Drawing Analogies between Logic Programming and Natural Language Argumentation Texts to Scaffold Learners’ Understanding

Abstract

The paper presents a theoretical investigational study of the potential advantages that secondary school learners may gain from learning two different subjects, namely, logic programming within computer science studies and argumentation texts within linguistics studies. The study suggests drawing an analogy between the two subjects since they both require similar abstraction skills manifested in the analysis of texts and in capturing their logic structure and inference. We propose that drawing analogies between two representations of argumentation texts can advance students' understanding, and, furthermore, using computerized systems may enable students to interact with linguistics texts and thus enhance their understanding. The paper explores the connections between the two disciplines, emphasizing the similar structures used to express the knowledge, and presents the similar abstract thinking processes that learners must carry out. Further implications for curricula are discussed.Keywords: Logic Programming education, Linguistics education, Argumentation texts, Analogies, Abstraction IntroductionThe learning of argumentation texts is included in all educational levels from kindergarten, throughout schools, till academic degrees. Even pre-school children use arguments when trying to justify their claims (Stien & Miller, 1993). Studies show that young students find it difficult to formulate a good argument (Orsolini, 1993). For example, researchers addressed the difficulties of young students aged 9-11 and found that they encounter problems in finding justification for their claims (Berkowitz, Oser, & Althoff, 1987). Studies conducted on older students and adults also found that they experience difficulties presenting eligible justifications and arguing with counterclaims (Kuhn, 1991). Kuhn (1991) also found that students tend to base their claims on explanations more than on evidence. Understanding an argumentation text requires exposure to its structure or, in other words, the ability Material published as part of this publication, either on-line or in print, is copyrighted by the Informing Science Institute. Permission to make digital or paper copy of part or all of these works for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage AND that copies 1) bear this notice in full and 2) give the full citation on the first page. It is permissible to abstract these works so long as credit is given. To copy in all other cases or to republish or to post on a server or to redistribute to lists requires specific permission and payment of a fee. Contact Publisher@InformingScience.org to request redistribution permission. Editor: Lynn JeffreyLogic Programming and Natural Language Argumentation Texts to identify the presented argument and to distinguish between the argument and the argument justifications. Argumentation texts can take on different constructions that may make them more difficult to understand. In some structures th...

Students' abilities to formulate exhaustive titles as a key to comprehending arguments

“…This study is part of a broader empirical project (Ragonis & Shilo, 2018) that follows a theoretical study on high school students' understanding of arguments (Ragonis & Shilo, 2014). The empirical research explored the effect of studying logic programming on students' understanding of arguments and pointed out the advantages of this course of learning.…”

Preservice elementary science teachers’ argumentation competence: impact of a training programme

“…In the same way, an extensive body of papers make an effort to present a training programme for high school students improving their argumentative competence (Marttunen, 2002;Marttunen, & Laurinen, 2007;Bulgren, Ellis, & Marquis, 2014;Ragonis, & Shilo, 2014). This problem cited above is especially prevalent among primary science teachers, who show a low level of scientific knowledge and skills (Andrews, & Mitchell, 2001).…”