Advertisement

Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 363–384 | Cite as

Unnatural Language Processing

  • J. Oberlander
  • P. Monaghan
  • R. Cox
  • K. Stenning
  • R. Tobin
Article

Abstract

Computer-based logic proofs are a form of “unnatural” language in which the process and structure of proof generation can be observed in considerable detail. We have been studying how students respond to multimodal logic teaching, and performance measures have already indicated that students' pre-existing cognitive styles have a significant impact on teaching outcome. Furthermore, a large corpus of proofs has been gathered via automatic logging of proof development. This paper applies a series of techniques, including corpus statistical methods, to the proof logs. The results indicate that students' cognitive styles influence the structure of their logical discourse, via their differing methods of handling abstract information in diagrams, and transferring information between modalities.

cognitive styles diagrammatic reasoning logic teaching 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barwise, J. and Etchemendy, J., 1994, Hyperproof, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Campagnoni, F.R. and Ehrlich, K., 1989, “Information retreival using a hypertext-based help system,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems 7, 271–291.Google Scholar
  3. Cox, R., Stenning, K., and Oberlander, J., 1994, “Graphical effects in learning logic: Reasoning, representation and individual differences,” pp. 237–242 in Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Atlanta, GA, August, A. Ram and K. Eisett, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. di Sessa, A.A., 1979, “On 'learnable' representations of knowledge: A meaning for the computational metaphor,” pp. 239–288 in Cognitive Process Instruction, J. Lochhead and J. Clement, eds., Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dunning, T., 1993, “Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence,” Computational Linguistics 19, 61–74.Google Scholar
  6. Duran, R., Powers, D., and Swinton, S., 1987, “Construct validity of the GRE analytical test: A resource document,” ETS Research Report 87-11, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  7. Harris, R.J., 1975, A Primer of Multivariate Statistics, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Mayer, R.E. and Sims, V.K., 1994, “For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning,” Journal of Educational Psychology 86, 389–401.Google Scholar
  9. Monaghan, P., 1995, “A corpus-based analysis of individual differences in proof-style,” M.Sc. Thesis, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  10. Oberlander, J., Cox, R., and Stenning, K., 1996, “Proof styles in multimodal reasoning,” pp. 403–414 in Language, Logic and Computation: Volume 1, J. Seligman and D. Westerståhl, eds., Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Oberlander, J., Cox, R., Mongahan, P., Stenning, K., and Tobin, R., 1996, “Individual differences in proof structures following multimodal logic teaching,” pp. 201–206 in Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, La Jolla, CA, July, G.W. Cottrell, ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Schwarz, B. and Dreyfus, T., 1993, “Measuring integration of information in multirepresentational software,” Interactive Learning Environments 3, 177–198.Google Scholar
  13. Snow, R.E., 1987, “Aptitude complexes,” pp. 1–9 in Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, Volume 3: Conative and Affective Process Analysis, R.E. Snow and M.J. Farr, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J., 1991, “Reasoning with words, pictures and calculi: Computation versus justification,” pp. 607–621 in Situation Theory and Its Applications, Volume 2, J. Barwise, J.M. Gawron, G. Plotkin, and S. Tutiya, eds., Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J., 1995, “A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation,” Cognitive Science 19, 97–140.Google Scholar
  16. Stenning, K., Cox, R., and Oberlander, J., 1995, “Contrasting the cognitive effects of graphical and sentential logic teaching: Reasoning, representation and individual differences,” Language and Cognitive Processes 10, 333–354.Google Scholar
  17. Wason, P.C., 1977, “Self-contradictions,” pp. 114–128 in Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, P.N. Johnson-Laird and P.C. Wason, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Oberlander
    • 1
  • P. Monaghan
    • 1
  • R. Cox
    • 1
  • K. Stenning
    • 1
  • R. Tobin
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Communication Research CentreUniversity of Edinburgh, 2 Buccleuch PlaceEdinburghU.K. (E-mail

Personalised recommendations