes leading to alarm activation along with graphical sensor information and 3D models, thus offering complementary types of information. Moreover, a guideline to use the tool when validating alerts is also provided. Finally, the functionality of the proposed tool is demonstrated through two real cases of alert.

Improving Students' Evaluation of Informal Arguments

Evaluating the structural quality of arguments is a skill important to students' ability to comprehend the arguments of others and produce their own. The authors examined college and high school students' ability to evaluate the quality of 2-clause (claim-reason) arguments and tested a tutorial to improve this ability. These experiments indicated that college and high school students had difficulty evaluating arguments on the basis of their quality. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that a tutorial explaining skills important to overall argument evaluation increased performance but that immediate feedback during training was necessary for teaching students to evaluate the claim-reason connection. Using a Web-based version of the tutorial, Experiment 3 extended this finding to the performance of high-school students. The study suggests that teaching the structure of an argument and teaching students to pay attention to the precise message of the claim can improve argument evaluation.