Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An evaluation of academic achievements through the use of argument and concept maps embedded in argumentation based inquiry

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Education Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This mixed-method study aimed to compare the academic achievements of students to their use of argument maps and concept maps in learning environments designed for argument-based instruction (ABI). The study was conducted during the spring term of the academic year 2018–2019 with the students of three sections of grade six instructed by the same teacher at a secondary school in the province of Kastamonu. Before the study began, one of the participating sections was randomly designated as the control group, while the other two were assigned as the experimental group. The control group students undertook research interrogation-based activities during lessons and individually reported activities appropriate for the ABI student template for each activity. The experimental group students handled ABI applications. In addition, one section of the experimental group prepared concept maps, while the other section made argument maps. The 5-week study was accomplished during the instruction of the “sound and its properties” unit of the curriculum. The data were acquired via a pre- and post-administration of the unit-based success test to measure academic success. Further, semi-structured interviews were conducted to ascertain the opinions of students vis-à-vis the pedagogy. The obtained quantitative data were analyzed using the ANCOVA analysis via the SPSS software. The qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews were examined by the creation of themes, codes, and frequencies. The experimental group using argument maps or concept maps in addition to ABI applications revealed significant outcomes in terms of academic achievements. Further, students expressed the belief that argument and concept maps helped them learn and remember the topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahlberg, M. (1993). Concept maps, vee diagrams and rhetorical argumentation analysis (RAA) : Three educational theory-based tools to facilitate meaningful learning. In: The Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics.

  • Akay, H., Soybaş, D., & Argün, Z. (2006). Problem posing experiences and using open-ended questions in mathematics teaching. Kastamonu Education Journal, 14(1), 129–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkuş, R., Günel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akpınar, E., & Ergin, Ö. (2005). Yapılandırmacı kuramda fen öğretmeninin rolü. İlköğretim Online, 4(2), 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart.

  • Ayas, A. (1995). A study on program development and implementation techniques in science: An evaluation of two contemporary approaches. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 11, 149–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badger, E., & Thomas, B. (1992). Open-ended questions in reading. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 3(4), 03.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahar, M., Nartgün, Z., Durmuş, S., & Bıçak, B. (2012). Traditional-complementary measurement and evaluation techniques: Teacher’s handbook. Pegem Academy.

  • Balcı, A. (2004). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem teknik ve ilkeler. Pegem A Yayıncılık.

  • Barut, Ö. (2006). Teaching primary school 7th grade science subjects with concept maps. Msc. Thesis, Yüzüncü Yıl University Institute of Science, Van.

  • Baydas, O., Yesildağ-Hasancebi, F., & Kilis, S. (2018). An investigation of university students’ discussion process in argumentation based inquiry approach. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 19(3), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.341522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2013). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. 14. Baskı, Ankara: Pegem-A Publishing.

  • Çakan Akkaş, B. N., Sönmez, E., & Kabataş Memiş, E. (2018). Step-by-step argument map in learning environment: Example of optic. Online Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(2).

  • Çakan Akkaş, B. N., Sönmez, E., & Kabataş Memiş, E. (2019). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Mercek Konulu Bilgisayar Destekli Argüman Haritalarının Değerlendirilmesi. EJERCongress 2019 (s. 1069–1070). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

  • Canas, A. J., Carff, R., Hill, G., Carvalho, M., Arguedas, M., Eskridge, T. C., Lott, J., & Carvajal, R. (2005). Concept maps: Integrating knowledge and information visualization. In S. O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and Information visualization searching for synergies (pp. 205–219). Springer.

  • Cañas, A. J., & Novak, J. D. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical report IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Professor Emeritus, Cornell University and Senior Research Scientist Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC).

  • Çepni, S. (2014). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş (Geliştirilmiş 7.Baskı b.). Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.

  • Chin & Brown. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40, 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooney, T. J., Sanchez, W. B., Leatham, K., & Mewborn, D. S. (2004). Open-ended assessment in math: A searchable collection of 450+ questions. Heinemann.

  • Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., Fetters, M. D., Plano Clark, V. L., & Morales, A. (2009). Mixed methods intervention trials. In S. Andrew & E. J. Halcomb (Eds.), Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences (pp. 161–180). Wiley.

  • Çakıcı, D., Alver, B., & Ada, Ş. (2006). The Application Of Meaningful Learning In Teaching. Kazim Karabekir Faculty of Education Journal (13).

  • Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? High Education, 62, 279–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dikici, A., Türker, H. H., & Özdemir, G. (2010). Investigation of the effect of 5e learning cycle on meaningful learning. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 3(39), 100–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, C. P. (2011). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool. Doctoral thesis, National University of Ireland, School of Psychology, Galway.

  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2010). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool: Comparing the effects of map reading versus text reading on comprehension and recall of arguments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1), 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2011). The promotion of critical thinking skills through argument mapping. In C. P. Horvart & J. M. Forte (Eds.), Critical thinking. Nova Science Publishers.

  • Ekmekçioğlu, E. (2007). The effect of meaningful learning theory and teaching with concept map to achievement of asid-base topic in chemistry lessons at high schools. Msc. Thesis, Selçuk University, Chemistry Education, Konya.

  • Eppler, M. (2006). A Comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5, 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions. Teacher’s College Press.

  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gul, B. R., & Boman, A. J. (2006). Concept mapping: A strategy for teaching and evaluation in nursing education. Nurse Education in Practice, 6(4), 199–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gültepe, Y., & Kabataş Memiş, E. (2014). Building ontology-based concept maps: Sample application in the subject force. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 3(1), 24–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Günel, M., Kabataş Memiş, E., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). Effect of the science writing heuristic approach on primary school students’ science achievement and attitude toward science course. Education and Science, 35(155), 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B. (2008). Introducing the science writing heuristic approach. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Sense Publishers.

  • Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (Eds.). (2011). Voices from the classroom. Springer Sciences & Business Media.

  • Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E.-M. (2004). Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, M. (2011). Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory philosophy. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(3), 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasançebi, F., & Günel, M. (2013). Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme Yaklaşımının Dezavantajlı Öğrencilerin Fen Bilgisi Başarılarına Etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 12(4), 1056–1073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabaca, T. (2002). Use of Concept Mapping Technique in Secondary Mathematics Education. Msc. Thesis, Marmara Universty, Institute of Science, İstanbul.

  • Kabataş Memiş, E. (2011). Effects of the argumentation based science learning approach and self-evaluation on primary school students’ science and technology course achievement and retention of the achievement. Doctoral Thesis. Erzurum: Atatürk University.

  • Kabataş Memiş, E., & Çakan Akkaş, B. N. (2020). Developing critical thinking skills in the thinking-discussion-writing cycle: The argumentation- based inquiry approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(3), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09635-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabataş Memiş, E., & Ezberci Çevik, E. (2016). Examination of students’ small groups discussion in argumentation process: Scientific and socio-scientific issues. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 3(2), 126–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabataş Memiş, E., & Seven, S. (2015). Effects of an SWH approach and self-evaluation on sixth grade students learning and retention of an electricity unit. İnternational Journal of Progressive Education, 11(3), 32–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, F. (1998). Using the concept map method in science teaching (pp. 95–99). Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal.

  • Kaptan, F., & Korkmaz, H. (2001). Effective teaching and learning in primary education teacher’s handbook module 7-science teaching in primary education. MEB Publications.

  • Karasar, N. (2004). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.

  • Kaşlı, A. F., Aytaç, V., & Erdur, G. (2001). Concept mapping. Ege Journal of Education, 1(1), 127–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, O. N., & Kılıç, Z. (2008). Argumentative discourse for the effective teaching of science. Journal of Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Faculty of Education, 9(3), 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, O. N., & Kılıç, Z. (2010). Types of dialogs and their effects on learning in science classrooms. Kastamonu Journal of Education, 18(1), 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kıngır, S. (2011). Using the science writing heuristic approach to promote student understanding in hemical changes and mixtures. Ph. D Dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

  • Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö., & Günel, M. (2012). Students’ views on the application of argumentation-based science learning approach in chemistry lessons. Journal of Ahmet Keleşoğlu Education Faculty, 32, 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. NCTE Research Report No. 22.

  • Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2007). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39, 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes? Instructional Science, 28, 199–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGowen, M., & Tall, D. (1999). Concept maps and schematic diagrams as devices for documenting the growth of mathematical knowledge. Mathematics Education Research Center.

  • MEB. (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.

  • Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (swh) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1111–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 6(3), 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical Report IHMC Cmap Tools.

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press.

  • Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özcan, R. (2016). Determination of applying levels of argumentation process and awareness of argumentation by science teachers in classes. Msc. Thesis, Adnan Menderes University, Institute of Science, Aydın.

  • Pallant, J. (2003). SPSS survival manual (2th edition): A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

  • Rivard, P. L., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. L. (2012). Mixed methods research design: A recommended paradign for the counseling profession. In Ideas and research you can use: VISTAS. Web site: http://www.counseling.org/Resourcesadresinden8Aralık2019tarihindeedinilmiştir.

  • Sökmen, N., Bayram, H., & Yılmaz, A. (2000). The level of understanding of the 5th, 8th and 9th grade students of the concepts of physical change and chemical change. Marmara University Journal of Educational Sciences, 12, 261–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sönmez, E., Çakan Akkaş, B., & Kabataş Memiş, E. (2020). Computer-aided argument mapping for improving critical thinking: Think better! Discuss better! Write better!. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 7(2), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.791430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sönmez, E., Kabataş Memiş, E., & Yerlikaya, Z. (2021). The effect of practices based on argumentation-based inquiry approach on teacher candidates’ critical thinking. Educational Studies, 47(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suen, H. K., Sonak, B., Zimmaro, D., & Roberts, D. M. (1997). Concept map as scaffolding for authentic assesment. Psychological Reports, 81(3), 734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twardy, C. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uçar, B. (2018). The effect of argument maps scaffolded with peer feedback on students' argumentation skills. Msc. Thesis, Hacettepe University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.

  • van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with Reasonable. APA Newsletter: Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yağbasan, R., & Gülçiçek, Ç. (2003). Descrıbıng the characteristics of misconceptions in science teaching. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 1(13), 102–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalçın-Çelik, A. (2010). An analysis of the influences of the teaching approach based on scientific argumentation on high school students' conceptual understanding, attitudes, and willingness for argumentation and the quality of argumentation. Ph. D Dissertation. Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.

  • Yaman, H. H. (2011). An example application in argumentation-based bioethics education: Genetically modified organisms and genetic screening test. Msc. Thesis, Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.

  • Yılmaz, K., & Çolak, R. (2011). A look at concepts: Investigation of concepts and concept maps from pedagogical perspective Atatürk University. Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 15(1), 185–204.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey

    Esra KABATAŞ MEMİŞ

  2. Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey

    Esma KARAKUŞ

Authors
  1. Esra KABATAŞ MEMİŞ
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esma KARAKUŞ
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esra KABATAŞ MEMİŞ.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

KABATAŞ MEMİŞ, E., KARAKUŞ, E. An evaluation of academic achievements through the use of argument and concept maps embedded in argumentation based inquiry. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 22, 463–481 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09679-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09679-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation