112009017 english department faculty of language …...although the name of the course assignment is...

i

EVALUATING STUDENTS’ MIND MAPS IN ACADEMIC

READING CLASS

THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Sarjana Pendidikan

Natalia Raras Anggani

112009017

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

SALATIGA

2013

i

EVALUATING STUDENTS‟ MIND MAPS IN ACADEMIC READING

CLASS

THESIS



Sarjana Pendidikan


112009017

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

SALATIGA

2013

ii

Evaluating Students’ Mind Maps in Academic Reading Class

THESIS



Sarjana Pendidikan


112009017

Approved by:

Christian Rudianto, M.Appling. Lany Kristono, S.Pd.,M.Hum.

Supervisor Examiner

iii

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION

As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic

community, I verify that:

Name : Natalia Raras Anggani

Student ID Number : 112009017

Study Program : English Department

Faculty : Language and Literature

Kind of Work : Undergraduate Thesis

In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a non-exclusive royalty free

right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:


along with any pertinent equipment.

With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce,

print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or

database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part

without my express written permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.

This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.

Made in : Salatiga

Date : May 21, 2013

Verified by signee,


Approved by

Thesis Supervisor Thesis Examiner

Christian Rudianto, M.Appling. Lany Kristono, S.Pd.,M.Hum

iv

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course

or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of

my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously published or written by

any other person except where due reference is made in the text.

Copyright@ 2013. Natalia Raras Anggani and Christian Rudianto, M.Appling.

All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the

permission of at least one of the copyright owners of the English Department, Faculty of

Language and Literature, SatyaWacana Christian University, Salatiga.


1



English Department, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate students‟ maps in Academic Reading

class whether they really demonstrate the argument maps. Recently, many lecturers use

mapping activity in academic reading class to help students analyze journal articles.

Students have to read the article critically and transform the article in the form of map.

Although the name of the course assignment is mind maps, the requirements are actually

indicating towards argument maps. There are several kinds of map that can be used to

analyze article, like mind map, concept map, and argument map, but the appropriate map

for analyzing the author‟s argument in journals article is argument map (Davies, 2010).

The study used qualitative approach that focused on the students‟ performance by using

mind map and students‟ assignment of academic reading in the form of map (Richards &

Lockhart, 1996). The data was taken from academic reading class in the form of students‟

maps. This study analyzes students‟ maps by using the structure of argument map. The

result clearly indicates that students‟ map do not demonstrate argument map, indicated

from the structure, form, and content of the map.

Keywords: critical reading, argument map, argument

Introduction

Over the years many researchers have made research about making journal. Some

researchers had made some research about students‟ critical reading through making

journal. After reading journals, Students show and share their idea in the form of journal,

it can be response or reflective journals. By reading textbooks or listening to a

presentation, students are help to combine their prior-knowledge and new knowledge to

figure out the meaning and produce new understanding (Hay et al. 2008). However,

structured diagrams incorporating prose are able to represent new information better than

2

traditional discursive prose on its own (van Gelder 2007). Because of that the academics

and educator has begun to use mind mapping concept for education purposes. Hyerle

(2009) distinguishes three major types of visual tools (i.e., webs, graphic organizers, and

concept maps), and argues that concept maps actually blend qualities of creative webbing

and analytical graphic organizers in unique ways. By using these visual tools, students

are able to be independent and teachers also can assess students‟ patterns of thinking

about content and their effectiveness of doing assignment.

In reading academic texts, we need to read critically and try to understand the

text. Actually academic reading text has specific topic that contain a lot of information,

for examples, topic about education, teaching method, culture, etc. So some lecturers in

English Department of Satya Wacana Christian University began to teach academic

reading students to make mind map and help them understand academic texts. Based on

academic reading class that I was attended, by making mind map students can learn how

to manage information from academic texts. Mind map is useful for students to develop

their skills of classification, categorization and clarity the new knowledge that encourage

them to have more advanced thoughts about the topic (Buzan, T., & Buzan, B., 2000).

Students can increase their speed of reading and their comprehension if they can

recognize some of the rhetorical functions that the writer is using. To understand the text

it is necessary to understand what the writer‟s purpose is. Students have to be active in

finding its purpose and match the writer‟s purpose and their purpose. The key is that the

information is selected and structured appropriately, because every text has a structure.

