Analojik Akıl Yürütmenin Önemi ve Eğitimdeki Rolü

Öz

Analojik akıl yürütme veya analoji yoluyla argüman oluşturma, iki veya daha fazla şeyin bazı açılardan benzer olduğu sonucuna varılan belirli bir düşünme biçimidir. Analojik akıl yürütme; sınıflandırma, öğrenme, problem çözme ve yaratıcı düşünme ile ilgili olarak bilişsel gelişimin temel yapı taşını oluşturmaktadır. Ayrıca insanın akıl yürütmesinin her zaman içeriksiz genel çıkarsama kurallarına göre çalışmadığı, daha ziyade belirli bilgi yapılarına bağlı olduğu ve içinde bulunduğu bağlamdan büyük ölçüde etkilendiği gerçeğiyle ilgilidir. Analojik akıl yürütme, yalnızca bilinen bir alandan bilgi aktararak yeni bir alanın etkili bir şekilde öğrenilmesine izin vermekle kalmayıp, aynı zamanda alanlar arasında ilkelerin fark edilmesi ve soyutlanmasına teşvik etmektedir. Eğitim ortamında analojik akıl yürütme, öğrencilerin karşılaştıkları bir problemi önceki örneklere dayanarak çözmesini, belirli bir dizi sorundan ayrıntıların çıkarılmasını, yapısal benzerliklerin karşılaştırılması ve çözülmesi ile daha önce farklı alanlar arasındaki ortak noktaların çıkarılmasını içermektedir. Dolayısıyla bu düşünme biçimini hem doğuştan gelen bir yetenek hem de geliştirilebilecek temel bir öğrenme mekanizması olarak ifade etmek mümkündür. Bütün bunlar göz önüne alındığında analojik akıl yürütmenin bireyler için oldukça önemli olduğu ve eğitimde rol aldığı görülmektedir. Yapılan bu çalışma ile analojik akıl yürütmenin önemi ve eğitimdeki rolünün vurgulanması amaçlanmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Akıl yürütme
• analojik akıl yürütme
• eğitim

The Importance of Analogical Reasoning And Its Role in Education

Öz

Analogical reasoning, or argument-making by analogy, is a specific way of thinking in which two or more things are concluded to be similar in some respect. Analogical reasoning constitutes the basic building block of cognitive development regarding classification, learning, problem-solving, and creative thinking. It also relates that human reasoning only continuously operates according to contentless general inference rules. Instead, it depends on specific knowledge structures and is greatly influenced by the context in which it occurs. Analogical reasoning allows effective learning of a new field by transferring knowledge from a known field and encourages the recognition and abstraction of principles across fields. Analogical reasoning in the educational setting involves students solving a problem they encounter based on previous examples, extracting details from a given set of problems, comparing and solving structural similarities, and extracting common points between previously different fields. Therefore, it is possible to express this thinking as both an innate ability and an essential learning mechanism that can be developed. Considering all these, analogical reasoning is very important for individuals and plays a role in education. This study emphasizes the importance of analogical reasoning and its role in education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Reasoning
• analogical reasoning
• education

Kaynakça

1. Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Learning through case comparisons: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48, 87–113.
2. Bassok, M. (2001). Semantic alignments in mathematical word problems. The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, 401–433.
3. Bermejo-Luque, L. (2012). A unitary schema for arguments by analogy, Informal Logic, 32 (1), 1-24.
4. Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1147–1156.
5. Christie, S., & Gentner, D. (2010). Where hypotheses come from Learning new relations by structural alignment. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 356–373.
6. Çakır, C. & Azizoğlu, N. (2012, 4-7 Mayıs). Maddeyi oluşturan tanecikler konusunun analojilerle destekli öğretiminin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına etkisi. IV. Uluslararası Türkiye Eğitim Araştırmaları Kongresi, İstanbul.
7. Çetingül, P. İ. & Geban, Ö. (2005). Understanding of acid-base concept by using conceptual change approach. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 29, 69-74.
8. Day, S., Goldstone, R., & Hills, T. (2010). Effects of similarity and individual differences on comparison and transfer. In R. Catrambone & S. Ohlsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

