critical thinking skills through argument mapping

• The Key is Being Metacognitive
• The Big Picture
• Learning Outcomes
• Test your Existing Knowledge
• Definitions of Critical Thinking
• Learning How to Think Critically
• Self Reflection Activity
• End of Module Survey
• Test Your Existing Knowledge
• Interpreting Information Methodically
• Using the SEE-I Method
• Interpreting Information Critically
• Argument Analysis
• Learning Activities
• Argument Mapping
• Summary of Anlyzing Arguments
• Fallacious Reasoning
• Statistical Misrepresentation
• Biased Reasoning
• Common Cognitive Biases
• Poor Research Methods - The Wakefield Study
• Summary of How Reasoning Fails
• Misinformation and Disinformation
• Media and Digital Literacy
• Information Trustworthiness
• Summary of How Misinformation is Spread

Critical Thinking Tutorial: Argument Mapping

The purpose of argument mapping.

Before we conclude, let's take a look at argument mapping , notably one of the most useful tools to help you become a better critical thinker. Remember that arguments are not always neatly packaged in ways that are easy to understand. Simple arguments contain one or two premises, but complex arguments contain multiple premises that can function independently or co-dependently . Analyzing an argument from the raw text alone can be challenging, but creating an argument map can help you locate the evidence in support of the claim and see the connections between them.

By definition, an argument map is a visual representation of a complex or multi-layer argument that makes it easier to see the connections between the premises and the conclusion they support. By using an argument map, you should be able to determine whether the connections are logical, and if the argument is valid, sound, strong or weak.

Source: Studies in Critical Thinking by Martin Davies; Ashley Barnett; and Tim van Gelder , licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Argument Mapping in Action

It takes a great deal of practice to accurately reconstruct multi-layer arguments from a passage of raw text. Thankfully, it's much easier to think critically about a text if you're aware of how to analyze an argument using its component parts. This short video from thinkeranalytix.org uses a free online mapping tool called Mindmup to demonstrate how argument mapping works.

Source: Map an Argument with MindMup by ThinkerAnalytix on YouTube

Dig a Little Deeper

Argument mapping can be quite involved and depends on a good working knowledge of the components of an argumen and the interplay between those components. For more information and step-by-step instructions, see Chapter 10 of Studies in Critical Thinking , an open textbook provided by eCampusOntario. Scroll down to the bottom of the chapter, or use 'cntrl F' to find : 'A procedural approach to argument m apping' and follow steps 1 - 8.

• << Previous: Learning Activities
• Next: Summary of Anlyzing Arguments >>
• Library A to Z
• Follow on Facebook
• Follow on Twitter
• Follow on YouTube
• Follow on Instagram

The University of Saskatchewan's main campus is situated on  Treaty 6 Territory and the Homeland of the Métis.

© University of Saskatchewan Disclaimer | Privacy

• Last Updated: Dec 14, 2023 3:51 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usask.ca/CriticalThinkingTutorial

Critical Thinking with Argument Maps

By Dave Kinkead, University of Queensland Critical Thinking Project

Lesson 01 – Why Map?

We’ll take it as a given that thinking well is important. But what might not be so obvious however, is that thinking well, AKA critical thinking , is not something that comes naturally to humans.

All of us would like to think we are rational and deliberate creatures. Yet as psychologists have demonstrated time after time, humans have a tendency to engage in a wide range of irrational behaviours and faulty reasoning. 1

That’s why we need to learn to think critically. Don’t believe us? Then try this quick test ….

A burger and fries cost $5.50 together. The burger costs $5 more than the fries. How much do the fries cost? The slime in an undergrad’s bathroom is growing fast, doubling in size every day. If it takes 48 days to completely cover the bathroom, how long does it take to cover half the bathroom? John plays rugby and like to go hunting and fishing with his dad. Which statement about him is most likely to be true: a. John is a nurse. b. John is a combat nurse in the Australian Army.

Show Answers

The fries cost $0.25. $5.25 + $0.25 = $5.50. 47 days. If it doubles every day, then half the bathroom is covered the day before all the bathroom is covered. A) John is a nurse is more likely than John being a nurse AND in the army as B) is a subset of A).

If you didn’t get 100%, then don’t fret – your not alone. These questions are inspired by Shane Frederick’s Cognitive Reflection Test , which is designed to see how well people can overcome their natural cognitive biases. Few people get 3 out of 3.

Now most people don’t think about their own thinking. This is rather problematic because thinking about your thinking, AKA metacognition , is an essential part of becoming a critical thinker.

Luckily, there is a tool that can help.

Why Argument Maps?

Argument mapping is the visual depiction of inferential structure. Much like an x-ray does for our bodies, argument maps give us an insight into what’s going on inside our minds.

Argument mapping as a tool for improving our thinking has a pedigree that goes back over 100 years. Maps provide a useful focus point to, and scaffolding for, our reasoning processes.

A number of studies have shown that deliberate practce with argument mapping is an effective way of improving critical thinking skills. In one, a single course of argument mapping showed the same gains in reasoning skills as an entire undergraduate degree.

One of the main reasons that argument mapping has proven so useful as a thinking aid is that it accurately depicts our reasoning processes.

When we think to ourselves, we tend to think in associations.

