Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama

Elif SÖNMEZ, (Kastamonu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Temel Eğitim Bölümü, Türkiye)
Büşra Nur ÇAKAN AKKAŞ, (Kastamonu Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Matematik ve Fen Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı, Kastamonu, Türkiye)
Esra KABATAŞ MEMİŞ (Kastamonu Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Bölümü, Kastamonu, Türkiye)
Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi
15 1
Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 14 Sayı: 33 Sayfa Aralığı: 129 - 145 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6 İndeks Tarihi: 19-06-2021

Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama

Öz:
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 Kelime:

An Innovative Approach to Creating Arguments: Argument Mapping

Öz:
The current century is known as the age of science and technology. Every day, complex information is produced and shared in various parts of the world. With our life at this time, discussions are becoming more complex. The fact that oral and written discussions are abstract, understanding the elements of the discussion, recognizing the weaknesses and strengths, and developing an opinion on the subject of the discussion constitute a great burden on the human mind. The argument maps used to understand the debate as a complex process draw attention as a holistic and pictorial approach to alleviate this mental burden. Developing technology and fast and accurate argument mapping has increased the interest in computer aided mapping. Because, the argument maps that are created in this way, a new technique is used for thinking and presenting arguments much faster than reading and writing to understand complex arguments. Argument mapping can be considered as an important educational tool in terms of providing applications that facilitate students' discussions in technology supported learning environments.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 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.
  • Austhink Pty Ltd (2006). Rationale. Argument mapping computer software. Melbourne: Austhink Pty Ltd. http://www.austhink.com/
  • Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. Foundations of argumentative text processing, 5, 179-202.
  • Barron, C. (2003). Problem-solving and EAP: themes and issues in a collaborative teaching venture. English for Specific Purposes, 22(3), 297-314.
  • Billings, D. M. (2008). Argument mapping. The Journal of continuing education in nursing, 39(6), 246-247.
  • 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.
  • Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. (2003). Construction of argument representations during on-line reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 749-810.
  • 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.
  • Botley, S. P., & Hakim, F. (2014). Argument structure in learner writing: A corpus-based analysis using argument mapping. Kajian Malaysia, 32(1), 45-77.
  • 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).
  • Carr, C. S. (2003). Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation. In Visualizing argumentation (pp. 75-96). Springer, London.
  • 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.
  • Conklin, J. (2003). Dialog mapping: Reflections on an industrial strength case study. In Visualizing argumentation (pp. 117-136). Springer, London.
  • Correia, V. (2011). Biases and fallacies: The role of motivated irrationality in fallacious reasoning. Cogency: Journal of reasoning and argumentation, 3(1), 107-126.
  • Correia, V. (2011). Biases and fallacies: The role of motivated irrationality in fallacious reasoning. Cogency: Journal of reasoning and argumentation, 3(1), 107-126.
  • 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.
  • Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281-297.
  • 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.
  • Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer.
  • Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American psychologist, 49(8), 725.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Eemeren, F. H. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach (Vol. 14). Cambridge University Press.
  • Fabos, B., & Young, M. D. (1999). Telecommunication in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of educational research, 69(3), 217-259.
  • Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005). Arguments about arguments: Systematic, critical, and historical essays in logical theory. Cambridge University Press.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Goldenberg, E. P. (1995). Multiple representations: A vehicle for understanding understanding. Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies, 155-171.
  • Golder, C., & Coirier, P. (1994). Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends. Discourse processes, 18(2), 187-210.
  • Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational researcher, 26(1), 5-17.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Hoffmann, M. H. (2015). Changing philosophy through technology: Complexity and computer-supported collaborative argument mapping. Philosophy & Technology, 28(2), 167-188.
  • Horn, R. E., Yoshimi, J., Deering, M., & McBride, R. (1999). Can computers think.
  • 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.
  • Jonassen, D. H., & Carr, C. S. (2000). Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledge representations for learning. Computers as cognitive tools, 2, 165-196.
  • Janssen, J. J. H. M., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J. G. M., & Kanselaar, G. (2006). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation.
