Debate-Based Learning Game for Constructing Mathematical Proofs

  • Nadira Boudjani
  • Abdelkader Gouaich
  • Souhila Kaci
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10369)

Abstract

Debate is a valuable and effective method of learning. It is an interactive process in which learners cooperate by exchanging arguments and counter-arguments to solve a common question. We propose a debate-based learning game for mathematics classroom to teach how to structure and build mathematical proofs. Dung’s argumentation framework and its extensions are used as a means to extract acceptable arguments that form the proof. Moreover this allows instructors to provide continuous feedbacks to learners without information overload.

Keywords

Defend Undercut 

References

  1. 1.
    Amir, Y., Sharan, S., Ben-Ari, R., Desegregation, S.: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Psychology Press, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding. IJAR 54(7), 876–899 (2013)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davidson, N.: Enhancing Thinking through Cooperative Learning. Teachers College Press, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Durand-Guerrier, V., Boero, P., Douek, N., Epp, S., Tanguay, D.: Argumentation and proof in the mathematics classroom. In: Hanna, G., de Villiers, M. (eds.) Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education, pp. 349–367. Springer, Dordrecht (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T.: Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. Allyn and Bacon, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Preference-based argumentation: arguments supporting multiple values. IJAR 48, 730–751 (2008)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kennedy, R.R.: The power of in-class debates. Act. Learn. High Educ. 10(3), 225–236 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maudet, N., Moore, D.: Dialogue games as dialogue models for interacting with, and via, computers. Informal Logic 21(3), 219–243 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Modgil, S.: Hierarchical argumentation. In: Fisher, M., Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 319–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11853886_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nouioua, F., Risch, V.: Bipolar argumentation frameworks with specialized supports. In: ICTAI 2010, pp. 215–218 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: COMMA 2008, pp. 276–284 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oros, A.L.: Let’s debate: active learning encourages student participation and critical thinking. J. Polit. Sci. Educ. 3(3), 293–311 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park, C., Kier, C., Jugdev, K.: Debate as a teaching strategy in online education: a case study. Can. J. Learn. Technol. 37(3), 17–20 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pease, A., Budzynska, K., Lawrence, J., Reed, C.: Lakatos games for mathematical argument. In: COMMA 2014, pp. 59–66 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Argumentation and game theory. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 321–339. Springer, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thimm, M., García, A.J.: Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks. In: AAMAS 2010, pp. 1247–1254 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weigand, E.: Argumentation: the mixed game. Argumentation 20(1), 59–87 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yuan, T., Svansson, V., Moore, D., Grierson, A.: A computer game for abstract argumentation. In: CMNA (IJCAI 2007 Workshop), pp. 62–68 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zemplén, G.: History of Science and Argumentation in Science Education, pp. 129–140. SensePublishers, Rotterdam (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadira Boudjani
    • 1
  • Abdelkader Gouaich
    • 1
  • Souhila Kaci
    • 1
  1. 1.LIRMMMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations