Graphically and spatially displayed text tool: Araucaria

Reed & Rowe (2004) explain that Araucaria has been developed with the learner, facilitator, and researcher in mind. It is easy enough to be useful to individuals learning how to restructure arguments, diagram them, and apply argumentation schemes. It is suitably flexible for facilitators to provide examples, sample analyses, as well as alternate sets of argumentation schemes. It is also powerful research tool, as it provides examples of argument analyses to support claims.

Araucaria is a software tool for analysing arguments. (Reed 2006 It allows an individual to graphically display an argument using a simple point-and-click interface. The software supports argumentation schemes, and provides a user-customisable set of schemes with which to analyse arguments.

Araucaria Main Window taken from Reed and Rowe (2006)

Constructing Standard Diagram

Araucaria is principally a tool for analysing existing arguments. (Reed & Rowe, 2006) Therefore individual begins with loading the text of an argument. Use the select-and-click technique to add nodes to the diagram so that all the propositions articulated in the text of an argument can be visualised in the diagram. To view parts of the diagram, select a node or arrow and click on it once. Upon selection of a node the text linked with the node will appear in the yellow message area at the bottom of the window. If an arrow between nodes is selected, the text corresponding to the nodes at either end of the arrow will be displayed.

To support node X with node Y, click on Y and hold the mouse button down while dragging the dotted line to X. Each node may support only one other node. Araucaria does not allow a single premise to be linked to multiple conclusions (known as divergent argumentation). If a link is removed, the diagram will rearrange itself automatically to accommodate the changes. Some arguments involve an assertion which supports a conclusion independently, known as convergent arguments. In contrast, other arguments involve premises which need to be linked together in supporting a conclusion and are known as linked arguments.

Some arguments called enthymemes involve ideas that are left implicit or tacit. Araucaria allows the individual to insert missing premises by creating of a node and connecting in the usual way. To delete a missing premise, select it and delete it as usual. The text of a missing premise node can be edited after it has been added to the diagram. Sometimes an analysis requires the notion of refutation which in Araucaria is close to the logical idea of negation. As with support, one node can have a maximum of one refutation. To build an analysis in which there are many ‘counterarguments’ or multiple rebuttals establish a refutation node and then drag supports to it.

Araucaria analysis can be visualised in three ways:

1.            Full Text - the full text of every node is displayed. Full Text mode is useful for understanding an argument; however it quickly fills the screen. To save space, one can collapse parts of the diagram. When a node has collapsed, the supporting argumentation is hidden beneath it. A small blue cross will be visible inside the node (in Full Text view) or just by the node (in the other views) to indicate hidden text. Double clicking of the node will re-expand the diagram. 

2.            Full Size - each node is represented by an ID label (e.g. A, B, C), but the image is guaranteed to remain clear with no overlapping components. In very large analyses the diagram will yet again not fit in the window.

3.            Scaled - each node is represented by an ID label (e.g. A, B, C), and the image is contracted to fit in the display window. Therefore, in very large analyses, some components may overlap a little.

Individual claims and the supports between them can be labelled within Araucaria to indicate:

•             Ownership to show which speaker is associated with them. If the text is a summary, argument for more than one point of view or it may be an argument which uses or attacks the arguments of others, Araucaria can show such arguments by marking each node as to who owns each claim after it has been linked to the diagram. Ownership can be attributed to nodes but not to arrows between nodes.

Ownership Window taken from Reed and Rowe (2006)

•             Evaluation - how the analyst has evaluated them. During the analysis of an argument individual may wish make judgements about the claims or their relationship; Araucaria can support this by marking evaluations on each node/arrow. These labels are user-defined to best meet own needs. Only a single evaluation can be given to a node in the diagram.

