International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1309-0682
Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi
International Association of Educators

Orjinal Araştırma Makalesi | Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2020, Cil. 14(33) 129-145

Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama

Elif Sönmez, Büşra Nur Çakan Akkaş & Esra Kabataş Memiş

ss. 129 - 145   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6   |  Makale No: MANU-2004-09-0005.R1

Yayın tarihi: Eylül 29, 2020  |   Okunma Sayısı: 160  |  İndirilme Sayısı: 549

PDF İndir

Özet

İçinde bulunduğumuz yüzyıl bilim ve teknoloji çağı olarak anılmaktadır. Her yeni günde dünyanın farklı yerlerinde karmaşık bilgiler üretilmekte ve paylaşılmaktadır. Bu zamanda geçirdiğimiz hayatla birlikte tartışmalar da daha karmaşık hale gelmektedir. Sözlü ve yazılı tartışmaların soyut olması, unsurların anlaşılması, zayıf ve güçlü yanlarının fark edilmesi ve  tartışılan konu hakkında görüş geliştirilmesi insan zihni üzerine büyük bir yük getirmektedir. Karmaşık bir süreç olarak tartışmanın anlaşılması için kullanılan argüman haritaları, bu zihinsel yükü hafifletecek bütünsel ve resimsel bir yaklaşım olarak dikkat çekmektedir. Gelişen teknoloji ile argümanların hızlı ve doğru bir şekilde oluşturulması, geliştirilen bilgisayar destekli argüman haritalamaya olan ilgiyi artırmıştır. Çünkü bu şekilde oluşturulan argüman haritalarında karmaşık argümanları anlamak için okumaktan ve yazmaktan çok daha hızlı biçimde doğru düşünmek ve argümanlar sunmak için yeni bir tekniğin kullanılması söz konusudur. Argüman haritalama, teknoloji destekli öğrenme ortamlarında öğrencilerin tartışmalarını kolaylaştırıcı uygulamalar sunması açısından önemli bir eğitim aracı olarak değerlendirilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Argüman Oluşturma, Argüman Haritalama, Bilgisayar Destekli Argüman Haritalama

Bu makaleye nasıl atıf yapılır?

APA 6th edition
Sonmez, E., Akkas, B.N.C. & Memis, E.K. (2020). Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama . Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(33), 129-145. doi: 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6

Harvard
Sonmez, E., Akkas, B. and Memis, E. (2020). Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama . Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(33), pp. 129-145.