By looking at text structure, it will be helpful for reader to understand the content of the

3

text. In a good text, the structure of text is not just a random collection of sentences, the

idea and the reasons have to relate each other which are supported by the appropriate

sources. This key is used to make up the text related in a meaningful way to each other.

Recognizing the way in which a text has been organized would help students to

understand it better. It is necessary to understand how the sentences are related. The map

like structure provides a guide for students to structure the information in such a way that

reveals the connections between the main topic and its various themes or categories.

Students need to understand the connections or links. There are four main types of link

used in academic texts: reference, ellipsis and substitution, conjunction and lexical

cohesion (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). Moreover, students also need to understand the

connection or link to categorize the reason as for or cons the topic rather than only

understanding the context of the journals.

Students in academic reading class were commonly asked to read so many

academic texts to find the main idea, supporting idea, the reasons, the evidence and the

other factor that related to the main idea. They needed to break down the academic texts

by reading and analyzing the text critically. By making mind map, it would be easier to

understand and explain it to the audience, because they were also asked to discuss it in a

group of students. Lecturers begun using mind map in class because some goals of

academic reading are students can find the main topic of academic journals and analyze

the author‟s arguments, and it will be easier for student to analyze the journals in the

form of map. Furthermore, mind map activity is a fun way to discuss the text rather than

reading a lot of prose.

4

Some researchers said that concept of mind mapping can help reader see the

whole picture of the main idea or the topic. Meaningful learning through concept

mapping happens in at least three importance ways (Hyerle; 2009, Novak; 1998, Novak

& Gowin; 1984). First, conceptual mapping can help learners to link familiar and novel

ideas. Second, it can allow learners to progressively differentiate ideas as well as inter-

relate them forming their own conceptual framework on a topic. Third, conceptual

mapping can provide learners with means to make their thinking visible, allowing them to

become more aware of their own thinking and understanding of concept. Those ways are

quite helpful for students to understand and see the limitation of the topic clearly.

Academic reading class students are supposed to be able to find the main topic

and analyze author‟s argument. Making argument map brings students to a critical

perspective on how information is transformed into meaningful, active knowledge and is

essential to the thinking-process skills. Argument mapping involves visually structuring

an argument for increased clarity and reflection on the strength of author‟s argument. An

argument map allows the user to identify the key components of an essay or report. The

research question for thus study is “Does the mind map making in academic reading class

really show the argument map?

Literature Review

Reading becomes a crucial activity in modern era, but only few readers read

critically. The reason is they do not have any idea what critical reading is or what it

covers, so some readers lack of the author‟s arguments because they did not read

5

critically. Therefore, the definition and description of critical reading become the main

point in this part. Kurland (2000) defines the term as a method which is used for

searching, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting information and ideas in the

particular text. Critical reading requires evaluating the arguments in the text. Students

need to distinguish fact from opinion, and look at arguments given for and against the

various claims. It is also important to be aware of the writer‟s background, assumptions

and purposes. All writers have reason for writing and emphasize details which support

their reason for writing and ignore details that do not. In addition, Kurland (2000)

reminds that critical reading is not just talking about close and careful reading, but also

making analysis and inferences. Analysis refers to what information to look for while an

inference relates to how to think about what the readers find within the passage and

transform it in the form of map.

Before making map, students are supposed to be capable of reading critically and

it would train students‟ critical thinking skill. This critical thinking skill is so important to

help students to understand the good reasons and it will aid to manage, interpret, and

communicate large amounts of information and complex reasons for evaluations and

judgment. This kind of skills will ensure they are equipped to organize their thought and

evaluate the quality of the information that is increasingly available to them

(Gillett,2013).

Information could come from many sources; there are so many kinds of sources.

When talking about sources, it means what kind passage is needed depend on the purpose

of reading. The appropriate passage for academic reading class is academic passage.