9. Dunbar, K. (2001). The analogical paradox: Why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings yet so difficult in the psychological laboratory, The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, 313-334.
10. Fauconnier, G. (2001). Conceptual blending and analogy, The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, 255-286.
11. Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22, 47–61.
12. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Hung, B. (2007). Comparison facilitates children’s learning of names for parts. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8, 285–307.
13. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 393–408.
14. Gentner, D., & Ratterman, M. J. (1991). Language and the career of similarity. In S. A. Gelman & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Perspectives on thought and language: Interrelations in development (pp. 225–277). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
15. Gentner, D., Brian, B., Phillip, W., & Consuelo, B. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy, The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, 199-253.
16. Gentner, D., Simms, N., & Flusberg, S. (2009). Relational language helps children reason analogically. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1054–1059). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Cognitive Science Society.
17. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.
18. Glynn, S. M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, &B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp 219–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Glynn, S. M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A Teaching-with-Analogies Model. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 219-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Glynn, S. M., Law, M., & Doster, E. C. (1998). Making text meaningful: The role of analogies. In C. R. Hynd (Ed.), Learning from text across conceptual domains (pp. 193-208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Goswami, U. (1993). Analogical Reasoning in Children, Psychology Press.
22. Green, C. T., Briones-Chiongbian, V., Barrow, M., Ferrer, E., & Bunge, S. A. (2015). At the proximal zone of development: Reasoning predicts future mathematics achievement at all grade levels. Manuscript submitted for publication.
23. Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors,A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010). Probabilistic models of cognition: Exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,14 (8), 357–364.
24. Guarini, M., Amy, B., Paul S. S. & Andrei, M. (2009). Resources for research on analogy: A Multi-disciplinary guide, Informal Logic, 29 (2,) 84-197.
25. Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review,114, 704–732
26. Halford, G. S. (1992). Analogical reasoning and conceptual complexity in cognitive development. Human Development, 35, 193–217.
27. Hofstadter, D.R. (2001). “Epilogue: Analogy as the Core of Cognition”. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak and B.N. Kokinov (ed.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Book. Hofstadter, D. & Sander, E. (2010). The Essence of Thought, New York: Basic Books.
28. Holyoak, K. J., Gentner, D. & Kokinov, B. N. (2001), “Introduction: The place of analogy in Cognition,” in The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, Dedre Gentner, Keith J. Holyoak, and Boicho N. Kokinov, eds. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
29. Holyoak, K.J. (2012). Analogy and relational reasoning. In: Holyoak KJ, Morrison RG, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. New York: University Press.
30. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
31. James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1890).
32. Jee, B. D., Uttal, D. H., Gentner, D., Manduca, C. J., Shipley, T. F., & Sageman, B. (2013). Finding faults: Analogical comparison supports spatial concept learning in geoscience. Cognitive Process, 14, 175–187.
33. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). How we reason. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
34. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2010). Against logical form. Psychologica Belgica, 50, 193–221.
35. Johnson-Laird, P. N., Khemlani, S., & Goodwin, G. (2015). Logic, probability, and human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,19, 201–214.
36. Keane, M. T. & Fintan, C. (2001). Setting limits on analogy: Why conceptual combination is not structural alignment, The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, 287-312.
37. Kokinov, B. & Alexander P. (2001). We are integrating memory and reasoning in analogy making: The AMBR model”, The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, 59-124.
38. Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67, 2797–2822.
39. Kurtz, K. J., & Gentner, D. (2013). Detecting anomalous features in complex stimuli: The role of structured comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 219-232.
40. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 517–535.
41. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory and Cognition, 24, 235–249.
42. Markman, A. & Page M. (2001). Analogy and analogical comparison in choice, The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, 363-399.
43. Matlen, B. J. (2013). Comparison-based learning in science education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
44. Matlen, B. J., Gentner, D., & Franconeri, S. (2014, July). Structure-mapping in visual comparison: Embodied correspondence lines? Poster presented at the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Pasadena, CA.
45. Matlen, B.J., Vosniadou, S., Jee, B., & Ptouchkina, M. (2011). Enhancing the comprehension of science text through visual analogies. In L. Carlson, C. Holscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2910–2915). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
46. Mayo, J. A. (2019). Analogy co-construction as a pedagogical strategy in life-span developmental psychology. Journal of Teaching Action Research.
47. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,34, 57–74.
48. Ming, N. (2009). Analogies vs. contrasts: A comparison of their learning benefits. In B. Kokinov, K. Holyoak, & D. Gentner (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Analogy(pp.338–347). Sofia, Bulgaria: New Bulgarian University Press.
49. Namy, L. L., & Gentner, D. (2002). Making a silk purse out of two sow’s ears: Young children’s use of comparison in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 9 (2) 131, 5–15. 105
50. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The Probabilistic Approach Tohuman Reasoning. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
51. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2009). Precis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral & Brain Sciences,32, 69–120.
52. Orgill, M. (2003). Playing with a Double-Edged Sword: Analogies in Biochemistry, Ph.D. Dissertation, Purdue University.
53. Podolefsky, N. S., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2006). Use of analogy in learning physics: The role of representations. Physics Education Research 2.
54. Ragni, M., & Knauff, M. (2013). A theory and computational model of spatial reasoning with preferred mental models. Psychological Review,120, 561–588.
55. Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Children’s development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249–273.
56. Richland, L. E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K. J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Science, 316, 1128–1129.
57. Richland, L. E., & McDonough, I. M. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 28–43.
58. Richland, L. E. & Simms, N. (2015). Analogy, higher-order thinking, and education. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive Science 6(2).
59. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? A 106 experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 561–574.
60. Rule, A. C. & Furletti, C. (2004). Using form and function analogy object boxes to teach human body systems. School Science and Mathematics, 104(4), 155-169.
61. Sagi, E., Gentner, D., & Lovett, A. (2012). What difference reveals about similarity? Cognitive Science, 36, 1019–1050.
62. Sarantopoulos, P. & Tsaparlis, G. (2004). Analogies in chemistry teaching to attain cognitive and affective objectives: A longitudinal study in a naturalistic setting, using metaphors with a strong social content. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(1), 33-50.
63. Shaw, W.H, LR, A. (1983). Analogy and inference, dialogue. Canadian Philosophical Review/Revue Canadienne De Philosophie, 22, (3), 415-432.
64. Smith, L., Ping, R. M., Matlen, B. J., Goldwater, M. B., Gentner, D., &Levine, S. (2014). Mechanisms of spatial learning: Teaching children geometric categories. Spatial Cognition, 9, 325–337.
65. Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The Rationality Quotient: Toward a Test of Rational Thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66. Şaşmaz-Ören, F., Ormancı, Ü., Babacan, T., Çiçek, T. & Koparan, S. (2010). Analoji ve araştırma temelli öğrenme yaklaşımına dayalı rehber materyal uygulaması ile buna yönelik öğrenci görüşleri. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 33-53.
67. Taylan, N. (2011). Ana Hatlarıyla Mantık. İstanbul: Ensar.
68. Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331(6022), 1279–1285.
69. Thagard, P. & Cameron, S. (2001). Emotional analogies and analogical inference, The Analogical Mind: Perspectives From Cognitive Science, 335-362.
70. Topçu, N. (2001). Mantık. İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları
71. Waldmann, M. (Ed.) (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning. NewYork, Oxford University Press.
72. Ward, T. B, (1998). Analogical Distance and Purpose in Creative Thought: Mental Leaps Versus Mental Hops, Advances in Analogy Research: Integration of Theory and Data from the Cognitive, Computational and Neural Sciences, 221-230.
73. Wason, P. C., & Brooks, P. G. (1979). THOG: The anatomy of a problem. Psychological Research, 41, pp. 79–90.
74. Wendelken, C., Ferrer, E., Whitaker, K., & Bunge, S. A. (2014). Fronto-parietal network reconfiguration supports the development of reasoning ability. Manuscript submitted for publication.
75. Wendelken, C., O’Hare, E. D., Whitaker, K. J., Ferrer, E., & Bunge, S. A. (2011). Increased functional selectivity over development in the rostrolateral prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 17260–17268.
76. Wright, S. B., Matlen, B. J., Baym, C. L., Ferrer, E., & Bunge, S. A. (2008). Neural correlates of fluid reasoning in children and adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–8.