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)


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.


  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