6

Reading academic passage or journal is not easy, students should read it critically, but it

is not enough, students should analyze it and find the main idea, the supporting idea, the

reasons, the evidence, etc. Through making mind map, students are allowed to explicitly

explore, analyze, synthesis and share ideas. Mind mapping is the graphical representation

of text content. It has been proposed as a technique to brainstorm and summarize

information as well as a study method. Actually, there are several types of map and these

are the some types of mapping, Mind mapping allows students to imagine and explore

associations between concepts (Buzan, T., & Buzan, B., 2000). In mind mapping, any

idea can be connected to any other. Free-form, spontaneous thinking is required when

creating a mind map and the aim of mind mapping is to find creative associations

between ideas (Buzan, T., & Buzan, B., 2000). Concept mapping allows students to

understand the relationships between concepts and hence understand those concepts

themselves and the domain to which they belong (Novak and Gowin, 1984). The concept

map explores the structure of knowledge because the aim of concept map is to outlines

relationship between ideas. A concept map has a hierarchical „„tree‟‟ structure with

super-ordinate and subordinate parts (primary, secondary and tertiary ideas). The map

normally begins with a word or concept or phrase which represents a focus question that

requires an answer (Novak and Can˜as 2006). Argument mapping allows students to

display inferential connections between propositions and contentions, and to evaluate

them in terms of validity of argument structure and the soundness of argument premises

(Davies, 2010). Argument maps develop premises, counter arguments and conclusions

around a contention. Argument mapping is interested in the inferential basis for a claim

7

being defended and not the causal or other associative relationships between the main

claim and other claims. This map are used to seek the inter-relation among variables

(general systems thinking) and develop simulation models (system dynamics). Students

are trained to seek the interrelation between the main idea, argument, reasons and the

other factors that are related to main idea, because using these map students can use their

general system thinking. Students also trained to connect and locate the main contention,

reasons which support or cont in the several boxes, it can develop their system dynamic.

By reviewing mapping tools, it suited for brainstorming and picturing the thinking

process, they can see the whole picture of the idea. If students can represent or

manipulate a complex set of relationships in a diagram, they are more likely to

understand those relationships, remember them, and be able to analyze their component

parts. This, in turn, promotes „„deep‟‟ and not „„surface‟‟ approaches to learning (Biggs

1987; Entwistle 1981; Marton and Saljo 1976a, b; Ramsden 1992).

After figuring out the meaning and the different types of some map, by looking at

the diagram, it is clear what make mind map, concept map, and argument map different.

It can be seen from the structure and the form of the map.

8

Fig. 1 Proposed convergence of knowledge mapping technologies into a single integrated

platform. The central concept map may be devised initially to demonstrate familiarity with the

relationship between key concepts in a topic. At given points, or „„nodes‟‟, certain concepts may

be further elaborated in terms of associative structures (mind maps), and inferential or logical

arguments (argument maps). NB: Maps provided are illustrative only. (Davies, 2010).

After knowing the types of mapping, this research will be more focus on

argument mapping, because one of the goals of academic reading course is students will

be able to identify and evaluate arguments from various types of academic texts.

Argument mapping has a different purpose entirely from mind maps and concept maps.

Argument mapping is concerned with explicating the inferential structure of arguments.

Argument mapping allows students to move from prose to a visual structure expressing

9

premises, reasons, objections, assumptions and general commentary. A Rationale map

arguing in favor of Argument Maps are often used in the teaching of reasoning

and critical thinking, and can support the analysis of pros and cons when deliberating

over complicated problems (Twardy,2004).

The rationale focuses on students‟ capability on developing their critical thinking

in finding reason and the clarity of the reasons. Rationale is helpful to make the map

from different perspectives and ideas. This map is used as tools for representing

arguments; making clear what claims is made and where they stand in relation to one

another. The process of critical analysis is not simply one of writing down anything and

structuring it randomly. Rationale is structured to represent the argument by scaffolds

ideas and reasoning into a specific hierarchical structure.

Importantly, Rational also comprises students' capability of evaluating claims and

the overall strength of a position. Before identifying argument, students analyze the

information first and put the Judges line in the individual claims and structure of map.

This evaluation process makes sure students‟ understanding and justify why they accept a

claim as for and cons of support further claim. When the reasons and objections have

been evaluated for truth and support, students are then in a position to determine whether

to accept or reject a position. This map helps students to translate their understanding of

text to the structure of map. It helps them to see the flow of the argument with the ideas,

reasons and evidences in the form of argument structure

Through making map, students have to understand the passage and analyze it first,

because the argument is broken up into its constituent claims, and uses lines, boxes,

10

colors and location to indicate the relationship between the various parts. The Resulting

map allows us to see exactly how each part of an argument is related to everyother part.

There are the definion of the part of argument map:

Argument

A claim and reasons to believe that claim is true. Arguments can have many claims,

many reasons, many objections and rebuttals, but only one main contention.

„„Arguments‟‟ are generally understood in the philosopher‟s sense of statements

(„„premises‟‟) joined together to result in claims („„conclusions‟‟). Write down the

main argument and think about “Should you believe that? Why or why not?”

Main contention

At the first (top) level of the argument there is the contention. The main point an

argument is trying to prove, usually a belief. Also called the position, the main claim,

the issue at hand. A main contention is set of claims which are supported by reasons or

challenged by objections. This is followed by a supporting claim (under the link word

„„because‟‟) and an objection (under the link word „„but‟‟).

Reason

Evidence is given to support the main contention. The reasons are used to identify

evidence for and against the statement or claims that come up after the main

contention. Try to show all premises required to make the interference clear. These

are, in turn, supported by more claims of support or objection (which become rebuttals

when they are objections to objections).

11

Co-premise

This is the subset of a reason. Every reason has at least two co-premises, and each of

these co-premises must be true for the reason to support the claim (under the link word

„„because‟‟). Basis boxes which provide defenses for the terminal claims are provided

at the end of the argument tree or argument map.

Objection

A “reason” that a claim is false; evidence against a claim and it under the link word

„„but‟‟.

Rebuttal

An objection to an objection.

Objections and rebuttals to objections can be added at any point in the map (in

different colors for easier visual identification). The „„basis‟‟ boxes at the terminal points

of the argument also require evidence in place of the brackets provided. Some evidence

has been provided („„statistics‟‟, „„expert opinion‟‟, „„quotation‟‟).

The parts of argument map and about argument itself is already known, but before

continue to make argument map, it will be better to know the rules of making argument

map. The following rules are intended only to assist you in applying them consistently so

you can clearly distinguish the parts of an argument.

Within each box

Declarative sentence

Each box should have full sentence and declaring something. It needs to be clear what

exactly it means.

12

No reasoning

There suppose to be no reason inside a box. The reasoning is represented by the

arrows and location in the map. Look for words that indicate reasoning (e.g. because)

and translate the reason into the map.

Two terms

Each box can only have two main terms, so that each box is either true of false, not

both. If it has more than two terms in a single box, separate them into multiple boxes.

Argument mapping is interested in the inferential basis for a claim being defended

and not the causal or other associative relationships between the main claim and other

claims (Davies, 2010). In the other words, Argument mapping is similar to other mapping

activities such as mind mapping and concept mapping, but focuses on the logical,

evidential or inferential relationships among propositions. Argument mapping is

concerned with informal reasoning and “real world” argumentation and thus contrasts

with the use of diagrammatic techniques in formal logic. As we know that argument map

has different structure from mind map and concept map, so this is the picture of argument

map structure.

13

(www.austhink.com)

Nonetheless, there have been several studies demonstrating its impact on student

learning, especially improvements in critical thinking (Twardy 2004; van Gelder 2001;

van Gelder et al. 2004). A very recent study demonstrated greatest gains in students with

the poorest argument analysis skills in two separate studies over the course of one

semester (Harrell 2011).

The main advantage of argument mapping is it focuses on a certain sub-class of

relationships (i.e., logical inferences between propositions). It has clear framework of the

items being mapped because it is more on cause and effect relationships. However,

sometimes Argument mapping can make too much assumption. In the educational

context, before making argument mapping, students are considered have capability of

critical reading, so students have a sufficiently clear understanding of a topic or issue and

the precise nature of the task at hand. Moreover, for most people, maps are also much

14

easier to follow than verbal or written descriptions, although reservations need to be

made in terms of the kinds of „„maps‟‟ under consideration, for not all maps are equal

(Larkin and Simon 1987; Mayer and Gallini 1990).

After all the concepts of critical reading, the concept of mind map, and the

explanation of argument map, this paper will identify “Does the mind map making in

academic reading class really show the argument map?”

The Study

Context of the study

The setting of this study was in English Department UKSW Salatiga. I chose

this place because this English department often uses mind mapping method for doing

the assignment. Some lecturers give academic journals that were related to the topic of

the class discussion, and students were asked to make mind map based on that

journals. So when the discussion began students would present and explain the main

idea and the jurnals‟ argument in the form of mind map. Thus, the mind map required

by the teacher is actually best described as argument map.

Data

In this research the data was taken based on purposive sampling or “criterion-

based” selection (blackledge, 2001). The data of map was taken from one of academic

reading class of English Department students on the first semester of 2012/2013 and

the audiences were angkatan 2010. I chose this class because only this class had met

the criteria for the purpose of this research. This class consisted of 30 students.

Students of this class had experienced reading critically and producing mind map.

15

Data collection

The data were taken from the students‟ mind map in academic reading class. The

lecturer gave three academic journals to students‟ and they had to make three

academic journals in the form of mind map. The mind maps were collected from the

teacher of the course. Based on the mind map that I got, there were 23 students who

submitted mind map and each of them made 3 mind maps.

Method and Procedures

In attempting to answer the research question, 69 the students‟ mind maps were

analyzed. The analysis focused on application activities which were defined as tasks

which required learners to creatively use their knowledge or skills that had been

previously presented or practiced (Richards & Lockhart, 1996). The study used

qualitative approach that focused on the students‟ performance by using mind map and

students‟ assignment of academic reading in the form of map. Qualitative research is

defined as research devoted to develop and understand human systems. Analyzing

mind map was the way to find students‟ achievement in reaching the goal of academic

reading class. This research focused more on students‟ understanding of the materials

in the form of mind map and students‟ achievement of the goal of academic reading

class.

Discussion I will present the findings and discuss whether students‟ maps in Academic

Reading class really demonstrate the argument maps based on academic passages?

Argument mapping is a way to visually show the logical structure of arguments.

16

Argument mapping is often designed to visualize issues, ideas and arguments. A

preparatory and a critical reading are important step to being able to map an argument

successfully. Students have to do a considerable amount of initial reading and thinking

and also struggle with key concepts before coming to an understanding of the exact task

they need to complete. Only after this process, the student can map an argument.

Argument mapping requires precise rules of construction. This forces explicit

connections between propositions (from premises to contentions). Argument mapping

demonstrates a specific utility and considerable fitness to purpose of academic reading

class which is its goals are students can find the main topic of academic journals and

analyze the author‟s arguments.

This study discusses students‟ performance of creating maps from academic

reading class which are supposed to be argument map that showing maps of arguments

(figure 2) because students read academic journals. This discussion analyzes the structure

of students‟ map (figure 1) based on the structure of argument map. If students read

critically, they are supposed to be able to make argument maps with clear argument

which is supported by the evidences in the form of reason, quotations or even objection

that object the argument. And if students do not read critically, students‟ map may be

structured as mind maps or concept maps which are more general than argument maps.

The analysis is started with the structure of argument map.

Argument

Argument is about claim or reason that supposed to be believed. By using

argument map, students are helped to construct argument through a logical structure.

17

In my context of study, there are three journals assigned by the lecturer with one main

topic, which is „Active Learning‟. Argument map requires an overview of which

issues and arguments should be presented, and the order of their presentation (i.e.,

from weak to strong or vice versa). This step involves ability to construct a clear

argument drawn from wide reading. (refer to figure 2)

Those three journals which students have to read and transform in the form of

map discuss about „active learning‟ that should be applied in teaching process. It

discuses about „active learning‟ from different point of views, there are point of view

from teacher education, culture, and subject and content. Based on the journals, the

title is clear about what is discussed in the journals and from what point of view.

However, in the students‟ map, the argument is not stated in any box. So they do not

give any author‟s argument from the journals that students read. Instead, Students

prefer to take the main point of each section and relate it to the main contention rather

than looking deeply at author‟s arguments. (refer to figure 1)

Main contention

A main contention is the main claim to be accepted or rejected. It is a set of

claims which are supported by reasons or challenged by objections.The main point of

an argument is trying to prove, usually, a belief. Whether the contention is true or not

will depend on the strength of the reasons that are given to support the main

contention. The contention is located at the top level of argument map. (refer to figure

2)

18

Looking at students‟ maps, the main box of the map is located in the center of the

map and filled with the title or the main topic of the journals. Students filled the main

contention box with the title or the topic. The contention of the journal can be seen in

the title and it is quite clear stated in title, because the title showed what is discussed in

the journals and from whose point of view. However not all students put the

contention. Instead of putting claims, some students‟ maps only put the main topic,

