ABSTRACT
We compared two automated approaches to teaching distinguishing, a skill that involves assessing the relevant differences among cases in a context -sensitive way. We implemented the two approaches in two versions of an Intelligent Tutoring System designed to teach law students basic skills of case-based legal argument. The original version of CATO employs didactic explanation. The newer version, CATO-Dial, teaches the same skill with a simulated dialectic argument in a courtroom setting. We hypothesized that students would learn the skill better by engaging in the simulated argument than by receiving interactive explanation. We expected that dialectic argument would help students to construct the target knowledge on their own as they developed responses to arguments, and that this would lead to more robust learning. We showed that students in the dialectic argument simulation group performed significantly better on a section of the post-test aimed at assessing transfer of their skills of distinguishing. We discuss a number of cognitive and motivational benefits that may explain this effect
