BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE ARTICLES IN THE FIELD OF ARGUMENTATION IN SCIENCE FROM 1976 TO 2020

The purpose of the current study is to analyse bibliometric features of the articles on argumentation available in the WoS (Web of Science) database. A total number of 2176 articles on argumentation were determined on the date of 26 March 2020. The number of articles and citations across the years, prominent institutions and countries publishing the articles, collaborations between the countries, having the highest co-citations in the references of the articles were determined through the use of descriptive and bibliometric analyses. Also, the most frequent co-occurrences of the keywords in the articles on argumentation were revealed. As a result of the research, the country that comes to the fore in terms of the number of articles in the field of argumentation is the USA (America), while the UK (England) is a country with high influences in this field in terms of highest link strength and collaborations. Other findings of the study revealed that research in the field of argumentation has been carried out in many disciplines such as science and science education and mathematics education, mathematics and logic, applications of the artificial intelligence in computer science and linguistics. However, it can be said that research in the field of argumentation made the most progress in science education. In addition, the most cited articles in co-citations belong to Driver, Newton and Osborne (2000) and Osborne, Erduran and Simon (2004) and Zohar and Nemet (2002). Also, Toulmin’s (1958) book of the “Uses of Argument” receives remarkable citations. Moreover, the co-occurrences of the keywords found to be used the most frequently in the articles are argumentation, abstract argumentation, discourse analysis, argumentation theory, critical thinking, computational complexity and argumentation semantic.

1976’DAN 2020’YE KADAR BİLİMDE ARGÜMANTASYON ALANINDAKİ ÇALIŞMALARIN BİBLİOMETRİK ANALİZİ

Bu çalışmanın amacı, WoS (Web of Science) veri tabanında yer alan argümantasyon ile ilgili makalelerin bibliyometrik özelliklerini analiz etmektir. 26 Mart 2020 tarihinde argümantasyon ile ilgili toplam 2176 makale belirlenmiştir. Yıllara göre makale ve atıf sayıları, makaleleri yayınlayan önde gelen kurum ve ülkeler, ülkeler arasındaki işbirlikleri ve referanslarda en fazla ortak atıf alan makalelerin sayısı betimsel ve bibliyometrik analizler kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, argümantasyon ile ilgili makalelerde anahtar kelimelerin en sık birlikte kullanılma durumları ortaya konmuştur. Araştırmanın bir sonucuna göre argümantasyon alanında makale sayısı açısından öne çıkan ülke ABD (Amerika) iken, en yüksek bağlantı gücü ve işbirlikleri ile güçlü etkiye sahip ülke İngiltere’dir. Araştırmanın diğer bulguları, argümantasyon alanındaki araştırmaların fen ve fen eğitimi ve matematik eğitimi, matematik ve mantık, yapay zekanın bilgisayar bilimleri ve dilbilimdeki uygulamaları gibi birçok disiplinde yapıldığını ortaya koymuştur. Ancak argümantasyon alanındaki araştırmaların en fazla ilerlemeyi fen eğitiminde gösterdiği söylenebilir. Ayrıca ortak atıflarda en çok atıf yapılan makaleler Driver, Newton ve Osborne (2000)’a ve Osborne, Erduran ve Simon (2004) ile Zohar ve Nemet (2002)’e aittir. Ayrıca, Toulmin'in (1958) “Argümanın Kullanımları” isimli kitabı, dikkat çekici derecede atıf almaktadır. Ayrıca makalelerde en sık birlikte kullanıldığı tespit edilen anahtar kelimeler argümantasyon, soyut argümantasyon, söylem analizi, argümantasyon teorisi, eleştirel düşünme, işlemsel karmaşıklığı ve argümantasyon semantiğidir.

___

Aktamış, H. & Hiğde, E. (2015). Fen eğitiminde kullanılan argümantasyon modellerinin değerlendirilmesi [Assessment of argumentation models used in science education]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 136-172.

Anwar, Y. & Susanti, R. (2019, February). Analyzing scientific argumentation skills of biology education students in general biology courses. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1166, No. 1, p. 012001). IOP Publishing.

Arıcı, F., Yıldırım, P., Çalıklar, Ş. & Yılmaz, R. M. (2019). Research trends in the use of augmented reality in science education: Content and bibliometric mapping analysis. Computers & Education, 142, 103647.

Bağ, H. & Çalık, M. (2017). A thematic review of argumentation studies at the K-8 level. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(190), 281-303.

Balcı, B. (2020). Türkiye’deki e-öğrenme ortamlarında bulut bilişim konulu lisansüstü tezlerin betimsel tarama yöntemiyle incelenmesi [Examination of the master and doctorate theses on cloud computing in elearning environments in Turkey by descriptive review method]. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 10(2), 402-426.

Batur, Z. & Özcan, H. Z. (2020). Eleştirel düşünme üzerine yazılan lisansüstü tezlerinin bibliyometrik analizi [Bibliometric analysis of graduate theses written on critical thinking]. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 9(2), 834-854.

Bench-Capon, T. J. (2003). Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 429-448.

Berland, L. K. & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793.

Berland, L. K. & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.

Berland, L. K. & Reiser, B. J. (2011). “Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation”. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216

Bordarenko, A., Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R. A. & Toni, F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial intelligence, 93(1-2), 63-101.

Bozdoğan, A. E. (2020). “Planetaryum” konusunda yayınlanan eğitim araştırmaları makalelerinin web of science veri tabanına dayalı bibliyometrik değerlendirilmesi [A bibliometric evaluation of published educational research papers on “planetariums” based on web of science database]. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(27), 1-1.

Bricker, L. A. & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473- 498.

Cho, K. L. & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22.

Çetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20

Çevik, Ü. B. & Alp, G. (2019). Yetenek yönetiminin bibliyometrik haritalama ile incelenmesi [Examination of talent management with bibliometric mapping]. Journal of Recreation and Tourism Research, 6(3), 176-190

Çilhoroz, Y. & Arslan, İ. (2018). Sağlık hizmetlerinde yalın yönetim yaklaşımı: Bibliyometrik bir analiz [Lean management approach in healthcare services: a bibliometric analysis]. Atlas International Referred Journal on Social Sciences.4(10), 540-555.

Dehdarirad, T., Villarroya, A. & Barrios, M. (2015). Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 103(3), 795-812.

Demir, E. & Çelik, M. (2020). Fen Bilimleri Öğretim Programları alanındaki bilimsel çalışmaların bibliyometrik profili [Bibliometric profile of scientific studies in the field of science curriculum]. Turkiye Kimya Dernegi Dergisi Kısım C: Kimya Egitimi, 5(2), 131-182.

Demir, H. & Erigüç, G. (2018). Bibliyometrik bir analiz ile yönetim düşünce sisteminin incelenmesi [Examination of management thought system with a bibliometric analysis]. İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 5(2), 91-114.

Díaz, J. P., Mignone, A. M. & Roque Bar, A. (2020). Argumentation and Disciplinary Training for University Geography Students. Revista Educación, 44(1), 146-162.

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

Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial intelligence, 77(2), 321-357.

Duran, M., Doruk, M. & Kaplan, A. (2017). Argümantasyon tabanlı olasılık öğretiminin ortaokul öğrencilerinin başarılarına ve kaygılarına etkililiğinin incelenmesi. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 13(1), 55-87.

Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A. & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8 (Vol. 500). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Erdoğan, D. G. (2020). Research trends in studies on lifelong learning: a bibliometric analysis with visual mapping technique (2016-2020). Sakarya University Journal of Education, 10(3), 643-666.

Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer.

Erduran, S. & Msimanga, A. (2014). Science curriculum reform in South Africa: Lessons for professional development from research on argumentation in science education. Education as Change, 18(S1), S33- S46. https://doi.org/10.1080/16823206.2014.882266

Erduran, S., Özdem, Y. & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: a journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1-12.

Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science education, 88(6), 915-933.

Giménez-Espert, M. D. C. & Prado-Gascó, V. J. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of six nursing journals from the Web of Science, 2012–2017. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 75(3), 543-554.

Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking (Vol. 843). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Goldman, A. I. (1994). Argumentation and social epistemology. The Journal of Philosophy, 91(1), 27-49

Gürlen, E., Özdiyar, Ö. & Şen, Z. (2019). Üstün yeteneklilere yönelik akademik çalışmaların sosyal ağ analizi [Social network analysis of academic studies on gifted people]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(197).185-208

Hasnunidah, N., Susilo, H., Henie Irawati, M. & Sutomo, H. (2015). Argument-driven inquiry with scaffolding as the development strategies of argumentation and critical thinking skills of students in Lampung, Indonesia. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(9), 1185-1192.

Jho, H. (2018). Trends in research on the nature of science: A bibliometric analysis with R-mapping tool. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 18(18), 937-956.

Kahraman, B. & Kaya, O. N. (2021). A thematic content analysis of rhetorical and dialectical argumentation studies in science education. Elementary Education Online, 20(1), 53-79.

Karasar, N. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (35th ed.). Nobel Yayıncılık.

Kartika, H., Budiarto, M. T. & Fuad, Y. (2021). Argumentation in K-12 mathematics and science education: a content analysis of articles. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(1), 51-64.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.

Kuhn, D. & Moore, W. (2015). Argumentation as core curriculum. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2015.994254

Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.

Lee, M. H., Wu, Y. T. & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999- 2020.

Lin, T. Lin, T. & Tsai, C. (2014) Research trends in science education from 2008 to 2012: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals, International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346- 1372.

McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M. & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026-2046.

Ministry of National Educaton [MoNE (MEB), 2013]. İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: T.C Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. [Primary education institutions (primary schools and secondary schools) science lesson (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades) curriculum]. T.C Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.

Monte-Sano, C. (2016). Argumentation in history classrooms: a key path to understanding the discipline and preparing citizens. Theory into Practice, 55(4), 311-319.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education. National Academies Press

Newton, P., Driver, R. & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of science education, 21(5), 553-576.

Okumuş, S., Ü. & Ünal, S. (2012). The effects of argumentation model on students’ achievement and argumentation skills in science. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 457-461.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.

Özkaya, A. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of the publications made in STEM education area. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 8(2), 590-628.

Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348-349.

Raisig, L. M. (1962). Statistical bibliography in the health sciences. Bull. Med. Lib. Assoc., 50(3), 450–461.

Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323-346.

Sanders, J. A., Wiseman, R. L. & Gass, R. H. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking?. Communication Reports, 7(1), 27-35.

Schwarz, B.B., Hershkowitz, R. & Prusak, N. (2010). Argumentation and mathematics. In C. Howe & K. Littleton (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 115–141). London: Routledge.

Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of science education, 28(2-3), 235-260.

Song, Y., Chen, X., Hao, T., Liu, Z. & Lan, Z. (2019). Exploring two decades of research on classroom dialogue by using bibliometric analysis. Computers & Education, 137, 12-31.

Sönmez, D. (2019). Türkiye’de bilgisayar destekli öğretimde çevre temalı tezlerin bibliyometrik analizi [Bibliometric analysis of environmental themed theses in computer assisted instruction in Turkey]. Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research, 6(42), 2378-2383.

Şen, Ö. (2020). Bibliyometrik analiz yöntemi ile ağızdan ağıza iletişim (wom) konusunun incelenmesi [Research about word of mouth (Wom) with bibliometric analysis]. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 6(54), 1-10

Şenbabaoğlu, E. & Parilti, N. (2019). Tüketici yenilikçiliğinin görsel haritalama tekniğiyle bibliyometrik analizi [Bibliometric analysis of consumer innovativeness with visual mapıng technique]. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 54(2), 713-730.

Tippett, C. (2009). Argumentation: The language of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(1), 17- 25.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometric, 84, 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

van Eck, N. J. & Waltman, L. (2020). VOSviewer manual. https://www.vosviewer.com/getting-started

van Eemeren F.H., Jackson S., Jacobs S. (2015) Argumentation. In: Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. argumentation library, (vol 27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-20955-5_1

Van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press

Venville, G. J. & V. M. Dawson. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8). 952–977.

Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J. & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002

Wang, B., Pan, S. Y., Ke, R. Y., Wang, K. & Wei, Y. M. (2014). An overview of climate change vulnerability: a bibliometric analysis based on Web of Science database. Natural Hazards, 74(3), 1649-1666.

Yackel, E. & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477.

Ye, J., Chen, D. & Kong, L. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of the wos literature on research of science teacher from 2000 to 2017. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(5), 732.

Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
Uluslararası Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 2146-1961
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2010
  • Yayıncı: Prof. Dr. Kadir ULUSOY
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

TÜRKÜ SÖZLERİNDE ŞİDDET ÇAĞRIŞTIRAN İFADELER: İÇ ANADOLU BÖLGESİ ÖRNEĞİ

Ahmet Selçuk BAYBURTLU, Duygu Ulusoy YILMAZ, Funda KEKLİK KAL

KÜLTÜREL KÜRESELLEŞME İLE İNTERNET VE CEP TELEFONU KULLANIM ORANLARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ ÖRNEĞİ

Mehmet Şükrü NAR

ÜLKELERİN İNOVASYON KABİLİYETİNİN MAKROEKONOMİK BELİRLEYİCİLERİ İÇİN BİR ANALİZ

Elmas DEMİRCİOĞLU KARABIYIK

SOSYAL BİLGİLER ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ÖĞRETMENLİK MESLEĞİNE YÖNELİK TUTUMLARININ BAZI DEĞİŞKENLER AÇISINDAN İNCELENMESİ

Sinan AKDAĞ, Zekerya AKKUŞ

AN ANALYSIS FOR THE MACROECONOMIC DETERMINANTS OF INNOVATION CAPABILITY OF COUNTRIES

Elmas DEMİRCİOĞLU KARABIYIK

FEN ÖĞRETİMİNDE KARİKATÜR KULLANIMI HAKKINDA TÜRKİYE’DE İLKOKUL ve ORTAOKUL DÜZEYİNDE YAPILAN ÇALIŞMALARIN İNCELENMESİ

Elif ÖZTÜRK, Çiğdem COMARDOĞLU

ALMANYA’NIN BERLİN EYALETİNDE OKUTULAN TARİH DERSİ ÖĞRETİM PROGRAMININ VATANDAŞLIK EĞİTİMİ AÇISINDAN İNCELENMESİ

İrem PAMUK

MÜZİK EĞİTİMİNDE BİREYSEL ÇALGILARA YÖNELİK YAPILMIŞ OLAN LİSANSÜSTÜ ÇALIŞMALARIN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI OLARAK İNCELENMESİ: BİR İÇERİK ANALİZİ ÇALIŞMASI

Onur GÜÇLÜ, Önder MUSTUL, Yavuz Selim KALELİ

TURİSTLERİN DESTİNASYON TERCİHLERİNDE SOSYAL MEDYANIN ETKİSİNİN BELİRLENMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA: SAKİN ŞEHİR DESTİNASYONU VİZE ÖRNEĞİ

Aydın ÜNAL, Mehmet Sedat İPAR

ÇİN'İN AFRİKA'DAKİ EKONOMİK HEGEMONYASI

Ferdi GÜÇYETMEZ, Rahmi İNCEKARA