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
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
ii
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
Approved by:
Christian Rudianto, M.Appling. Lany Kristono, S.Pd.,M.Hum.
iii
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:
Evaluating Students’ Mind Maps in Academic Reading Class
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.
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 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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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).
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.
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?
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
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
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
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,
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 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
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 byoffering a contrarycontention 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)
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