  • Kanselaar, G., Andriessen, J., de Jong, T., & Goodyear, P. (2000). New technologies. In New learning (pp. 55-81). Springer, Dordrecht.
  • Kanselaar, G., & Erkens, G. (1996). Interactivity in cooperative problem solving with computers. International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments, 185-202.
  • Karakuş, E. (2019). Argümantasyon tabanli bilim öğrenme yaklaşiminin uygulandiği fen siniflarinda kavram haritalari ve argüman haritalarinin etkililiğinin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kastamonu Üniversitesi.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science education, 77(3), 319-337.
  • 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.
  • Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.
  • 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.
  • Leeman, R. W. (1987). Taking Perspectives: Teaching Critical Thinking in the Argumentation Course.
  • Magnusson, C., & Rolf, B. (2002). Developing the art of argumentation-a software approach. In International Conference on Argumentation.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29(2), 127-153.
  • Maurer, N. M., & Mischler, L. F. (1994). Introduction to lawyering: Teaching first-year students to think like professionals. J. Legal Educ., 44, 96.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice.
  • Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Rowe, G., & Reed, C. (2006). Translating Wigmore Diagrams. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 144, 171.
  • 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.
  • Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Chapter 1: Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of research in education, 23(1), 1-24.
  • Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational technology, 35(5), 31-38.
  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The journal of the learning sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
  • Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46(4), 349-370.
  • Shum, S. B. (1996). Analyzing the usability of a design rationale notation. Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use, 185, 215.
  • Shum, S. B. (2003). The roots of computer supported argument visualization. In Visualizing argumentation (pp. 3-24). Springer, London.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • ter Berg, T. and T. van Gelder. 2007. Critical thinking. Reasoning and communicating with rationale. Netherlands: Pearson ELT Benelux
  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge University Press.
  • Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge university press.
  • 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).
  • van Gelder, T. (2003). Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualization. In Visualizing argumentation (pp. 97-115). Springer, London.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121-140.
  • Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and instruction, 1(4), 337-350.
APA sönmez e, AKKAŞ B, Kabataş Memiş E (2020). Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama. , 129 - 145. 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
Chicago sönmez elif,AKKAŞ Büşra Nur ÇAKAN,Kabataş Memiş Esra Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama. (2020): 129 - 145. 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
MLA sönmez elif,AKKAŞ Büşra Nur ÇAKAN,Kabataş Memiş Esra Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama. , 2020, ss.129 - 145. 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
AMA sönmez e,AKKAŞ B,Kabataş Memiş E Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama. . 2020; 129 - 145. 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
Vancouver sönmez e,AKKAŞ B,Kabataş Memiş E Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama. . 2020; 129 - 145. 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
IEEE sönmez e,AKKAŞ B,Kabataş Memiş E "Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama." , ss.129 - 145, 2020. 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
ISNAD sönmez, elif vd. "Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama". (2020), 129-145. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
APA sönmez e, AKKAŞ B, Kabataş Memiş E (2020). Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(33), 129 - 145. 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
Chicago sönmez elif,AKKAŞ Büşra Nur ÇAKAN,Kabataş Memiş Esra Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 14, no.33 (2020): 129 - 145. 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
MLA sönmez elif,AKKAŞ Büşra Nur ÇAKAN,Kabataş Memiş Esra Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol.14, no.33, 2020, ss.129 - 145. 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
AMA sönmez e,AKKAŞ B,Kabataş Memiş E Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2020; 14(33): 129 - 145. 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
Vancouver sönmez e,AKKAŞ B,Kabataş Memiş E Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2020; 14(33): 129 - 145. 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
IEEE sönmez e,AKKAŞ B,Kabataş Memiş E "Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama." Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14, ss.129 - 145, 2020. 10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
ISNAD sönmez, elif vd. "Argüman Oluşturma Üzerine Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Argüman Haritalama". Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 14/33 (2020), 129-145. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.272.6
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 18:30

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları