Öz

İşbirlikli temelli öğrenme (İTÖ), neredeyse her eğitim sisteminde saygın bir pedagojik uygulama olarak yerini almıştır. Bu tür küçük grup çalışmalarının başarısı veya gerçek potansiyeli, sosyal ve bilişsel olarak karakterize edilen transaktif etkileşimlere bağlıdır. Nitel metodolojiye dayandırılan ve durum çalışması olarak tasarlanan bu araştırma, yedi işbirlikli gruba atanan ve sosyal bilgiler dersi ile ilişkilendirilen eleştirel düşünme bilişsel görevleri üzerinde işbirliği içinde çalışmaya yönlendirilen 28 ortaokul beşinci sınıf öğrencisinin gruplarda sosyal ve bilişsel açıdan nasıl bir etkileşim süreci geçirdiğini ve buna bağlı deneyimlerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Prosedüre göre, üç aşamalı ön işlemler sonucunda bilişsel görevler oluşturulmuştur. Bilişsel görevler için bir uygulama modeli geliştirilmiş ve uygulamalar bu modele göre yürütülmüştür. Veriler, katılımcıların kendi beyanları (öz değerlendirmeler, akran değerlendirmeleri, görüşmeler) ve araştırmacının gözlem raporları aracılığıyla; hazırlık süreci, oryantasyon, ön uygulama ve ana uygulama aşamaları sonrasında toplanmıştır. Bu veriler, MAXQDA Analytics Pro 2024 (sürüm 24.0.0) paket programı ortamında yedi aşamada analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, sosyal olarak karakterize edilen transaktif etkileşimlerin öğrencilerin işbirliği anlayışına, sosyal-duygusal farkındalık ve ifade yeteneği kapsamındaki sosyal çıkarım becerilerine ve gruba yönelik sosyal refah algısına bağlı olabileceğini göstermiştir. Bilişsel olarak karakterize edilen transaktif etkileşimlerin hedef yönelimi ve düşünce üretim süreçlerinin denetimi (grup üstbilişi) ile bilgi işleme ve karar verme kapsamındaki kaliteli argüman arayışına bağlı olduğunu göstermiştir. Sonuçlar, işbirliği temelli eleştirel düşünme süreçlerindeki sosyal ve bilişsel transaktif etkileşimlerin sınıf ortamlarındaki yansımaları üzerinden tartışılmıştır. Gelecekteki benzer araştırmaların teorik ve uygulamaya yönelik yapısını güçlendirmek için çeşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Transaktif etkileşimler, Paylaşılan biliş, Karmaşık bilişsel işlemler, Eleştirel düşünme, İşbirliği temelli öğrenme, Sosyal bilgiler

Kaynakça

  1. Aguilera-Jiménez, A., & Prados Gallardo, M. M. (2020). Dialogic learning, interactive teaching and Cognitive Mobilizing Patterns. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 271-294. https://doi.org/10.17583/remie.2020.5088
  2. Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practices over primary and secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 9-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(03)00071-5
  3. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. University of Chicago Press.
  4. Battersby, M. (2016). Enhancing rationality: Heuristics, biases, and the critical thinking project. Informal Logic, 36(2), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v36i2.4662
  5. Becker, D. V., Unkelbach, C., & Fiedler, K. (2021). Inference in social cognition. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.834
  6. Berkowitz, M. W., & Gibbs, J. C. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 399-410.
  7. Berkowitz, M. W., Althof, W., Turner, V. D., Bloch, D., & Bloch, D. (2008). Discourse, development, and education. In F. K. Oser & W. Veugelers (Eds.), Getting involved (pp. 189-201). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087906368_013
  8. Brandstätter, V., Giesinger, L., Job, V., & Frank, E. (2015). The role of deliberative versus implemental mindsets in time prediction and task accomplishment. Social Psychology, 46(2), 104-115. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000231
  9. Christie, D., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Howe, C., & Topping, K. (2009). Supporting group work in Scottish primary classrooms: improving the quality of collaborative dialogue. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802702000
  10. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 557-570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557
  11. Corrégé, J.-B., & Michinov, N. (2021). Group size and peer learning: Peer discussions in different group size influence learning in a biology exercise performed on a tablet with stylus. Frontiers in Education, (6), 733663. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.733663
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson Publishing.