Evaluation Window taken from Reed and Rowe (2006)

Constructing a Toulmin Diagram

Creating nodes, selecting diagram components, and deleting diagram components works exactly the same as for Standard style diagrams as explained already. Connecting components are also mostly similar. Major difference is that Toulmin diagrams involve nodes with different roles: Datum, Claim, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, and Qualifier. These different roles are also recognised by different coloured boxes. In Full Size and Scaled views, they also are of different shapes. The different roles require slightly different rules for diagramming. For example, dragging the dotted line from one node to another will create a Toulmin argument with a Datum and a Claim. To add a Warrant, click a node and drag onto an arrow between an existing Datum and Claim. To add a Backing, click and drag onto an existing Warrant. To add a Qualifier, select the arrow between a Datum and a Claim, right-click, and from the popup menu, select ‘Add/Edit data qualifier’. This opens the same evaluation label window as in the Standard diagram. Select or type in an evaluation and then click OK. To link multiple arguments in the Toulmin style, simple drag and drop is needed. Every node in a Toulmin diagram (except Qualifiers) can act as a Claim in another argument. If you chain together many arguments, you may sometimes want to support a Warrant with a single Backing, and at other times, to support a Warrant with a whole other argument.

The facilitator will have to introduce the tool to the participants and allow them to familiarise themselves with it. Again the role of the facilitator appears to be minimal during the development of the map. The development of the argumentation map can be achieved collaboratively by the learners. Thus maybe here the facilitator is functioning as one of the community and contributes accordingly.

Argument Theories of Learning - Toulmin's Argument Schema

Argument theory has been significant in studies of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (e.g Andriessen et al, 2003: Ravenscroft & McAllister, 2006). The roots of argument theory lie in philosophy and conceptual analysis rather than in empirical educational research and it focuses on the structure and syntax of arguments. As I read and researched online learning tools I became aware of the need to also include the concept of argumentation and its related theories as these generally underpinned the tools specifically developed for an online discussion (de Laat & Wegerif 2007). The tools are generally created from the point of developing educational discussion whose affordance is supposed to be in encouraging critical and creative thinking. This also links to the theory of learning as discussed in the earlier blog on social learning theories as the discourse is central to the process here.

Toulmin’s Argument Schema

Toulmin’s explanation of informal argument has been very important in education, as it offers a good illustration of this approach to argument which treats it as if it was a kind of ‘grammar’ (Toulmin, 2003, updated edition). Criticizing over-formal and over-abstract accounts of good and bad arguments in terms of logical syllogisms rather than ordinary language, Toulmin introduced a description of what he called ‘informal logic’. His terminology such as ‘warrant’ suggests that his perspective was influenced by the kind of argumentation used by lawyers in courtrooms. According to him, argumentation can be broken down into the following moves:

• A claim states the standpoint or conclusion, for example: “The Kyoto protocol to reduce global warming is necessary.”

• The data are the facts or opinions that the claim is based on, for example: “Over the last century, the earth’s temperature has been rising as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.”

• The warrant provides the validation for using the data as support for the claim, for example: “Scientists agree that there is no other explanation for this rise in temperature.”

• Optionally, the backing provides specific information supporting the warrant, for example: “Scientists have identified the atmospheric mechanisms whereby greenhouse gases cause a warming of the earth’s surface.”

• A qualifier adds a degree of conviction to the conclusion, indicating the degree of force, which the arguers attribute to a claim, for example: “However, the earth’s temperature has been found to fluctuate over geological time, in some cases without any obvious cause.”

• Exceptions to the claim are expressed by a rebuttal, for example: “The Kyoto protocol would not be necessary if the world’s countries voluntarily reduced their output of greenhouse gases.” (Examples taken from Andriessen, 2006)

This theory can be seen underlying the tool called Araucaria (to be explained in a later blog) where the users can develop Toulmin Diagram to display their understanding of a topic. Therefore, this theory can be seen to be basic to the communication within a group when discussing specific issues. The elements of the argument from each participants view point remain the same when using a linear text display tool or a graphically and spatially displayed text tool. This approach allows the thinking skills to be developed as these are central to learning online.