Argumentation in Computer Media - Pittsburgh Interest Group Newsletter - 5 March 1999 (updated 20 March 1999) Contents: 1. Summary of 4 March 1999 meeting 2. Next meeting - Wed., March 24 - 430-6 pm - Room 4603 Wean Hall 3. Meeting date/time preference survey 4. Distribution of newsletter, announcements 5. To be added to the mailing list ======================================================================= 1. Summary of 4 March 1999 meeting There were 7 participants, affiliated (currently or in the recent past) with Pitt/LRDC (Education, ISP) and CMU (Computer Science, Design, English, GSIA, HCII, and Psychology). Five people sent word that they would like to have come but couldn't make it. Informal presentations were made on the participants' perspectives on argumentation based on their own research, including * a physics tutoring system (this prompted discussion as to whether the argument was what the system produces, or what the student is intended to construct, or the interaction between the two) * human-human negotiation (prompting discussion on the goals of argumentation -- in the narrow sense, the goals are to persuade the addressee -- in a broader sense, the goals are exchanging information and producing knowledge) * a human (design students) produced interactive multimedia argument for urban policy (prompting discussion on the non-linear organization of arguments afforded by computer media) * academic discourse -- teaching CMU students how to analyze and construct written arguments (based on the Toulmin model), and * computer-generated multimedia (text and information graphics) arguments whose purpose is to justify the computer's advice rather than to persuade the audience to do something; the arguments are loosely based on the Toulmin model and are grounded in the user's data. ============================================================================ 2. Next meeting Date: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 Time: 430-6 pm Location: 4603 Wean Hall Agenda: Continue informal 5 minute presentations on members' research and begin discussions on what these approaches to argumentation have in common, if anything. Is there a common notion of argumentation? ========================================================================== 3. Date/time/preferences: [Thanks to those who have already responded to this!] I will try to take your preferences into consideration when scheduling future meetings. Please help me cope with the amount of email this may generate by standardizing your reply as follows. Please detach the following questionnaire and return it to me by email (ascii only) with your answers or you can give me this information in person at the next meeting. Thanks! ------- detach survey here ---------------------------------------- To indicate your preferences for meeting times, please please mark the cells of this matrix as: very good (++), good (+), ok (-), bad (--), or other (leave blank). The vertical axis indicates day of the week and month, e.g., "Tue Mar" means Tuesdays in March. The horizontal axis shows meeting time (p.m.). 4-530 430-6 5-630 530-7 Tue Mar Wed Mar Thu Mar Tue Apr Wed Apr Thu Apr Tue May Wed May Thu May Miscellaneous comments on date/time: At a future meeting, I would like to volunteer to give a longer presentation on: ---------- end of survey ---------------------------------------- ======================================================================= 4. Distribution of newsletter, announcements Feel free to forward this to colleagues who may be interested. I have discontinued sending news of the group to general-purpose local mailing lists because of complaints that I received. ======================================================================= 5. To be added to the mailing list: If someone forwarded this to you and you would like to be added to the mailing list please send your email address to me: nancy.green@cs.cmu.edu