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
  14. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  15. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74
  16. Davidesco, I., Laurent, E., Valk, H., West, T., Dikker, S., Milne, C., & Poeppel, D. (2019). Brain-to-brain synchrony between students and teachers predicts learning outcomes. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/644047
  17. Davidson, N. (2022). Pioneering perspectives in Cooperative Learning: Theory, research, and classroom practice for diverse approaches to CL (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003106760-1
  18. De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2004). It’s not so easy: Researching the complexity of emergent participant roles and awareness in asynchronous networked learning discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 165-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00085.x
  19. Debout, C. (2016). L'étude de cas qualitative. Soins, 61(806), 57-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soin.2016.04.018
  20. Deutsch, M. (1949). An experimental study of the effects of co-operation and competition upon group process. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 2(3), 199-231. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674900200301
  21. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D.C. Heath & Co Publishers.
  22. Dikker, S., Wan, L., Davidesco, I., Kaggen, L., Oostrik, M., McClintock, J., Rowland, J., Michalareas, G., Van Bavel, J. J., Ding, M., & Poeppel, D. (2017). Brain-to-brain synchrony tracks real-world dynamic group interactions in the classroom. Current Biology: CB, 27(9), 1375-1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.002
  23. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do yuo mean by collaborative leraning?. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Elsevier.
  24. Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2015). Content analysis. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215491.001.0001
  25. Du, X., Chen, C., & Lin, H. (2022). The impact of working memory capacity on collaborative learning in elementary school students. Frontiers in Psychology, (13), 1027523. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1027523
  26. Dwyer, C. P. (2023). An evaluative review of barriers to critical thinking in educational and real-world settings. Journal of Intelligence, 11(6), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060105
  27. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction -The Delphi report. California Academic Press.
  28. Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., Villarroel, C., & Gilabert, S. (2015). Arguing collaboratively: Argumentative discourse types and their potential for knowledge building. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 372-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12078
  29. Ferreira, K. E., & Adleman, N. E. (2020). Memory, emotion regulation, and social inference skills in college students. Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 39(4), 1269-1276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9833-7
  30. Fiedler, S., Habibnia, H., Fahrenwaldt, A., & Rahal, R.-M. (2024). Motivated cognition in cooperation. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 19(2), 385-403. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231193990
  31. Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2006). The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron, 50(4), 531-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.05.001
  32. Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2012). Mechanisms of social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, (63), 287-313. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100449
  33. Fujita, K., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2007). Mindsets and pre-conscious open-mindedness to incidental information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 48-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.004
  34. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1-2), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
  35. Gätje, O., & Jurkowski, S. (2021). When students interlink ideas in peer learning: Linguistic characteristics of transactivity in argumentative discourse. International Journal of Educational Research Open, (2), 100065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100065
  36. Gillies, R. M. (2014). Developments in cooperative learning: Review of research. Anales de Psicología, 30(3). 792-801. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.201191
  37. Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Rohrbeck, C. A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 732-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.732
  38. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 53-92). The Guilford Press.
  39. Gross, E. B., & Medina-DeVilliers, S. E. (2020). Cognitive processes unfold in a social context: A review and extension of social baseline theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 378. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00378
  40. Haataja, E., Dindar, M., Malmberg, J., & Järvelä, S. (2022). Individuals in a group: Metacognitive and regulatory predictors of learning achievement in collaborative learning. Learning and Individual Differences, (96), 102146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102146
  41. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 45-99). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60248-8
  42. Hajhosseini, M., Zandi, S., Hosseini Shabanan, S., & Madani, Y. (2016). Critical thinking and social interaction in active learning: A conceptual analysis of class discussion from Iranian students’ perspective. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1175051. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2016.1175051
  43. Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). Psychology Press.
  44. Hancock, D. (2004). Cooperative learning and peer orientation effects on motivation and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 159-168. https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.97.3.159-168
  45. Hänze, M., & Jurkowski, S. (2022). Das Potenzial kooperativen Lernens ausschöpfen: Die Bedeutung der transaktiven Kommunikation für eine lernwirksame Zusammenarbeit. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 36(3), 141-152. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000335
  46. Hawkins, R. D., Berdahl, A. M., Pentland, A. ‘sandy,’ Tenenbaum, J. B., Goodman, N. D., & Krafft, P. M. (2023). Flexible social inference facilitates targeted social learning when rewards are not observable. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(10), 1767-1776. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01682-x
  47. Hernández-Sellés, N., Muñoz-Carril, P.-C., & González-Sanmamed, M. (2020). Interaction in computer supported collaborative learning: An analysis of the implementation phase. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00202-5
  48. Heyman, G. D. (2008). Children’s critical thinking when learning from others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 344-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00603.x
  49. Hokoda, A. J., Fincham, F. D., & Diener, C. I. (1989). The effect of social comparison information on learned helpless and mastery‐oriented children in achievement settings. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(6), 527-542. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420190604
  50. Hooper, S. R., & Clariana, R. B. (2012). Cooperative learning groups and streaming. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 815-818). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_918
  51. Howe, C., Tolmie, A., & Rodgers, C. (1990). Physics in the primary school: Peer interaction and the understanding of floating and sinking. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 5(4), 459-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173132
  52. Hu, Q., Ban, W., Li, Y., Jiang, Q., & Zhao, W. (2021). The learning effects of collaborative knowledge construction: A meta-analysis of 16 experiments. In 2021 IEEE 24th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) (pp. 707-712). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD49262.2021.9437778
  53. Hunter, R., & Anthony, G. (2014). Small group interactions: Opportunities for mathematical learning (ED599844). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED599844
  54. Hwang, N.-C. R., Lui, G., & Wu Tong, M. Y. J. (2008). Cooperative learning in a passive learning environment: A replication and extension. Issues in Accounting Education, 23(1), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2008.23.1.67
  55. Isaacs, S. S. (1933). Social development in young children: A study of beginnings. George Routledge & Sons.
  56. Järvelä, S., Nguyen, A., Vuorenmaa, E., Malmberg, J., & Järvenoja, H. (2023). Predicting regulatory activities for socially shared regulation to optimize collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, (144), 107737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107737
  57. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec E. J. (1994). The nuts and bolts of cooperative learning. Interaction Book.
  58. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (2007). The nuts and bolts of cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Interaction Book.
  59. Jurkowski, S., & Hänze, M. (2010). Soziale Kompetenzen, transaktives Interaktionsverhalten und Lernerfolg: Experimenteller Vergleich zweier unterschiedlich gestalteter Gruppenunterrichtsbedingungen und Evaluation eines transaktivitätsbezogenen Kooperationsskriptes. Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie, 24(3-4), 241-257. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000020
  60. Jurkowski, S., Mundelsee, L., Jüngst, C., & Hänze, M. (2022). Messung gemeinsamer Wissenskonstruktion: Ein Vergleich von hoch-inferenter Beobachtung, niedrig-inferenter Codierung und Selbsteinschätzung der transaktiven Kommunikation. Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft: ZfE, 25(6), 1505-1527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-022-01124-w
  61. Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., Lefler, M., Andreasen, L., Walker, A., & Axelrod, D. (2020). Computer-based scaffolding targeting individual versus groups in problem-centered instruction for STEM education: Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, (32), 415-461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09502-3
  62. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2
  63. Klang, N., Olsson, I., Wilder, J., Lindqvist, G., Fohlin, N., & Nilholm, C. (2020). A cooperative learning intervention to promote social inclusion in heterogeneous classrooms. Frontiers in Psychology, (11), 586489. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586489
  64. Köymen, B., Jurkat, S., & Tomasello, M. (2020). Preschoolers refer to direct and indirect evidence in their collaborative reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, (193), 104806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104806
  65. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA: Text, audio, and video. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8
  66. Kuhlen, A. K., Bogler, C., Brennan, S. E., & Haynes, J.-D. (2017). Brains in dialogue: Decoding neural preparation of speaking to a conversational partner. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(6), 871-880. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx018
  67. Kyngäs, H. (2020). Inductive content analysis. In H. Kyngäs, K. Mikkonen, & M. Kääriäinen (Eds.), The application of content analysis in nursing science research (pp. 13-21). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6_2
  68. Lachowsky, N. J., & Murray, J. (2021). Group processing: Students reflections on the experience and impact of group processing. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.5278/OJS.JPBLHE.V9I2.2883
  69. Lai, C. H., Sung, C. Y., Jong, B. S., & Lee, P. F. (2011). The impact of peer interaction on group strategy in cooperative learning environment. Advanced Materials Research, 271-273, 1213-1218. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.271-273.1213
  70. Lai, C. H., Jong, B. S., Hsia, Y. T., Lee, P. F., & Chan, T. Y. (2011). Systematic analysis of peer interaction in cooperative learning. Paper presented at the 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.
  71. Liao, C. C. Y., Chen, Z.-H., Cheng, H. N. H., & Chan, T.-W. (2018). Effects of friendship relations and gender differences on classroom-based surrogate competitive learning. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(3), 259-277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0108-y
  72. Liu, C.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627-639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.002
  73. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications.
  74. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192990250107
  75. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  76. Meyer, M. L., Spunt, R. P., Berkman, E. T., Taylor, S. E., & Lieberman, M. D. (2012). Evidence for social working memory from a parametric functional MRI study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(6), 1883-1888. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1121077109
  77. Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research. Sage Publications.
  78. Mitchell, J. P., Macrae, C. N., & Banaji, M. R. (2004). Encoding-specific effects of social cognition on the neural correlates of subsequent memory. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 24(21), 4912-4917. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0481-04.2004
  79. Mojzisch, A., Krumm, S., & Schultze, T. (2014). Do high working memory groups perform better? A conceptual approach linking individual differences in working memory capacity to group performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13(3), 134-145. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000111
  80. Molden, D. C., Plaks, J. E., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). “Meaningful” social inferences: Effects of implicit theories on inferential processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 738-752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.11.005
  81. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853
  82. Nelson, E. E., Leibenluft, E., McClure, E. B., & Pine, D. S. (2005). The social re-orientation of adolescence: A neuroscience perspective on the process and its relation to psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 35(2), 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291704003915
  83. Nemeth, L., Blumenfeld, T., Denn, A.-K., Hirstein, A., & Lipowsky, F. (2023). An exploratory analysis of transactive interaction patterns in cooperative learning using sequential analysis. Education Sciences, 13(8), 790. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080790
  84. Newman, R. (2017). Let’s talk talk: Utilising metatalk for the development of productive collaborative dialogues. Thinking Skills and Creativity, (26), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.006
  85. Olivera, F., & Straus, S. G. (2004). Group-to-individual transfer of learning: Cognitive and social factors. Small Group Research, 35(4), 440-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404263765
  86. Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2012). The role of teacher assistance on the effects of a macro-script in collaborative writing tasks. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 161-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9125-9
  87. Ouyang, F., Tang, Z., Cheng, M., & Chen, Z. (2023). Using an integrated discourse analysis approach to analyze a group’s collaborative argumentation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, (47), 101227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101227
  88. Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 697-698). Sage Publications.
  89. Pan, Y., Novembre, G., Song, B., Li, X., & Hu, Y. (2018). Interpersonal synchronization of inferior frontal cortices tracks social interactive learning of a song. NeuroImage, (183), 280-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.005
  90. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  91. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: Learn the tools the best thinkers use. Pearson Prentice Hall.
  92. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). W. W. Norton & Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/11494-000
  93. Piaget, J. (1971). The theory of stages in cognitive development. In D. Green, M. P. Ford, & G. B. Flamer (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 1-11). McGraw-Hill.
  94. Poulin-Dubois, D., & Brosseau-Liard, P. (2016). The developmental origins of selective social learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 60-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415613962
  95. Prado, J., Léone, J., Epinat-Duclos, J., Trouche, E., & Mercier, H. (2020). The neural bases of argumentative reasoning. Brain and Language, (208), 104827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104827
  96. Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223
  97. Saldana, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.
  98. Sankaranarayanan, R., Kwon, K., & Cho, Y. (2021). Exploring the differences between individuals and groups during the problem-solving process: The collective working-memory effect and the role of collaborative interactions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 32(1), 43-66. https://doi.org/10.70725/636732aueosi
  99. Sawyer, J. E., Obeid, R., Bublitz, D., Schwartz, A. M., Brooks, P. J., & Richmond, A. S. (2017). Which forms of active learning are most effective: Cooperative learning, writing-to-learn, multimedia instruction, or some combination?. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 3(4), 257-271. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000095
  100. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right ... If they argue together!. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461-494. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1804_2
  101. Senior, C., & Howard, C. (2014). Learning in friendship groups: Developing students’ conceptual understanding through social interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, (5), 1031. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01031
  102. Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does groupwork work?. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 785-791. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.201201
  103. Smaldino, P. E. (2023). Modeling social behavior: Mathematical and agent-based models of social dynamics and cultural evolution. Priceton University Press.
  104. Sorrenti, L., Filippello, P., Buzzai, C., Buttò, C., & Costa, S. (2018). Learned helplessness and mastery orientation: The contribution of personality traits and academic beliefs. Nordic Psychology, 70(1), 71-84. doi:10.1080/19012276.2017.1339625
  105. Sperber, D., & Mercier, H. (2012). Reasoning as a social competence. In H. Landemore & J. Elster (Eds.), Collective wisdom (pp. 368-392). Cambridge University Press.
  106. Stallen, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2015). The neuroscience of social conformity: Implications for fundamental and applied research. Frontiers in Neuroscience, (9), 337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00337
  107. Tindale, R. S., Stawiski, S., & Jacobs, E. (2008). Shared cognition and group learning. In V. I. Sessa (Ed.), Work group learning: Understanding, improving and assessing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 73-90). Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  108. Tomasello, M. (2014). Why we cooperate. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8470.001.0001
  109. Trouche, E., Sander, E., & Mercier, H. (2014). Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 1958-1971. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037099
  110. Trung, D. N., & Truong, D. X. (2023). The benefits of cooperative learning: An overview. Technium Education and Humanities, 4, 78-85. https://doi.org/10.47577/teh.v4i.8709
  111. van Boxtel, C., & Roelofs, E. (2001). Investigating the quality of student discourse: What constitutes a productive student discourse?. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36/37(2/1), 55-62.
  112. Veldman, M. A., Doolaard, S., Bosker, R. J., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2020). Young children working together. Cooperative learning effects on group work of children in Grade 1 of primary education. Learning and Instruction, (67), 101308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101308
  113. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000
  114. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  115. Wang, Y., & Ruhe, G. (2007). The cognitive process of decision making. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, 1(2), 73-85. https://doi.org/10.4018/jcini.2007040105
  116. Webb, N. M. (1984). Stability of small group interaction and achievement over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.2.211
  117. Webb, N. M. (2008). Teacher practices and small-group dynamics in cooperative learning classrooms. In R. M. Gillies, A. F. Ashman, & J. Terwel (Eds.), The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 201-221). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-70892-8_10
  118. Xu, E., Wang, W., & Wang, Q. (2023). The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, (10), 16. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1
  119. Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.1.60
  120. Zambrano, R., J., Kirschner, F., Sweller, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2019). Effects of prior knowledge on collaborative and individual learning. Learning and Instruction, (63), 101214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.05.011

Telif hakkı ve lisans

Telif Hakkı © 2025 Yazar(lar). Açık erişimli bu makale, orijinal çalışmaya uygun şekilde atıfta bulunulması koşuluyla, herhangi bir ortamda veya formatta sınırsız kullanım, dağıtım ve çoğaltmaya izin veren Creative Commons Atıf Lisansı (CC BY) altında dağıtılmıştır.

Nasıl atıf yapılır

Güngör, İ. C., & İbret, B. Ü. (2025). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin sosyal bilgiler dersi ile uyumlu işbirliği temelli eleştirel düşünme süreçlerindeki transaktif etkileşim örüntüleri. Eğitim Ve Bilim, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.15390/ES.2025.2465