Kevin D. Ashley
- Allen and Saxon, 1987.Layman E. Allen and Charles S. Saxon. Some Problems in Designing Expert Systems to Aid Legal Reasoning. In First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Northeastern University, Boston, 1987. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ashley and Rissland, 1987.Kevin D. Ashley and Edwina L. Rissland. Compare and Contrast, A Test of Expertise. In Proceedings AAAI-87. Seattle, WA, August 1987.Google Scholar
- Ashley and Rissland, 1988.Kevin D. Ashley and Edwina L. Rissland. Waiting on Weighting: A Symbolic Least Commitment Approach. In Proceedings AAAI-88. St. Paul, MN, August 1988.Google Scholar
- Ashley, 1989a.Kevin D. Ashley. Defining Salience in Case- Based Arguments. In Proceedings IJCAI-89. Detroit, MI, August 1989.Google Scholar
- Ashley, 1989b.Kevin D. Ashley. Toward a Computational Theory of Arguing with Precedents: Accommodating Multiple Interpretations of Cases. In Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, 1989. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ashley, 1991a.Kevin D. Ashley. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1991. Based on Ashley's 1987 PhD. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, COINS Technical Report No. 88-01. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ashley, 1991b.Kevin D. Ashley. Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man- Machine Studies, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Branting, 1991.L. Karl Branting. .Building Explanations from Rules and Structured Cases. International Journal' of Man-Machine Studies, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Burton and Brown, 1982.R.R. Burton and J.S. Brown. An investigation of Computer Coaching for Informal Learning Activities. In D. Sleeman and J.S. Brown, editors, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pages 79-98. Academic Press, London, 1982.Google Scholar
- Carbonell, 1970.Jaime R. Carbonell. AI in CAI: an Artificial Intelligence approach to Computer-Assisted Instruction. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, 11(4):190-202, 1970.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Carr and Goldstein, 1977.B. Cart and i.P. Goldstein. Overlays: a Theory of Modeling for Computer-Aided Instruction. Technical Report AI Lab Memo 406, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1977.Google Scholar
- Gardner, 1987.A. vdL. Gardner. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Goldstein, 1982.i.P. Goldstein. The Genetic Graph: a Representation for the Evolution of Procedural Knowledge. In D. Sleeman and J.S. Brown, editors, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pages 51-78. Academic Press, London, 1982.Google Scholar
- Jaff, 1986.Jennifer Jaff. Frame-Shifting: An Empowering Methodology for Teaching and Learning Legal Reasoning. Journal of Legal Education, 35:249-267, 1986.Google Scholar
- Lakatos, 1976.I. Lakatos. Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge University Press, London, 1976.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Levi, 1949.Edward H. Levi. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. University of Chicago Press, 1949.Google Scholar
- Littman and Soloway, 1988.David Littman and Elliot Soloway. Evaluating ITSs: The Cognitive Science Perspective. In Martha C. Poison and J. Jeffrey Richardson, editors, Foundations of Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HiUsdale, N J, 1988.Google Scholar
- MacGregor, 1988.Robert M. MacGregor. A Deductive Pattern Marcher. In Proceedings AAAI-88, pages 403-408, Saint Paul, MN, August 1988.Google Scholar
- McCarty and Sridharan, 1981.L. Thorne McCarty and N. S. Sridharan. The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations. In Proceedings IJCAI-81, Vancouver, BC, August 1981.Google Scholar
- McCarty and Sridharan, 1982.L. Thorne McCarty and N. S. Sridharan. A Computational Theory of Legal Argument. Technical Report LRP-TR-13, Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University, 1982.Google Scholar
- Neustadt and May, 1986.R. E. Neustadt and E. R. May. Thinking in Time. Free Press, New York, 1986.Google Scholar
- Paul, 1988.Jeremy Paul. A Bedtime Story. Virginia Law Review, 74:915-934, 1988.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rissland and Skalak, 1991.Edwina L.Rissland and David B. Skalak. CABARET: Statutory Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Teich, 1986.Paul F. Teich. Research on American Law Teaching: Is there a Case against the Case System? Journal of Legal Education, 35:167-188, 1986.Google Scholar
- Wenger, 1987.Etienne It. Wenger. Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems. Morgan Kaufmann Pubhshers, San Mateo, CA, 1987.Google Scholar
- Woods and Schmolze, 1990.Wilham A.Woods and James G. Schmolze. The KL-ONE Family. Technical Report TR-20-90, Center for Research in Computing Technology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, August 1990.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Toward an intelligent tutoring system for teaching law students to argue with cases
Recommendations
Towards an Intelligent Tutoring System Architecturethat Supports Remedial Tutoring
For successful teaching to take place an intelligent tutoring system has to be able to cope with any student errors that may occur during a tutoring interaction. Remedial tutoring is increasingly viewed as a central part of the overall tutoring process, ...
A problem solving oriented intelligent tutoring system to improve students' acquisition of basic computer skills
Personalization and intelligent tutor are two key factors in the research on learning environment. Intelligent tutoring system (ITS), which can imitate the human teachers' actions to implement one-to-one personalized teaching to some extent, is an ...
Comments