Validating a forced-choice method for eliciting quality-of-reasoning judgments.

In this paper we investigate the criterion validity of forced-choice comparisons of the quality of written arguments with normative solutions. Across two studies, novices and experts assessing quality of reasoning through a forced-choice design were both able to choose arguments supporting more accurate solutions-62.2% (SE = 1%) of the time for novices and 74.

The role of narrative in collaborative reasoning and intelligence analysis: A case study.

This paper explores the significance of narrative in collaborative reasoning using a qualitative case study of two teams of intelligence analysts who took part in an exercise using an online collaborative platform. Digital ethnographic methods were used to analyze the chat transcripts of analysts as they reasoned with evidence provided in a difficult, fictional intelligence-type problem and produced a final intelligence report. These chat transcripts provided a powerful "microscope" into the reasoning processes and interactions involved in complex, collaborative reasoning.

Hi-trees and their layout.

We introduce hi-trees, a new visual representation for hierarchical data in which, depending on the kind of parent node, the child relationship is represented using either containment or links. We give a drawing convention for hi-trees based on the standard layered drawing convention for rooted trees, then show how to extend standard bottom-up tree layout algorithms to draw hi-trees in this convention. We also explore a number of other more compact layout styles for layout of larger hi-trees and give algorithms for computing these.

Response to Lachman.

Lachman claims that the Dynamical Hypothesis (DH) is "untenable." His own position is a version of the "The DH is epistemological, not ontological," objection to the target article, which is dealt with in section R2.3 of my original response (van Gelder 1998r).

Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning.

People generally develop some degree of competence in general informal reasoning and argument skills, but how do they go beyond this to attain higher expertise? Ericsson has proposed that high-level expertise in a variety of domains is cultivated through a specific type of practice, referred to as "deliberate practice." Applying this framework yields the empirical hypothesis that high-level expertise in informal reasoning is the outcome of extensive, deliberate practice. This paper reports results from two studies evaluating the hypothesis.