„Active Learning‟, without giving any explanation or statement about active learning

from whose point of view or what is trying to prove in the journals. Students only put

the meaning or definition of the topic in separate box, next to the main topic box. This

box gives explanation of the main purpose of the journals or some of students‟ maps

explain the meaning of „Active Learning‟. The meaning of „Active Learning‟ does not

only come from one point of view, but it comes from some different point of view, for

example, the meaning of active learning in society, teacher‟s viewpoint, and student‟s

viewpoint. In the meaning box, students give explanation based on the context what

challenges that are faced by, teacher, students, and society in implementing the „Active

Learning‟. (refer to figure 1)

Reason

A reason is a collection of claims which help each other, rather than a single

claim. Evidence is given to support the main contention. Moreover, reasons are used to

identify evidence for and against of the main contention. This involves further clarity

on the issues relevant to each of reason and also requires some ideas of the evidential

support that is needed. The reason is needed as evidence to clarify that it accepts or

19

rejects the contention. Contention can have more than one reason and the more

independent reasons in the map, the stronger the contention. Independent reason is the

reason to believe is true, not only an assumption. (refer to figure 2)

In the students‟ map, reason is shown in the box under the name example. In that

box there are some examples about „Active Learning‟. The example is shown as the

setting of the research. However, in the setting box, students give definition of the

place where the research was doing. Students also give explanation about what kind of

condition of the class that where „Active Learning‟ was studied. Researcher has

certain criteria for class that can be studied about „Active learning‟. The research was

done in some different places that apply „Active Learning‟ as the method of learning

process. Instead of showing the reason as for or against the main contention, this

setting box only show the evidence that research was done in certain place and

condition, but this setting does not give any clarity if it is for or against the main

contention as required in argument map. (refer to figure 1)

Co-premises

Co-premises are the subset of a reason. Every reason has at least two co-

premises, and each of these co-premises must be true for the reason to support the

contention. The argument map‟s structure indicates students need to prove co-premises

in order for the contention to be true. The reasons are needed to provide as the

evidence that each of the co-premises is true. The generic co-premise does not repeat,

because co-premises need to be more specific. (refer to figure 2)

20

To support the contention, in the journals there are explanation about the research

that have been done by the researchers. Students put those researches as the evidences

for the reason because it gives more explanation about the example and the result of

research. The researchers did research in different place and condition. The research

was done in different method depend on what the researchers looking for. When the

researchers research „Active Learning‟ from a culture point of view, researchers used

questionnaire. When the research article views active learning from teacher education

view point, the method that was used by the researchers in the article was project

method and open questions. In those three articles, Researchers focus on teaching

method and teachers‟ capacity to apply „Active Learning‟ in learning process, the

success of „Active Learning‟ is also affected by the readiness of the material and

students to apply „Active Learning‟ method. Based on the result of the research,

Students put the result of the research in different boxes, so students can show the

comparison of the result. This result can be seen from teacher‟s view point and

student‟s view point. The result is quite specific to prove that co-premises are true and

it can be used to support the reason and main contention. Even though, not all students

give the finding of the research. Some students only give explanation about what

activity that teacher used in class to apply active learning. (refer to figure 1)

Objection

An objection is “reason” that a claim is false; evidence against a claim and it is

under the link word „„but‟‟. The inference objection will provide evidence that one of

the co-premises is false and an objection is a reason not to believe what co-promise is.

21

Identify that co-premise and attach the objection to object that co-promises. Through

reading critically, students elaborated author‟s arguments. In a properly articulated

argument map, a previously-hidden premise will come to light, and the objection will

provide evidence against that premise. (refer to figure 2)

The finding of the research in the journals articles show some problems that

happen when applying „Active Leaning‟ in learning process. Students put this problem

in the box of objection. It shows the problems that happen if the „Active Learning‟ is

applied in learning process. The problems come from many factors that related to the

process of „Active Learning‟. These problems serve as the evidence of objection

against the main contention. Problems give more evidence in negative effect of

„Active Learning‟. As objection, there are some contradictions that against the main

contention. However, on the students‟ maps, there are not any explanations that

support or reject the objection. Students only put some problems that faced by

teachers, students, and society. (refer to figure 1)

