Article

Helping law students to understand US Supreme Court oral arguments: a planned experiment

Authors:

Vincent Aleven,

Kevin D. Ashley,

Collin LynchAuthors Info & Claims

ICAIL '05: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law

Pages 55 - 59

https://doi.org/10.1145/1165485.1165494

Published: 06 June 2005 Publication History

Abstract

The transcripts of oral arguments before the US Supreme Court provide interesting opportunities from the viewpoint of legal education. As the pinnacle of legal argumentation, they illustrate, often in dramatic fashion, a sophisticated process of concept formation and testing driven by skillful posing of hypotheticals. Yet it is not easy to get beginning law students to understand the arguments and the underlying processes of hypothesis formation and testing. We introduce a novel project with the dual aims of developing an AI model of concept formation and testing as well as an intelligent tutoring system for beginning law students. We describe a planned experiment in which we will evaluate to what extent law students' study of the Supreme Court oral arguments can be improved by providing detailed and specific self-explanation prompts. It is hypothesized that detailed prompts to explain connections between tests, rationales, dimensions, and hypotheticals will help students to induce adequate mental models of concept formation processes.

References

[1]

Aleven, V. (2003). Using Background Knowledge in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: A Computational Model and an Intelligent Learning Environment. Artificial Intelligence 150, 183--237.

Digital Library

[2]

Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. Thesis, Intelligent Systems Program, University of Pittsburgh.

Digital Library

[3]

Aleven, V., and Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An Effective Meta-cognitive Strategy: Learning by Doing and Explaining with a Computer-Based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147--179.

[4]

Ashley, K. (1990) Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Digital Library

[5]

Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., and Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Combining fading with prompt fosters learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774--783.

[6]

Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., and Wortham, D. W. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181--214.

[7]

Bench-Capon, T. and Sartor, G. (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 97--143

Digital Library

[8]

Branting, L. K. (1999). Reasoning with Rules and Precedents - A Computational Model of Legal Analysis. Kluwer Academic.

[9]

Brewer, S. (1996) "Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy", Harvard Law Review, v. 109, pp. 923--1028.

[10]

Carletta, J. (1996). Assessing Agreement on Classification Tasks: The Kappa Statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22(2):249--254.

Digital Library

[11]

Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., and Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439--477.

[12]

Johnson, T. R. (2004). Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

[13]

McCarty, L. T. and Sridharan, N. S. (1981) "The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations." LRP-TR-11. Laboratory for Computer Science Research. Rutgers University. New Brunswick, NJ.

[14]

Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1998). Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6: 231--287.

Digital Library

[15]

Prettyman, E. B. (1984). The Supreme Court's Use of Hypothetical Questions at Oral Argument. Catholic University Law Review 33, 555--91.

[16]

Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., and Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from Worked-Out Examples: the Effects of Example Variability and Elicited Self-Explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90--108.

[17]

Rissland, E. L. (1983) "Examples in Legal Reasoning: Legal Hypotheticals." Proceedings Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-83), pp. 90--93, Karlsruhe, Germany. August.

[18]

Rissland, E. L. (1989). Dimension-Based Analysis of Hypotheticals from Supreme Court Oral Argument. In Proc. 2d International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL '89 (pp. 111--120). New York: ACM.

Digital Library

[19]

Rissland, E. L. and Skalak, D. B. (1991) "CABARET: Statutory Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture." International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(6):839--887.

Digital Library

[20]

Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B. and Friedman, M. T. (1996) "BankXX: Supporting Legal Arguments Through Heuristic Retrieval", Artificial Intelligence and Law, v. 4, p. 19.

[21]

Schworm, S., and Renkl, A. (submitted). Learning with video-based models: self-explanation prompts for the acquisition of cognitive skills? Their quality is the deciding factor!

[22]

Schworm, S. and Renkl, A. (2002). Learning by solved example problems: Instructional explanations reduce self-explanation activity. In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceeding of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.816--821). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

[23]

Sunstein, C. R. (1993) "On Analogical Reasoning", Harvard Law Review, v. 106, pp. 741--791.

Cited By

Dao Mong DPhan Thanh H(2024)Relationship between artificial intelligence and legal education: A bibliometric analysisKnowledge and Performance Management10.21511/kpm.08(2).2024.028:2(13-27)Online publication date: 17-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.21511/kpm.08(2).2024.02
Le NLoll FPinkwart N(2013)Operationalizing the Continuum between Well-Defined and Ill-Defined Problems for Educational TechnologyIEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies10.1109/TLT.2013.166:3(258-270)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TLT.2013.16

Helping law students to understand US Supreme Court oral arguments: a planned experiment
1. Applied computing

Recommendations

Learning by diagramming Supreme Court oral arguments
ICAIL '07: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law

This paper describes an intelligent tutoring system, LARGO, that helps students learn skills of legal reasoning with hypotheticals by analyzing oral arguments before the US Supreme Court. The skills involve proposing a rule-like test for deciding a case,...
U.S. Cybercrime Law: Defining Offenses

In recent years, a new term has arisen—“cybercrime”—which essentially denotes the use of computer technology to commit or to facilitate the commission of unlawful acts, or “crimes.” This article explains why we treat cybercrime as a special class of “...
Supreme Court IP Update

Several cases involving intellectual property were argued before the US Supreme Court in early 2014, and decisions have just been released. The Web extra at http://youtu.be/Ppi0tzRnLQU is an audio recording in which author Brian M. Gaff provides an ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

ICAIL '05: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law

June 2005

270 pages

ISBN:1595930817

DOI:10.1145/1165485

Conference Chair:
Giovanni Sartor
CIRSFID - Universita di Bologna, Italy

Copyright © 2005 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

The International Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law
CIRSFID

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 June 2005

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Article

Conference

ICAIL05

Sponsor:

ICAIL05: 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intellignece and Law

June 6 - 11, 2005

Bologna, Italy

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
175
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)4
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 22 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Dao Mong DPhan Thanh H(2024)Relationship between artificial intelligence and legal education: A bibliometric analysisKnowledge and Performance Management10.21511/kpm.08(2).2024.028:2(13-27)Online publication date: 17-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.21511/kpm.08(2).2024.02
Le NLoll FPinkwart N(2013)Operationalizing the Continuum between Well-Defined and Ill-Defined Problems for Educational TechnologyIEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies10.1109/TLT.2013.166:3(258-270)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TLT.2013.16

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents