Research Article
PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Cite

Year 2020, Volume 7, Issue 2, 187 - 201, 30.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.723858

Abstract

References

  • Adodo, S. O. (2013). Effect of mind-mapping as a self-regulated learning strategy on students’ achievement in basic science and technology. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(6), 163-172.
  • Balım, A. G. (2013). The effect of mind-mapping applications on upper primary students’ success and inquiry-learning skills in science and environment education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 22(4), 337-352.
  • Bessick, S. C. (2008). Improved critical thinking skills as a result of direct instruction and their relationship to academic achievement. Doctoral dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
  • Budd, J. W. (2004). Mind maps as classroom exercises. The Journal of Economic Education,35(1), 35-46.
  • 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), 268-291.
  • Buzan T. (2006). The Buzan study skills handbook: The shortcut to success in your studies with mind mapping, speed reading and winning memory techniques. Harlow: BBC Active.
  • Buzan, T. & Buzan, B. (1996), The mind map book: how to use radiant thinking to maximize your brain’s untapped potential. New York, NY Academic press.
  • Bütüner, S. Ö., & Gür, H. (2008). Teaching Of Angles and Triangles by Using Vee Diagrams and Mind Maps. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 1-18.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Davies, M. (2010). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?. Higher education, 62(3), 279-301.
  • Davies, M., Barnett, A., & van Gelder, T. (2019). Using computer-assisted argument mapping to teach reasoning to students. In Studies in critical thinking, (chapter: 10)Windsor Studies in Argumentation publisher.
  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2011). The promotion of critical thinking skills through argument mapping. In Critical thinking. (Eds: Christopher P. Horvath and James M. Forte). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7(3), 219-244.
  • Evrekli, E., Balim, A. G., & İnel, D. (2009). Mind mapping applications in special teaching methods courses for science teacher candidates and teacher candidates’ opinions concerning the applications. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2274-2279.
  • Evrekli, E., & Balim, A. G. (2010). The effect of use of mind mapping and concept cartoons in science and technology education on students’ academic achıevements and inquiry learning skill perceptions The Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(2), 76-98.
  • Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
  • Hay, D., B. (2007). Using concept mapping to measure deep, surface and non-learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education 32(1), 39–57.
  • Hay, D., Kinchin, I., & Lygo‐Baker, S. (2008). Making learning visible: the role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 295-311.
  • Jones, B. D., Ruff, C., Snyder, J. D., Petrich, B., & Koonce, C. (2012). The effects of mind mapping activities on students' motivation. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1-23.
  • Koznov, D., & Pliskin, M. (2008, October). Computer-supported collaborative learning with mind-maps. In International Symposium On Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation (pp. 478-489). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  • Mento, A. J., Martinelli, P., & Jones, R. M. (1999). Mind mapping in executive education: applications and outcomes. Journal of Management Development, 18(4), 390-416.
  • Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knjowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413-448.
  • Öksöz, Y., & Coşkun, K. (2012). Öğretmenlik Uygulaması I-II Derslerinin Zihin Engelliler Öğretmen Adaylarının Öz-Yeterlilik Algılamaları Üzerindeki Etkisi. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 13(2).
  • Rider, Y., & Thomason, N. (2014). Cognitive and pedagogical benefits of argument mapping: LAMP guides the way to better thinking. In Knowledge cartography (pp. 113-134). Springer, London.
  • Shroff, R. H., Deneen, C. C., & Ng, E. M. W. (2011). Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students' behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 600-618.
  • Siah, C. J., Lim, F. P., Lim, A. E., Lau, S. T., & Tam, W. (2019). Efficacy of team-based learning in knowledge integration and attitudes among year-one nursing students: A pre-and post-test study. Collegian. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2019.05.003.
  • Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302-312.
  • Tergan, S.-O. (2006). Individuelles Wissens- und Informationsmanagement mit Concept Maps beim netzbasierten Lernen [Individual knowledge and information management with concept maps in web-based learning]. In H. Mandl & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Handbuch Lernstrategien [Handbook learning strategies] (pp. 307–324). Göttingen, DE: Hogrefe.
  • van Gelder, T.J., & Rizzo, A. (2001). Reason!Able across curriculum, in Is IT an Odyssey in Learning? Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of ICT in Education, Victoria, Australia.
  • van Gelder, T. J. (2003). Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument mapping. In P. Kirschner, S. Buckingham Shum, & C. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 97–115). London: Springer.
  • van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Enhancing expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 142–152.
  • Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information systems research, 16(1), 85-102.
  • Yamak, H., Bulut, N., & Dündar, S. (2014). 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri ile fene karşı tutumlarına FeTeMM etkinliklerinin etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2).
  • Zumbach, J. (2009). The role of graphical and text based argumentation tools in hypermedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 811-817.

The Effects of Software-Aided Mind and Argument Mapping on Learning in Higher Education

Year 2020, Volume 7, Issue 2, 187 - 201, 30.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.723858

Abstract

By carrying out software-aided mind/argument mapping applications in the “Theories of Learning and Teaching” course offered to post-graduate students completing a master's degree in education, the present research aimed to examine the effects of the applications on academic achievement, as well as explore students' opinions on these applications. The research followed a mixed-method design integrating quantitative and qualitative research methods. Participants consisted of post-graduate students (six students) who were taking the course titled “Theories of Learning and Teaching”. The experimental process lasted for 12 weeks. The experimental part of the research has been realized in two stages: In the first stage, the students were given the opportunity to learn about and practice preparing software-aided mind and argument mapping applications on computers and tablets for two weeks. In the second stage, participants were instructed about the theoretical dimension of teaching and learning processes and of the software-aided mind and argument mapping. Theories of Learning and Teaching Course Achievement Test, Reflective Diaries, Student Self-Assessment Forms and Semi-Structured Interview Schedules were utilized as data collection tools. The results suggested that the use of software-aided maps in learning and teaching processes has a considerably positive effect on students’ academic achievement. Besides, it has been observed that the students acquired various skills with regards to the use of such tools.