Rebuttal

Rebuttal is an objection to an objection. Rebuttal is the evidence that is presented

to contradict the objection. It disproves by offering a contrary contention or argument,

the rebuttal is information which counts against the objection immediately after

objection box. In argument map, rebuttal is used as evidence to contradict the

objection. (refer to figure 2)

Unfortunately, only few students‟ maps that really show the rebuttal, most of

them stop in objection (problem). The rebuttal in students‟ map is just addition

22

information about the problem that happens in applying „Active Learning‟. (refer to

figure 1)

As the database, at the base of argument map suppose to involve knowing where

to find academic support for the points made in an map (e.g., the construction of search

statements to be used in databases). This is used to support the reasons or objection and

make it stronger. In some students‟ map, students give database that support the main

reason of „Active Learning‟. It can be seen in the students‟ maps which use citation from

the author that support the main reasons or objection.

Based on structure and content of map, there are some differences between the

argument map structure and the students‟ map. They are the form of map, the content,

and the structure. Students‟ maps are more general and the structure is more like mind

map, because the main box is in the center of the map. In the other part there are also

some rules of argument map which are not quite different with other kinds of map.

Declarative sentence

Each box of argument map should have full sentence and declare what the

argument, reason, or objection is. Students need to be clear what exactly the purpose

of the statement, whether as an argument, reason, or objection. (refer to figure 2)

Students‟ maps give clear statement based on the journals that they read.

Moreover students make statement based on each section, on students‟ map, students

separate the main point and the explanation. Students give explanation about main

point in other box narrow the box that contains the main point. In the explanation box,

there are consist of several sentences. But some of students do not declare the main

23

point in the form of full sentence, they only put the main point without any

explanation. So students put some phrases in a box as the points of the section instead

of full sentence. (refer to figure 1)

No reasoning

In argument map there should not be any reason inside a box. The reasoning is

represented by the arrows and location in the map. The box of main contention and

reason are separated. In a box is not allow to consist of statement and reason, both of

them have to be separated. (refer to figure 2)

Students‟ map is quite clear about differentiating the contention and the reason.

After the main contention or statement box, students make a box that is connected to

the contention which gives explanation or reason about it. They have already separated

contention with reason or evidence. (refer to figure 1)

Two terms

Each box in argument map can only have two main terms, so that each box is

either true of false, not both. Below the main contention box, reason boxes are located

separately to show for and against, either one of the reasons box is true or false. (refer

to figure 2)

Instead of summarizing the result of the research, students make multiple boxes to

compare the result of the research which is done in two different condition and place.

They also separate the meaning of active learning based on the point of view. Students

separate the map based on the section of map. (refer to figure 1)

24

This study is not only analyzing students‟ map based on the structure and the rule

of argument map, it also analyzes the content of the map. The literature review clearly

explains the difference between mind map, concept map and argument map. It shows that

approach of learning promote students to analyze deeply rather than only surface and it is

also stated in the goal of academic reading class where students can find the main topic of

academic journals and analyze the author‟s arguments. What students need to deal with

academic journals is critical reading which helps students to understand the content of the

journals, especially author‟s arguments.

Based on the students‟ map, the critical reading process can be seen, related with

how deep students read the journals and transform it in the form of a map. Students read

journal quite well, they can find the main point of each section of journals and transform

it in the form of a map. Students can show the connection of each section, so the content

of the map is clear. However, the goals of academic reading class are not only read

critically, but also analyze author‟s arguments. The analysis of author‟s argument is not

shown in the map. Students do not give clear statement of author‟s arguments. Students

also do not show the reason which is support or object the contention. In the students‟

maps, there are clear that students make map based on the section of journals. Students

only take the main point of ach section and transform it in the form of map.

Students‟ maps are mostly like figure 1, even the content, form, and the structure.

And the figure 2 is the argument map supposes to be. The study analyze is based on two

different type of map.

27

Conclusion

When looking at students‟ map and analyze it using the structure of argument

map, it is clear that students‟ map do not demonstrate argument map. What students made

is mind map, which is only made based on the section or part of the assigned journals.

There are no arguments or claims from author in the map. When talking about the goal of

the class, students read journal quite well and find some main point of the journals, but

when talking about critical reading, not all students read critically. It is proven in the

students‟ maps, which are still too general. Students read journals only on the surface, it

means students only read the journal to understand the main point of the journal, instead

of read more critical to find the argument from the author which support or object the

main contention. It also means that students lack of analyzing author‟s arguments,

because their map only give the meaning, main problem, examples and conclusion

without looking at the author‟s argument deeper.

Looking at students‟ map, this is clear that studens‟s maps did not show argument

map. Students only transform the journals into the form of map. They did not pay

attention on author‟s arguments. Students‟ maps did not show the arguments, reasons

(pros and cons), objection, and rebuttal that are against the argument. Students‟ map is

merely like mind map, rather than argument map.

28

Acknowledgement

First of all, I am grateful to The Almighty God for establish me to complete these

study in Satya Wacana Christian University. Thank you for Your guidance from the first

semester until the last semester in this university, You bless my study and guided me in

my process of studying. I believe that I can do nothing without Your help, all these are

only by Your Grace.

I wish to express my sincere thank to Babe, Ibu, dan Mas Ringga for all of your

supports, prays and advices. Thank you so much for a great supports that you all have

given to me. Thank you for always encourage to me to finish my study as well.

I also thank to mas Rudi as supervisor. I am extremely grateful to him for his

expert, sincere and valuable guidance and encouragement extended to me. I also thank to

mas Ari for his help, so I could take data in his class. Thanks to my second reader, Ibu

Lanny Kristono, who helped me finishing this thesis. Thanks for your advices.

I take this opportunity to say thank you to my lovely friends, cik Ike Anggraini,

Ninit, om Yayan, Bima, Krisma, Anita Dwi. Thank you for the support, help, and

encouragement that you have given to me. And also for all of my friends in English

Department Satya Wacana Christian University, especially for Niners, thank you so much

for our togetherness.

I also place on record, my sense of gratitude to one and all who, directly and

indirectly, have lent their helping hand in this venture of my study.

29

References

Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Vic: Australian

Council for Educational Research (ACER).

Buzan, T. (1974). Using both sides of your brain. New York: E. P. Dutton.

Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2000). The mind map book. London: BBC Books.

Davies, Martin. (2010). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what

are the differences and do they matter? Parkville, VIC: Australia

Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching; an integrated outline of

educational psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. Chichester: John Wiley.

Gillett, Andi. (2013). Using English for Academic Purposes-A Guide for Students in

Higher Education Retrieved March 25, 2013 from

http://www.uefap.com/reading/readfram.htm

Harrell, M. (2011). Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory

philosophy. Higher Education Research and Development, forthcoming.

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.

Hyerle, D. (2009). Visual tools for transforming information into knowledge (2nd ed).

Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin Press.

Jones, B. D., Ruff, Chloe, Snyder, J.D., Petrich, Britta, Koonce, Chealsea. (2012). The

Effects of Mind Mapping Activities on Students‟ Motivation. From International

Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Virginia Tech Blacksburg,

Virginia, USA.

http://www.uefap.com/reading/readfram.htm

30

Kurland, D.J (2000). How the language really works: the fundamentals of critical

reading and affective writing. Retrieved February 10, 2013 from

http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_reading.htm

Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand

words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–100.

Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning, i-outcome and

process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.

Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning, ii-outcome as a

function of the learner‟s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 46, 115–127.

Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words?.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(December), 715–726.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Novak, J. D., & Can˜as, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to

construct them. Technical Report IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01 Retrieved march 29,

2013 Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, from

http://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptm

aps.htm

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

Richards, J.C. (2002). 30 Years of TEFL/TESL: A Personal Reflection

Twardy, C. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy,

27(2), 95–116.

Van der Laan, S., & Dean, G. (2006). Assessment to Encourage Meaningful Learning in

Groups: Concept Mapping,. NZ: AAFANZ SIG Wellington.

http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_reading.htmhttp://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.htmhttp://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.htm

31

van Gelder, T. (2007). The rationale for RationaleTM. Law, Probability and Risk, 6, 23–

42.

Forming an Argument. (2008) Retrieved April 2, 2013 from

http://www.writerspulse.org/forming-an-argument/

Educators‟ Guide to Rationale. (2008). Retrieved March 12, 2013 from

http://rationale.austhink.com/learn

http://www.writerspulse.org/forming-an-argument/http://rationale.austhink.com/learn

112009017 english department faculty of language …...although the name of the course assignment is...

Documents