Chicago 16th edition
Sonmez, Elif, Busra Nur Cakan Akkas and Esra Kabatas Memis (2020). "Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama ". Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 14 (33):129-145. doi:10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6.
Kaynakça
  1. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. D. (Eds.). (2013). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media. [Google Scholar]
  2. Austhink Pty Ltd (2006). Rationale. Argument mapping computer software. Melbourne: Austhink Pty Ltd. http://www.austhink.com/ [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. Foundations of argumentative text processing, 5, 179-202. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barron, C. (2003). Problem-solving and EAP: themes and issues in a collaborative teaching venture. English for Specific Purposes, 22(3), 297-314. [Google Scholar]
  5. Billings, D. M. (2008). Argument mapping. The Journal of continuing education in nursing, 39(6), 246-247. [Google Scholar]
  6. van den Braak, S. W., van Oostendorp, H., Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2006). A critical review of argument visualization tools: do users become better reasoners?’, ibid. [Google Scholar]
  7. Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. (2003). Construction of argument representations during on-line reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 749-810. [Google Scholar]
  8. Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. A., Dandotkar, S., & Wolfe, C. R. (2007). I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45(1), 52-84. [Google Scholar]
  9. Botley, S. P., & Hakim, F. (2014). Argument structure in learner writing: A corpus-based analysis using argument mapping. Kajian Malaysia, 32(1), 45-77. [Google Scholar]
  10. Butchart, S., Forster, D., Gold, I., Bigelow, J., Korb, K., Oppy, G., & Serrenti, A. (2009). Improving critical thinking using web based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2). [Google Scholar]
  11. Carr, C. S. (2003). Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation. In Visualizing argumentation (pp. 75-96). Springer, London. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive science, 13(2), 145-182. [Google Scholar]
  13. Conklin, J. (2003). Dialog mapping: Reflections on an industrial strength case study. In Visualizing argumentation (pp. 117-136). Springer, London.  [Google Scholar]
  14. Correia, V. (2011). Biases and fallacies: The role of motivated irrationality in fallacious reasoning. Cogency: Journal of reasoning and argumentation, 3(1), 107-126.  [Google Scholar]
  15. Correia, V. (2011). Biases and fallacies: The role of motivated irrationality in fallacious reasoning. Cogency: Journal of reasoning and argumentation, 3(1), 107-126. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cullen, S., Fan, J., van der Brugge, E., & Elga, A. (2018). Improving analytical reasoning and argument understanding: a quasi-experimental field study of argument visualization. npj Science of Learning, 3(1), 1-6. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281-297. [Google Scholar]
  18. de Vries, F. J., Kester, L., Sloep, P., Van Rosmalen, P., Pannekeet, K., & Koper, R. (2005). Identification of critical time-consuming student support activities in e-learning. ALT-J, 13(3), 219-229. [Google Scholar]
  19. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American psychologist, 49(8), 725. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, 38, 685-705. [Google Scholar]
  22. Heras, S., JordáN, J., Botti, V., & JuliáN, V. (2013). Argue to agree: a case-based argumentation approach. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54(1), 82-108. [Google Scholar]
  23. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Eemeren, F. H. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach (Vol. 14). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fabos, B., & Young, M. D. (1999). Telecommunication in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of educational research, 69(3), 217-259. [Google Scholar]
  25. Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005). Arguments about arguments: Systematic, critical, and historical essays in logical theory. Cambridge University Press.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2002, January). Facilitating knowledge convergence in videoconferencing environments: The role of external representation tools. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community (pp. 623-624). International Society of the Learning Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  27. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American journal of distance education, 19(3), 133-148. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gold, J., & Holman, D. (2001). Let me tell you a story: An evaluation of the use of storytelling and argument analysis in management education. Career development international, 6(7), 384-395. [Google Scholar]
  29. Goldenberg, E. P. (1995). Multiple representations: A vehicle for understanding understanding. Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies, 155-171. [Google Scholar]
  30. Golder, C., & Coirier, P. (1994). Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends. Discourse processes, 18(2), 187-210. [Google Scholar]
  31. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational researcher, 26(1), 5-17. [Google Scholar]
  32. Harrell, M. (2007). Using argument diagramming software to teach critical thinking skills. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on education and information systems, technologies and applications. [Google Scholar]
  33. Harrison, C. (2011). Literacy, Technology and the Internet: What Are the Challenges and Opportunities for Learners with Reading Difficulties, and How Do We Support Them in Meeting Those Challenges and Grasping Those Opportunities?. In Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 111-131). Springer, Dordrecht. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoffmann, M. H. (2015). Changing philosophy through technology: Complexity and computer-supported collaborative argument mapping. Philosophy & Technology, 28(2), 167-188. [Google Scholar]
  35. Horn, R. E., Yoshimi, J., Deering, M., & McBride, R. (1999). Can computers think. [Google Scholar]
  36. Joiner, R., Jones, S., & Doherty, J. (2008). Two studies examining argumentation in asynchronous computer mediated communication. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 243-255. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jonassen, D. H., & Carr, C. S. (2000). Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledge representations for learning. Computers as cognitive tools, 2, 165-196. [Google Scholar]
  38. Janssen, J. J. H. M., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J. G. M., & Kanselaar, G. (2006). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kanselaar, G., Andriessen, J., de Jong, T., & Goodyear, P. (2000). New technologies. In New learning (pp. 55-81). Springer, Dordrecht. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kanselaar, G., & Erkens, G. (1996). Interactivity in cooperative problem solving with computers. International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments, 185-202. [Google Scholar]
  41. Karakuş, E. (2019). Argümantasyon tabanli bilim öğrenme yaklaşiminin uygulandiği fen siniflarinda kavram haritalari ve argüman haritalarinin etkililiğinin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kastamonu Üniversitesi.  [Google Scholar]
  42. Kaya, O. N., & Kılıç, Z. (2008). Etkin bir fen öğretimi için tartışmacı söylev. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 9(3), 89-100. [Google Scholar]
  43. Klaczynski, P. A. (2000). Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two‐process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 71(5), 1347-1366. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kim, H.Y. (2015). Modeling the Reasoning Processes in Experts and Novices’ Argument Diagramming Task: Sequential analysis of Diagramming Behavior and Think-Aloud Data. Florida State University, Doctoral Dissertation [Google Scholar]
  45. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2005, May). Internal and external collaboration scripts in web-based science learning at schools. In Proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years! (pp. 331-340). International Society of the Learning Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science education, 77(3), 319-337. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kuhn, D., & Goh, W. (2005, May). Arguing on the computer. In Proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years! (pp. 346-352). International Society of the Learning Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824. [Google Scholar]
  49. Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. A. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 339-366.  [Google Scholar]
  50. Leeman, R. W. (1987). Taking Perspectives: Teaching Critical Thinking in the Argumentation Course. [Google Scholar]
  51. Magnusson, C., & Rolf, B. (2002). Developing the art of argumentation-a software approach. In International Conference on Argumentation. [Google Scholar]
  52. Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kirschner, P., & Kanselaar, G. (2007, July). Effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on interactive argumentation. In Proceedings of the 8th iternational conference on Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 532-541). International Society of the Learning Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  53. Marttunen, M. (1992). Commenting on Written Arguments as a Part of Argumentation Skills—comparison between students engaged in traditional vs on‐line study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36(4), 289-302. [Google Scholar]
  54. Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29(2), 127-153. [Google Scholar]
  55. Maurer, N. M., & Mischler, L. F. (1994). Introduction to lawyering: Teaching first-year students to think like professionals. J. Legal Educ., 44, 96. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pea, R. D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. the Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 285-299. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pfister, H. R. (2005). How to support synchronous net-based learning discourses: Principles and perspectives. In R. Bromme, F. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computermediated knowledge communication (pp. 39–57). New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  58. Rapanta, C., & Walton, D. (2016). The use of argument maps as an assessment tool in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 211-221. [Google Scholar]
  59. Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. [Google Scholar]
  60. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. [Google Scholar]
  61. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. [Google Scholar]
  62. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (1999). Research news and Comment: Trajectories From Today’s WWW to a Powerful Educational Infrastructure. Educational researcher, 28(5), 22-43. [Google Scholar]
  63. Rowe, G., & Reed, C. (2006). Translating Wigmore Diagrams. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 144, 171. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science education, 92(3), 447-472. [Google Scholar]
  65. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Chapter 1: Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of research in education, 23(1), 1-24. [Google Scholar]
  66. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational technology, 35(5), 31-38. [Google Scholar]
  67. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The journal of the learning sciences, 3(3), 265-283. [Google Scholar]
  68. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46(4), 349-370. [Google Scholar]
  69. Shum, S. B. (1996). Analyzing the usability of a design rationale notation. Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use, 185, 215. [Google Scholar]
  70. Shum, S. B. (2003). The roots of computer supported argument visualization. In Visualizing argumentation (pp. 3-24). Springer, London. [Google Scholar]
  71. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297-323.  [Google Scholar]
  72. Suthers, D. D. (1999, December). Effects of alternate representations of evidential relations on collaborative learning discourse. In Proceedings of the 1999 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning (p. 74). International Society of the Learning Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  73. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2001, March). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 577-592). [Google Scholar]
  74. ter Berg, T. and T. van Gelder. 2007. Critical thinking. Reasoning and communicating with rationale. Netherlands: Pearson ELT Benelux [Google Scholar]
  75. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  76. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge university press. [Google Scholar]
  77. van Gelder, T. (2001, December). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. In Meeting at the crossroads: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 539-548). [Google Scholar]
  78. van Gelder, T. (2003). Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualization. In Visualizing argumentation (pp. 97-115). Springer, London. [Google Scholar]
  79. van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 58(2), 142. [Google Scholar]
  80. van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and instruction, 12(1), 121-138. [Google Scholar]
  81. van Bruggen, J. M., Boshuizen, H. P., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In Visualizing argumentation (pp. 25-47). Springer, London.   [Google Scholar]
  82. van den Braak, S. W., van Oostendorp, H., Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2006). A critical review of argument visualization tools: do users become better reasoners?’, ibid. [Google Scholar]
  83. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121-140. [Google Scholar]
  84. Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and instruction, 1(4), 337-350. [Google Scholar]
İndir
Metric
Geçmiş
Benzer

Cilt 14 Sayı 33

Eylül 2020

Tüm Makaleler

Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Gizlilik     |     Kullanım Koşulları     |     Çerez Politikaları
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.