In order to prevent impairment of patient care, only standard abbreviations should be used in medical documents. Measures should be taken to decrease the use of non standard abbreviations such as the incorporation of authorized abbreviations to the electronic medical record.

Aim/Purpose: Research shows that students encounter difficulties in identifying the structure of argumentation texts and in understanding the main message of the argument. The research examined the effect that learning Logic Programming (LP), while applying logic inference, has on students’ understanding of argumentation texts. Background: Understanding an argumentation text means exposure to its structure, which requires the ability to identify the argument presented and to distinguish between the argument and its justifications. Argumentation is an important cognitive capacity for handling conflicting information, viewpoints, and opinions. Students’ lack of ability to identify the structure of argumentation texts, and to understand its’ main message, affects the understanding of texts in general, the writing of texts, and the presentation of oral arguments. Since Logic Programming is based on inference that is similar to the way in which people commonly believe that human inferential thinking is performed, our research approach was to investigate how learning LP in Computer Science affects the understanding of argumentation texts in Linguistics. Methodology: The research population included 319 11th-grade students from five high schools, divided into a study group and a control group. Students’ understanding was tested using knowledge questionnaires after completing their language studies, before (pre-study) and after (post-study) a year of learning LP. The knowledge questionnaires included argumentation paragraphs where students were asked to give each paragraph a title and to analyze the argument structure. In addition, an attitudes questionnaire was administered at the end of the school year in order to examine the students’ attitudes towards the connection between the two disciplines. The research applied a mixed method approach, combining both qualitative and quantitative methods. Contribution: The research and its’ findings contribute to the previous body of knowledge with relation to students difficulties in understanding argumentation texts in Linguistics studies. Moreover, it suggests a new approach of using argumentation in the framework of inference as apply in LP to scaffold students’ conceptions. The use of an interactive computerized system (like the logic programming language Prolog) can scaffold students in constructing their knowledge, develop their computational thinking skills, and also enables to vary the teaching methods. Findings: Findings show that the students’ understanding of argumentation texts improved after learning LP. The study group students’ achievements were explicitly better compared with the control group students, who did not learn LP, though this was not always reflected with significant statistics. Students’ attitudes questionnaire revealed that students did not identify on their own the connections between the two disciplines and so could not explicitly use it to promote their understanding. Recommendations for Practitioners: Creative educators, who value challenges, can greatly benefit their students if they collaborate in aim for applying interdisciplinary learning while combining those two disciplines. The research conclusions shows that it is possible to improve students’ understanding if teachers explicitly mediate and guide students in drawing analogies. Recommendation for Researchers: The analysis tool we developed and apply can be used by educators and researchers to evaluate the understanding of argumentative texts by learners. It can be used in language classes at all levels as well as by educators in other disciplines in which the understanding of the argumentative structure is fundamental. Impact on Society: Developing argumentation skills and computational thinking skills. Future Research: Vary future possible research can follow the presented approach: examining how LP teachers expose the logical structure of an argumentation paragraph when they write logic programs that describe the inference represented in texts; examining how language teachers coupe with learning and using LP; examines the knowledge and skills of students that experienced a mediate learning process in the two disciplines in parallel.

No 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...

Titles are used to find and express the main idea of a given text. This study examines the ability of 357 eleventh-grade high school students to formulate meaningful titles for argument paragraphs. Additionally, the link between the ability to provide proper titles and the ability to recognize the argument claim is examined. The study relates to three types of argument structures. The results reveal that most students failed to convey the main idea in all three argument structures. Moreover, even students who succeeded in indicating the main claim, failed to suggest exhaustive titles. Analysis reveals seven different types of inaccuracies in titles students formulated, and reasons for such are offered. Ten recommendations for teaching are suggested in conclusion.