References

  • Adodo, S. O. (2013). Effect of mind-mapping as a self-regulated learning strategy on students’ achievement in basic science and technology. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(6), 163-172.
  • Balım, A. G. (2013). The effect of mind-mapping applications on upper primary students’ success and inquiry-learning skills in science and environment education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 22(4), 337-352.
  • Bessick, S. C. (2008). Improved critical thinking skills as a result of direct instruction and their relationship to academic achievement. Doctoral dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
  • Budd, J. W. (2004). Mind maps as classroom exercises. The Journal of Economic Education,35(1), 35-46.
  • 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), 268-291.
  • Buzan T. (2006). The Buzan study skills handbook: The shortcut to success in your studies with mind mapping, speed reading and winning memory techniques. Harlow: BBC Active.
  • Buzan, T. & Buzan, B. (1996), The mind map book: how to use radiant thinking to maximize your brain’s untapped potential. New York, NY Academic press.
  • Bütüner, S. Ö., & Gür, H. (2008). Teaching Of Angles and Triangles by Using Vee Diagrams and Mind Maps. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 1-18.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Davies, M. (2010). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?. Higher education, 62(3), 279-301.
  • Davies, M., Barnett, A., & van Gelder, T. (2019). Using computer-assisted argument mapping to teach reasoning to students. In Studies in critical thinking, (chapter: 10)Windsor Studies in Argumentation publisher.
  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2011). The promotion of critical thinking skills through argument mapping. In Critical thinking. (Eds: Christopher P. Horvath and James M. Forte). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7(3), 219-244.
  • Evrekli, E., Balim, A. G., & İnel, D. (2009). Mind mapping applications in special teaching methods courses for science teacher candidates and teacher candidates’ opinions concerning the applications. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2274-2279.
  • Evrekli, E., & Balim, A. G. (2010). The effect of use of mind mapping and concept cartoons in science and technology education on students’ academic achıevements and inquiry learning skill perceptions The Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(2), 76-98.
  • Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
  • Hay, D., B. (2007). Using concept mapping to measure deep, surface and non-learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education 32(1), 39–57.
  • Hay, D., Kinchin, I., & Lygo‐Baker, S. (2008). Making learning visible: the role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 295-311.
  • Jones, B. D., Ruff, C., Snyder, J. D., Petrich, B., & Koonce, C. (2012). The effects of mind mapping activities on students' motivation. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1-23.
  • Koznov, D., & Pliskin, M. (2008, October). Computer-supported collaborative learning with mind-maps. In International Symposium On Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation (pp. 478-489). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  • Mento, A. J., Martinelli, P., & Jones, R. M. (1999). Mind mapping in executive education: applications and outcomes. Journal of Management Development, 18(4), 390-416.
  • Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knjowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413-448.
  • Öksöz, Y., & Coşkun, K. (2012). Öğretmenlik Uygulaması I-II Derslerinin Zihin Engelliler Öğretmen Adaylarının Öz-Yeterlilik Algılamaları Üzerindeki Etkisi. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 13(2).
  • Rider, Y., & Thomason, N. (2014). Cognitive and pedagogical benefits of argument mapping: LAMP guides the way to better thinking. In Knowledge cartography (pp. 113-134). Springer, London.
  • Shroff, R. H., Deneen, C. C., & Ng, E. M. W. (2011). Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students' behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 600-618.
  • Siah, C. J., Lim, F. P., Lim, A. E., Lau, S. T., & Tam, W. (2019). Efficacy of team-based learning in knowledge integration and attitudes among year-one nursing students: A pre-and post-test study. Collegian. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2019.05.003.
  • Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302-312.
  • Tergan, S.-O. (2006). Individuelles Wissens- und Informationsmanagement mit Concept Maps beim netzbasierten Lernen [Individual knowledge and information management with concept maps in web-based learning]. In H. Mandl & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Handbuch Lernstrategien [Handbook learning strategies] (pp. 307–324). Göttingen, DE: Hogrefe.
  • van Gelder, T.J., & Rizzo, A. (2001). Reason!Able across curriculum, in Is IT an Odyssey in Learning? Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of ICT in Education, Victoria, Australia.
  • van Gelder, T. J. (2003). Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument mapping. In P. Kirschner, S. Buckingham Shum, & C. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 97–115). London: Springer.
  • van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Enhancing expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 142–152.
  • Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information systems research, 16(1), 85-102.
  • Yamak, H., Bulut, N., & Dündar, S. (2014). 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri ile fene karşı tutumlarına FeTeMM etkinliklerinin etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2).
  • Zumbach, J. (2009). The role of graphical and text based argumentation tools in hypermedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 811-817.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Social
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Hülya YILDIZLI (Primary Author)
HASAN ALİ YÜCEL EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ
0000-0003-4450-2128
Türkiye


İrfan ŞİMŞEK
HASAN ALİ YÜCEL EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ
0000-0002-7841-5830
Türkiye

Supporting Institution İstanbul üniversitesi-cerrahpaşa
Project Number SBA-2019-30763.
Publication Date December 30, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020, Volume 7, Issue 2

Cite

APA Yıldızlı, H. & Şimşek, İ. (2020). The Effects of Software-Aided Mind and Argument Mapping on Learning in Higher Education . International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research , 7 (2) , 187-201 . DOI: 10.33200/ijcer.723858

133171332113318 23524 133191332713323  13322


13325

Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

IJCER (International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research) ISSN: 2148-3868