Paris <==> France <==> Croissant <==> Yum!

Narrative is linear but our reasoning is not. When we think out loud or on paper, we are constrained by the linear structure of narrative. One sentence must come after another.

Argument maps don’t have that constraint. Argument maps are tree-like structures called directed graphs which more accurately represents good reasoning. Importantly, argument maps show the direction of our reasoning.

Consider the following argument …

You really shouldn’t smoke. Study after study has shown that smoking is a leading cause of lung cancer and other health problems and we only get one life. What’s more, the price of a pack of cigarettes is crazy high with all the taxes.

This argument seems rather straight forward (for non-smokers at least). Yet on closer inspection, there is quite a bit going on. How do the reasons provided support the conclusion? What is the conclusion? How does the price of cigarettes relate to their health impact?

Now let’s look at the same argument in map form.

It’s obvious now which claim is the conclusion. It’s also clear how the other claims support the main conclusion, and what important claims aren’t stated explicitly.

Argument maps are x-ray goggles for critical thinking! They can show us what’s going on in out own (and other’s) minds.

Click for Lesson 02

Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257%2F089533005775196732

Twardy, C. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116. doi:10.5840/teachphil/200427213

Wigmore, J. H. (1913) The principles of judicial proof: As given by logic, psychology,and general experience, and illustrated in judicial trials (Vol. 1). Little, Brown, Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/principlesofjudi00wigm

See Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow for an easy introduction.  ↩

Help Menu | Tutorial Menu

thinkARGUMENTS

Enable careful, courageous, and, clear thinking, join a growing network of faculty and university leaders using innovative teaching tools to build students' critical thinking and productive disagreement skills, how does it work.

Students watch short animated videos that define key concepts and model Argument Mapping and Systematic Empathy skills.

Students work at their own pace to practice target skills with thousands of practice exercises at their disposal. feedback appears instantly upon submission at the bottom of each practice question. the goal practice until you get a streak.

STUCK? ASK FOR HELP!

Anyone can reach out to the thinkarguments team in the chat for support and tutoring. we're here to help both students and faculty., students gauge their skill growth at the end of each lesson using a summative assessment called a mastery check. if a student passes the mastery check, they move on to the next lesson. if they don't pass no worries, and no penalty students review the feedback and return to take a new, different version of the same mastery check when they're ready..

Systematic Empathy is a step-by-step method for precise listening. Participants slow down their thinking to better understand the logic and context of an opposing argument.

Argument Mapping activates reasoning skills by uncovering hidden reasons, faulty logic, as well as points of connection.

Mastery Learning is a process for building Systematic Empathy and Argument Mapping skills through student-centered practice. Students work at their own pace, and their own skill level, to practice until mastery is achieved.

ABOUT thinkARGUMENTS

We are a coalition of educators, philosophers, and leaders in edTECH that works directly with faculty and higher ed leaders to support teaching and program development.

WHAT WILL MY STUDENTS BE ABLE TO DO?

After taking thinkarguments, students will be able to read short arguments and map their structure, including all claims (implicit and explicit) and inferences. in addition, students will have the logic chops to complete maps like the puzzle below, and explain their own errors. to get a sense of what mapping feels like, try your hand at the puzzle, ready to get started, trusted by educators.

LEARN MORE AT A thinkARGUMENTS WEBINAR

Participants at these webinars will:.

• Survey innovative and research-backed methods for clear thinking and productive disagreement
• See how these tools can be easily implemented alongside existing course syllabi and materials
• Access a network of Faculty Fellows actively using these tools with students at two-year colleges, four-year colleges, and large universities
• Explore further opportunities for teaching support and implementation, including our summer 2024 course & program redesign institute for faculty, staff, and admins

thinkARGUMENTS webinars and summer institutes will be relevant for: Faculty members, Curriculum Committee members, Provosts and Deans, Certificate program leadership, Academic Advisors, and more.

UPCOMING WEBINARS AND EVENTS:

Introductory webinar tuesday may 28, 2024 4:00-4:30 p.m. et, introductory webinar wednesday june 26, 2024 12:00-12:30 p.m. et.

We help students think logically.

Want to help your students write well-organized, logically precise papers?

Want to improve the rigor of your classroom discussions?

Our interactive textbook How We Argue is designed by Harvard philosophers to help students practice and improve the skills of argument analysis and evaluation using a research-backed method called argument mapping.

Made by educators, for educators:

• Designed for undergraduates with no prerequisite
• Simple instructor dashboard to track student progress
• Easy payment options for students and institutions
• Personalized learning: students work at their own pace

What's Inside

Trusted by Educators

Students learn skills.

Argument analysis through research -backed pedagogy

Logically rigorous, well-organized essays

Constructive conversations about current issues

ThinkerAnalytix is an educational nonprofit that partners with the Harvard Department of Philosophy.

Anne Sanderson

CEO/Co-Founder Associate, Department of Philosophy Harvard University

Aidan Kestigian

VP of Core Curriculum Visiting Assistant Professor Wheaton College

Lead Curriculum Consultant Associate, Department of Philosophy Harvard University

Testimonials

ThinkerAnalytix (TA) is an educational non-profit that partners with the Harvard University Department of Philosophy. We use argument mapping to help students practice the skills of logical reasoning and intellectual charity. The result is that students write more effectively and discuss controversial issues more constructively. 

HWA is assigned by professors at dozens of private and public universities across the US and around the world, as well as instructors of grades 7-12 at many private, charter, and public schools. 

Through June 2023, How We Argue costs $25/student, but institutional discounts are available based on the number of students enrolled. Prices will increase slightly in July 2023 for new customers as we roll out improved content and new material. In general, revenue allows us to update the site regularly, improve the user experience, and assist students in the chat feature.

We know that most instructors already have too much content to cover in a limited time. Therefore, HWA is designed to supplement or augment your existing curriculum, rather than compete with it. 

Most instructors assign HWA at the beginning of the semester, and ask students to work on it outside of regular class time, often in addition to assigned readings. For example, you might ask students to complete the mastery checks for Lessons 1-2 by the end of the first week, Lessons 3-4 by the end of the second week, and Lessons 5-6 by the end of the third week.  

HWA is designed to be flexible, and some instructors will want to move faster or slower, depending on your students’ aptitudes and on your other course content. 

We’ve interviewed dozens of instructors who have used HWA and compiled some tips and tricks. The video on the My Classes page summarizes these tips and tricks, and helps you get going. 

The Instructor Resource Folder (which costs $50) also has many lesson plans and suggestions for further integrations.

Most students will take about 3-5 hours to complete Lessons 0-6 (the most basic version). The Advanced Content section (Lessons 7-10) takes most students an additional 3-5 hours. 

We recommend assigning it as homework at the beginning of the semester. Your students will likely move quickly through lessons 1-3, and could probably complete them in a day or two. But many college students will find lessons 4-6 harder, and most will find doing the practice exercises to be necessary to learn the material and ace the mastery checks. You might also find the Advanced Content lessons useful for helping your students read and discuss more challenging texts.

HWA uses Mastery Learning, a thoroughly-researched method of teaching skills, in which students must demonstrate mastery of each target skill before moving on to the next lesson. This highly personalized approach ensures that students work at their own pace and are always practicing the most relevant skills at any given moment, and that instructors always know exactly what their students have (and have not) learned. HWA includes thousands of practice exercises with feedback to help students learn at their own pace. 

You can (and should) assign due dates, but we recommend letting your students know that they will need to pace themselves and start early. Building skills takes time, and many students will get frustrated if they wait until the eleventh hour and then try to rush through. The students who start early and take their time actually complete the mastery checks faster, requiring fewer attempts.

Your My Classes page summarizes each student’s progress, with a blue box indicating that the student has mastered the skill listed at the top of the column. By clicking on a student’s name, you can view each of the practice exercise sets and mastery checks that they’ve taken. If you click the “View Questions” button next to a quiz, you can see how the student answered each question in that quiz.

Students can reach out to the TA team with specific questions, or to request that a mastery check or quiz be reset, if necessary. We try to respond to all chats within about 12 hours. In the very rare case where a student misuses the chat feature (i.e., by saying something rude or inappropriate), we do not respond but simply notify their instructor. 

Please reach out to us at [email protected] !

Ready to Get Started?

Improving Critical Thinking Through Argument Mapping

Dual-coding, gestalt grouping, and hierarchical organization..

Posted November 9, 2018

As you may have figured out from the focus of my ongoing blog, my book and my previous research, critical thinking (CT) is my specialty area of research. However, perhaps something that I don’t mention enough within this blog is that CT wasn’t the primary focus of my Ph.D. research—rather, it was The Evaluation of Argument Mapping as a Learning Tool ; that is, argument mapping’s effects on a series of educational outcomes, including memory and CT. To clarify, an argument map is a visual representation of a logically structured network of reasoning, in which the argument is made unambiguous and explicit via a ‘box and arrow’ design, in which the boxes represent propositions (i.e. the central claim, reasons, objections, and rebuttals) and the ‘arrows’ among propositions indicate the inferential relationships linking the propositions together (Dwyer, 2011; van Gelder, 2002). As part of my Ph.D., three large-scale experimental studies were conducted with the main results indicating that argument mapping (AM) can significantly facilitate memory performance beyond that of more traditional study methods and that the provision of AM-infused CT training can significantly enhance CT performance (Dwyer, 2011). Given these observed benefits, I think it worthwhile to share a little bit about AM here and the rationale for why it works, especially for those who wish to enhance their own or even others’ CT.

Notably, though other forms of argument diagramming exist, such as concept mapping and mind-mapping , they differ substantially from AM based on the manner in which they are organized and the way in which each ‘proposition’ is presented. The problem with many concept mapping techniques is that they do not present an argument per se. Instead, they present a graphical structure that acts as a representation of a separate text, which might be used to diagram: the links among concepts, decision-making schemes, a set of plans or instructions, or at best, act as an argument overview – which does not represent the argument in full. Thus, because the text of the argument and the diagram may often be separate entities, concept mapping may become more cognitively demanding by adding the necessity of switching attention from text to diagram and vice versa (e.g. Chandler & Sweller, 1991; Pollock, Chandler & Sweller, 2002; Tindall-Ford, Chandler & Sweller, 1997). In addition, if the reader of a concept map is not familiar with the information from the text that the map is derived, then the map itself becomes meaningless. Neither sentences nor any inferential structures to facilitate comprehension are requisite. In this context, concept mapping strategies may not necessarily be useful pedagogical aids that are open to analysis by everyone.

Although AMs have been in existence for almost 200 years (Buckingham-Shum, 2003; see Whately, 1826), their construction was a slow, tedious task completed through pen and paper; and thus, not widely used as a learning tool, despite potential advantages over standard prose as a medium for presenting reasoning. With the advent of various user-friendly AM software programs, the time required to construct an AM has been substantially reduced. Perhaps as a result of the relatively recent advancements in AM software, little research has been conducted to test its effects on learning. However, the little research that has examined AM’s effects on CT has revealed beneficial effects (Alvarez-Ortiz, 2007; Butchart et al., 2009; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2011; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2012; van Gelder, 2001; van Gelder, Bissett & Cumming, 2004). The rationale for why AM has a beneficial effect on CT consists of reasoning pertaining to the former’s diagrammatic, dual-coding nature, Gestalt grouping principles and hierarchical organization.

First, unlike standard text, AMs represent arguments through dual modalities (visual-spatial/diagrammatic and verbal/propositional), thus facilitating the latent information processing capacity of individual learners. Dual-coding theory (Paivio, 1971; 1986), Mayer’s (1997) conceptualisation and empirical analysis of multimedia learning, as well as Sweller and colleagues’ research on cognitive load (Sweller, 2010) suggest that learning can be enhanced and cognitive load decreased by the presentation of information in a visual-verbal dual-modality, provided that both visual and verbal forms of representation are adequately integrated (i.e. to avoid attention-switching demands). Given that AM supports dual-coding of information in working memory via integration of text into a diagrammatic representation, cognitive resources previously devoted to translating prose-based arguments into a coherent, organised and integrated representation are ‘freed up’ and can be used to facilitate deeper encoding of arguments within AMs, which in turn facilitates later recall (e.g. Craik & Watkins, 1973), as well as subsequent, higher-order thinking processes, such as CT (Halpern, 2014; Maybery, Bain and Halford, 1986). Furthermore, previous research on using diagrammatic learning tools, like AM, has shown positive effects on learning outcomes (Berkowitz, 1986; Larkin & Simon, 1987; Oliver 2009; Robinson & Kiewra, 1995) and offers advantages over traditional text-based presentation of information because the indexing and structuring of information can potentially support essential computational processes necessary for CT.

Second, AMs utilize Gestalt grouping principles (e.g. similar color-coding and close proximity) that facilitate the organization of information in working memory and long-term memory , which in turn facilitates CT. For example, color can be used in an AM to distinguish evidence for a claim (i.e. green) from evidence against a claim (i.e. red); thus, all reasons are similarly color-coded, as are objections. More generally, a good AM is designed in such a way that if one proposition is evidence for another, the two will be appropriately juxtaposed and the link explained via a relational cue, such as because , but and however (van Gelder, 2001).

With respect to proximity, modern AM allows single propositions or entire branches of the argument to be removed or transferred from one location to another (and edited in the process) in order to facilitate reconstruction. The manner in which propositions and chains of reasoning can be manipulated within an AM may encourage deeper analysis and evaluation of the argument, as well as further refinements of its inferential structure. Similar propositions can be grouped together, which eases their assimilation and removes the need to switch attention as in text-based information (e.g. from one paragraph, or even one page, to another and back and forth). Such grouping also makes the search for specific, relevant information more efficient, which in turn supports perceptual inferences.

Finally, the third potential reason for why AM has a beneficial effect on CT is that AMs present information in a hierarchical manner, which also facilitates the organization of information for promoting CT. When arguing from a central claim, one may present any number of argument levels which need to be adequately represented for the argument to be properly conveyed. For example, an argument that provides a (1) support for a (2) support for a (3) support for a (4) claim has four levels in its hierarchical structure. More complex or ‘deeper’ arguments (e.g. with three or more argument levels beneath a central claim) are difficult to represent in text due to its linear nature; and yet it is essential that these complex argument structures are understood by a student if their goal is to analyze and evaluate the argument, to infer their own conclusions. The hierarchical nature of AM allows the reader to choose and follow a specific branch of the argument in which each individual proposition is integrated with other relevant propositions in terms of their inferential relationship.

Moreover, asking students to produce AMs can provide educators with valuable insights into a student’s ‘mental model of the argument in question’ (Butchart et al., 2009). Such information can be used to support teachers in offering feedback to students or scaffolding student learning from simple to complex levels of argument comprehension, analysis, and evaluation. Logically, as expertise in AM grows, so does the ability to present a well-structured argument, which allows for improvement in writing ability as well.

Alvarez-Ortiz, C. (2007). Does Philosophy Improve Critical Thinking Skills? Master’s Thesis. University of Melbourne, Australia.

Berkowitz, S.J. (1986). Effects of instruction in text organization on sixth-grade students’ memory for expository reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 2, 161-178.

Buckingham-Shum, S.J. (2003). The roots of computer supported argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. Buckingham-Shum, & C. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, 3-24. London: Springer-Verlag.

Butchart, S., Bigelow, J., Oppy, G., Korb, K., & Gold, I. (2009). Improving critical thinking using web-based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 2, 268-291.

Chandler, P., & J. Sweller, J. (1991). Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 4, 351-362.

Craik, F. I. M., & Watkins, M.J. (1973). The role of rehearsal in short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 12, 6, 599-607.

Dwyer, C.P. (2011). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool. Doctoral Thesis. National University of Ireland, Galway.

Dwyer, C.P., Hogan, M.J., & Stewart, I. (2011). The promotion of critical thinking skills through argument mapping. In C.P. Horvart & J.M. Forte (Eds.), Critical Thinking, 97-122. Nova Science Publishers, New York.

Dwyer, C.P., Hogan, M.J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 219-244.

Halpern, D.F. (2014). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th Ed.). UK: Psychology Press.

Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.

Maybery, M.T., Bain, J.D., & Halford, G.S. (1986). Information-processing demands of transitive inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 4, 600-613.

Mayer, R.E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1, 1-19.

Oliver, K. (2009). An investigation of concept mapping to improve the reading comprehension of science texts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 5, 402-414.

Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002) Assimilating complex information. Learning & Instruction, 12, 61-86.

Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 3, 455–467.

Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In J.L. Plass, R. Moreno & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory, 29-47. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 4, 257 -287.

van Gelder, T. J. (2001). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, 539–548. Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, University of Melbourne.

van Gelder, T.J. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. APA Newsletter:Philosophy & Computers, 2, 1, 85-90.

van Gelder, T.J. (2007). The rationale for RationaleTM. Law, Probability & Risk, 6, 23-42.

van Gelder, T.J., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Enhancing expertise in informalreasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58, 142-52.

Whately, R. (1826). Elements of Logic. London: Fellowes.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Centre
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• Calgary, AB
• Edmonton, AB
• Hamilton, ON
• Montréal, QC
• Toronto, ON
• Vancouver, BC
• Winnipeg, MB
• Mississauga, ON
• Oakville, ON
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

ISI Journals

• Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline (InformingSciJ)
• Journal of Information Technology Education: Research (JITE:Research)
• Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice (JITE:IIP)
• Journal of Information Technology Education: Discussion Cases (JITE: DC)
• Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning (IJELL)
• Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management (IJIKM)
• International Journal of Doctoral Studies (IJDS)
• Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology (IISIT)
• Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education (JSPTE)
• Informing Faculty (IF)

Collaborative Journals

• Muma Case Review (MCR)
• Muma Business Review (MBR)
• International Journal of Community Development and Management Studies (IJCDMS)
• InSITE2024 : Jul 24 - 25 2024,
• All Conferences »
• Publications
• Journals  
• Conferences  

Promoting Critical Thinking Through Argument Mapping: A Lab for Undergraduate Students

Aim/Purpose In undergraduate training, helping students improve argumentative text comprehension (CoT) by identifying the elements of an argumentative text and critical thinking (CT) by reconstructing the meaning of the text and constructing their own reflections is relevant. Argumentative skills are essential on both the personal and professional levels.

Background In recent decades, concern has developed over undergraduates’ poor skills in reframing and articulating their thinking on a topic, which affects critical thinking and the ability to express unique perspectives. Customized interventions in higher education could develop argumentative abilities for professional and personal use. In this regard, argument maps (AM) could be a useful tool for the visualization of arguments. They provide logical relationships between statements to help understand the reasoning chain.

Methodology Hybrid presence-distance research was conducted over four days. A quasi-experiment with one group and three tests – S1, S2, and S3 – was conducted.

Contribution Our study aims to investigate and enrich the research landscape, especially in the Italian university context, regarding the use of AM to support text comprehension and the development of argumentative skills.

Findings Our preliminary descriptive analysis showed that AM improves students’ CoT and CT proficiency levels. These abilities improved from the beginning to the end of the experiment. Inferential analysis showed a beneficial pathway inflection on final learning improvement. Early encouraging results suggest that AMs can improve argumentation comprehension, production, and critical thinking in teaching and learning.

Recommendations for Practitioners The learner could better manage knowledge and understand different perspectives with AM usage rules.

Recommendation for Researchers It is essential to remember that critical thinking is a multifaceted and complex concept. This article examined it as a proxy variable for text comprehension and argumentation skills. The length of exposure to the method, contexts and instruments (analog or digital), and age/education of participants must be considered when doing AM research.

Impact on Society The method would improve awareness of shared ideas and make it easier to enrich and rethink one’s thoughts on the topic.

Future Research To study AM roles in diverse types of information, future research could incorporate quantitative and qualitative approaches. Cross-curricular learning for everyday life in digital and AI-driven environments, as well as text comprehension and critical thinking, could also be examined. Further research could cover other aspects of the topic of critical thinking.

Back to Top ↑

• Become a Reviewer
• Privacy Policy
• Ethics Policy
• Legal Disclaimer

SEARCH PUBLICATIONS

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The promotion of critical thinking skills through argument mapping

Related Papers

Shumaila Mahmood

This paper is focused on how argument mapping (AM) software can be helpful for developing critical thinking (CT) skills of initial teacher educators. The study discusses the usefulness of argument mapping software for lessening the cognitive load of students. The main study is conducted to test the effectiveness of an instructional intervention for the development of critical thinking skills. The effectiveness includes an assessment of the implementation process as well. The instructional intervention is comprised of computer supported (audio-video lectures and argument mapping) and non-computer supported (Communities of Inquiry discussions and concept mapping on paper) learning materials thought to enhance the CT skills of initial teacher educators in a public teacher education university in Pakistan. The teaching programme based on seven principles has several elements for teaching critical thinking of which one is computer supported visual representation (argument mapping). In this paper, the focus is on participants' accounts of the usefulness of visual representation (argument mapping) feature for the provision of critical thinking. The analysis shows the positive influence of computer-supported argument mapping in increasing student interest in learning CT. However, the belief that argument mapping increases critical thinking could not be determined in this study for design issues. Students found that AM help them lessening cognitive load while helping in structuring thoughts. The results from observations and interview responses are discussed for the implications of argument mapping in mainstream teaching at college/university level with regards to teaching critical thinking skills. The paper briefly discusses the possibility of placing cognitive load theory on instructional interventions explains a lot about complex learning environments, element interactivity and learning. Therefore, if rightly executed, visualization tools as part of teaching strategies for CT may increase the critical thinking skills.

Mara Harrell

Argument-mapping software abounds, and one of the reasons is that using the software has been shown to teach/promote/improve critical-thinking skills. These positive results are very encouraging, but they also raise the question of whether the computer tutorial environment is producing these results, or whether learning argument mapping, even with just paper and pencil, is sufficient. Based on the results of two empirical studies, I argue that the basic skill of being able to represent an argument diagrammatically plays an important role in the improvement of critical-thinking skills. While these studies do not offer a direct comparison between the two methods, it is important for anyone wishing to employ argument mapping in the classroom to know that significant results can be obtained even with the most rudimentary of tools.

Graham Oppy

Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines

Bahram Hadian

This study addressed the impact of teaching critical thinking (CT) principles through argument mapping (AM) techniques on the CT and reading abilities of a number of Iranian male and female EFL learners who studied English at a language institute in Isfahan province. For this purpose, 30 male and 30 female intermediate EFL learners were chosen on the basis of their performance on the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT); further, the reading section of an IELTS practice test was applied. For the collection of the required data, California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST), which had been validated in Persian, was conducted twice, once before and once after the treatment. The study employed a quantitative pretest-treatment-posttest design in which AM techniques including information organization, structure reasoning, evidence consideration, assumption identification, evaluation of arguments, and communication of conclusions were introduced to the participants in 6 steps. Then, th...

Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning

Martin Davies

A rehearsal of a new way of teaching critical thinking by means of computer-aided argument mapping and a procedural method by which to do so.

International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research

Elif Sönmez

In a multi-study naturalistic quasi-experiment involving 269 students in a semester-long introductory philosophy course, we investigated the effect of teaching argument diagramming (AD) on students’ scores on argument analysis tasks. An argument diagram is a visual representation of the content and structure of an argument. In each study, all of the students completed pre- and post-tests containing argument analysis tasks. During the semester, the treatment group was taught AD, while the control group was not. Methodological problems with the first study were addressed in the second. The results were that among the different pre-test achievement levels, the scores of low-achieving students who were taught AD increased significantly more than the scores of low-achieving students who were not taught AD, while the scores of the high-achieving students did not differ significantly between the treatment and control groups. The results for intermediate-achieving students were mixed. The implication of these studies is that learning AD significantly improves low- and intermediate-achieving and students’ ability to analyze arguments.

Educational Technology Research and Development

S. Susan Marandi

Mark K Felton

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Higher Education Research &amp; Development

Ben Neville

WVSU Research Journal

Neni Hasnunidah

Thinking Skills and Creativity

Christopher Dwyer

ANIMA Indonesian Psychological Journal

Ide Bagus Siaputra

Sabina Saldanha

Frank Zenker

Khánh Linh Nguyễn

Nani Barorah Nasution

International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies

yavuz akbas

Joke Van Eden

Dedi Kuswandi

Joanne Reid

patrice chataigner

Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora

Nur Mukminatien

The New Educational Review

Sandra Dwyer

Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi Terapan

Ahmad Sulaiman

Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan

susana widyastuti

Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences

vismaia damaianti

Dr. Punam Bansal

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Silvia Rivas

Abdulkerim Karadeniz

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• What is Critical Thinking?
• How to develop critical thinking skills?
• Contents Critical Thinking with Rationale
• Resources: Free downloads, Open courses..
• Examples Critical Thinking with Rationale (CTwR)
• For International Schools / IB
• Testimonials
• Research on Critical Thinking
• Articles on Critical Thinking & Argument Mapping
• Research on essay writing with Rationale
• Articles on Critical Thinking with Rationale
• Training & workshops
• What is Rationale?

Argument Mapping

• 6 Critical Thinking Steps
• Background Information on Rationale
• Comparison Rationale vs bCisive
• Rationale Online versus Rationale Windows
• Try & Purchase Rationale
• Rationale Blog
• Rationale on Twitter
• What is bCisive?
• bCisive: Product overview
• Building a map
• bCisive User Guides
• bCisive Interface
• Anatomy of a map
• Tips and tricks for using bCisive
• bCisive Quick Start videos
• Product comparison: bCisive vs Rationale
• Try & Purchase bCisive
• bCisive Online versus bCisive Windows
• bCisive Blog

What is argument mapping?

Argument maps are box-and-line diagrams that lay out visually reasoning and evidence for and against a statement or claim. A good map clarifies and organizes thinking by showing the logical relationships between thoughts that are expressed simply and precisely.

Argument maps are driven by asking, ‘ Should I believe that? Why, or why not? ’.

You can produce two kinds of argument maps in Rationale :

• Reasoning maps, which lay out arguments in a quick, intuitive way
• Advanced Reasoning ( or Analytic) maps, which enable a more careful and rigorous analysis of an argument.

How does Argument Mapping differ from other kinds of mapping?

Different kinds of map are defined by the nature of the relationships they depict – what the boxes and lines mean. What kind of map something is depends on:

• what goes in the boxes; and
• what the connecting lines indicate.

Argument Maps show only evidential (inferential) relationships between claims . In Argument Maps, the lines mean something very specific: that something is a reason to believe or a reason not to believe something else. Argument maps are driven by the question, ‘ Why should I believe that? ’. Any map driven by that question is an Argument Map.

Why would I map?

Argument maps

• help you organise and navigate around complex information
• clarify reasoning
• communicate reasoning quickly and effectively
• support critical thinking

CHECK THE FACTS

UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT

KNOW THE TRUTH

• Jul 9, 2020

Introducing Argument Mapping

Earlier this year, I introduced readers to ways arguments can be diagrammed, rather than just presented in words. One of the advantages of graphical methods of argumentation and argument analysis is that they allow you to map out large, complex arguments that might branch in multiple directions.

If you were to capture everything in a complicated argument or set of arguments (like those appearing in a newspaper editorial or campaign speech) using informal logic, that would likely require you to chain together several small arguments, each with its own premises and conclusion. In an argument diagram, however, multiple lines of reasoning, including objections to that reasoning, can all appear in a single chart.

The argument diagramming method I focused on previously was one created by philosopher Stephen Toulmin which you were walked through with examples here , here and here . But Toulmin’s is not the only method that can be used to map out a sophisticated argument.

In a different posting , I introduced one of the most popular alternatives to the Toulmin Diagram: the argument map. My guest for the next few posts is Nathan Otey, Fellow in the Harvard Department of Philosophy and Lead Instructor for the educational non-profit ThinkerAnalytix .

Since 2014, ThinkerAnalytix has been training teachers, developing online learning material, and advocating for argument mapping to be applied to the teaching of all subjects at all grade levels.

Take it away Nathan…

Thank you Jonathan for having me on!

As Lead Instructor for ThinkerAnalytix, I have the joy and privilege of helping teachers and students develop their critical-thinking skills with argument mapping almost every day. Our mission is to help students achieve academically and discuss current issues with precision and care.

Before I illustrate how mapping works, allow me to briefly make the case for teaching critical thinking in the first place, so that you know why I’m so fired up about this work and about Jonathan’s LogicCheck project.

A commitment to equity and justice means a commitment to providing everyone with skills to forge a life they find valuable. Right now, we face a critical thinking crisis. Students experience a world of broken communications in social and political discussion where name-calling, emotional appeal and blurred lines between fact and fiction eclipse reason.

But we’ve forgotten something amid the animosity and sloppy discourse that I would like to remind us of: Arguments are good. And not just good for teachers and students, good for everyone. In fact, as a species we basically have two options for resolving disagreements: we can argue, or we can use violence. One astonishing achievement of democracy is that we’ve (mostly) figured out how to use words instead of weapons.

As Jonathan explained in previous posts, an argument is when a speaker tries to persuade others by giving reasons to think, feel, or believe something. Arguments are everywhere: in the news, on TV and social media, and around the dinner table. The ability to dissect, evaluate and make arguments is central to critical thinking. Everyone needs these skills in order to succeed in school, career, and personal relationships. Not to mention that democracy depends on it!

Surprisingly, there are very few methods of teaching these skills that are supported by research. However, a growing number of studies show that learning argument mapping significantly improves students’ critical-thinking and writing abilities. In fact, meta-analyses find that argument mapping courses yield nearly double the gains of standard critical-thinking courses, and 5 or 6 times the gains of a standard semester at college.

Why is argument mapping so effective? Researchers cite many factors, including:

The visual representation of arguments reduces cognitive load and frees up working memory when analyzing arguments.

The process of identifying and exposing the structure of written arguments – including underlying assumptions and intermediate conclusions – demands precision and rigor.

Mapping naturally provides abundant opportunities for deliberate practice with targeted feedback – elements which are essential for developing any complex skill.

The activity of mapping prompts deeper and richer interactions than a standard discussion.

OK, hopefully I’ve convinced you that you should learn to map arguments, or at least gotten you interested. In fact, I did so by making an argument which looks like this when converted into an argument map:

Next time, I’ll walk you through how argument mapping works and begin to apply mapping principles to often heated, but perfectly reasonable and arguable debates from the news of the day.

• Argumentation

Recent Posts

A Grudging Consensus

Christmas Cartoons

What's Your Evidence?

Integrating dialectical constructivist scaffolding-based argumentation mapping to support students’ dialectical thinking, oral and dialogical argumentation complexity

• Development Article
• Published: 17 June 2024

Cite this article

• Darmawansah Darmawansah 1 , 6 ,
• Gwo-Jen Hwang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5155-276X 2 , 3 , 4 &
• Chi-Jen Lin 5  

Dialectical thinking is a way of discussing and analyzing things from different viewpoints to reach a solution. It is often taught in language courses by conducting argumentation activities. However, without providing effective strategies or tools, learners generally encounter difficulties in structuring their viewpoints during the argumentation process. To solve this problem, this study proposed dialectical constructivist scaffolding-based argumentation mapping (DCS-AM), which integrates a structured, four-stage process to support students’ dialectical thinking and oral and dialogical argumentation complexity. The argumentation map refers to a visualized tool that enables learners to structure their viewpoints for making arguments. A quasi-experiment was conducted in an English as a Foreign Language course. A total of 26 students were in the DCS-AM group, while 22 students were in the conventional constructivist scaffolding-based argumentation mapping (CS-AM) group, which adopted a more conventional format, emphasizing direct discussion and teacher-led knowledge transmission. The experimental results found that students in the DCS-AM group exhibited significantly better dialectical thinking than those in the CS-AM group. Also, an epistemic network analysis (ENA) of oral and dialogical argumentation revealed that students in the DCS-AM group frequently developed more complex argumentation than those in the CS-AM group in terms of the structural component and discourse activity, including the process of students’ dialectical thinking that was found in both groups. This finding shows that technology-supported dialectical constructivist scaffolding can help students improve their dialectical thinking and argumentation skills.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

The data and materials are available upon request to the corresponding author.

Abdollahzadeh, E., Amini Farsani, M., & Beikmohammadi, M. (2017). Argumentative writing behavior of graduate EFL learners. Argumentation, 31 (4), 641–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9415-5

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahlsén, E. (2005). Argumentation with restricted linguistic ability: Performing a role play with aphasia or in a second language. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 19 (5), 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200400027205

Anderson, J. (2012). Role plays for today: Photocopiable activities to get students speaking . Delta Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Andresen, H. (2005). Role play and language development in the preschool years. Culture & Psychology, 11 (4), 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X05058577

Arrue, M., Unanue, S., & Merida, D. (2017). Guided university debate: Effect of a new teaching-learning strategy for undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 59 , 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.08.011

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70 (9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

Astleitner, H., Brunken, R., & Leutner, D. (2003). The quality of instructional materials for argumentative knowledge construction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30 (1), 3–11.

Boschi, G., Young, A. P., Joglekar, S., Cammarota, C., & Sastry, N. (2021). Who has the last word? Understanding how to sample online discussions. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), 15 (3), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3452936

Carroll, J. M., Wu, Y., Shih, P. C., & Zheng, S. (2016). Re-appropriating a question/answer system to support dialectical constructivist learning activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64 (1), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9405-6

Chee, K. N., Yahaya, N., & Ibrahim, N. H. (2018). Factors of students’ performance based on cognitive level in a mobile learning environment. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 12 (2), 190–212.

Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students’ development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science & Education , 25 (3), 277–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0

Chen, M. P., Lord, A. Y., Cheng, Y. Y., Tai, K. C., & Pan, W. H. (2020). Collective reflection strategy for moderating conformity tendency and promoting reflective judgment performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36 (3), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12419

Cheng, F. W. (2010). A socio-cognitive modeling approach to teaching English argumentation. The Asian ESP Journal, 6 (1), 120–146.

Cheng, F. W., & Chen, Y. M. (2009). Taiwanese argumentation skills: Contrastive rhetoric perspective. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1 (1), 23–50.

Cooner, T. S. (2005). Dialectical constructivism: Reflections on creating a web-mediated enquiry-based learning environment. Social Work Education, 24 (4), 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470500096902

Crammond, J. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15 (2), 230–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088398015002004

Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32 (2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00189

Darmawansah, D., Lin, C. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2022). Empowering the collective reflection-based argumentation mapping strategy to enhance students’ argumentative speaking. Computers & Education , 184 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104516

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process . Heath.

El Majidi, A., Janssen, D., & de Graaff, R. (2021). The effects of in-class debates on argumentation skills in second language education. System, 101 , 102576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102576

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012

Felton, M. K. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19 (1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.001

Hod, Y., Katz, S., & Eagan, B. (2020). Refining qualitative ethnographies using epistemic network analysis: A study of socioemotional learning dimensions in a humanistic knowledge building community. Computers & Education, 156 , 103943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103943

Hsu, P. S., Van Dyke, M., Chen, Y., & Smith, T. J. (2015). The effect of a graph-oriented computer-assisted project-based learning environment on argumentation skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31 (1), 32–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12080

Hsu, P. S., Van Dyke, M., & Smith, T. J. (2017). The effect of varied gender groupings on argumentation skills among middle school students in different cultures. Middle Grades Review, 3 (2), 4.

Iordanou, K. (2022). Supporting strategic and meta-strategic development of argument skill: the role of reflection. Metacognition and Learning . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09289-1

Jamaludin, A., San Chee, Y., & Ho, C. M. L. (2009). Fostering argumentative knowledge construction through enactive role play in Second Life. Computers & Education, 53 (2), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.009

Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58 (4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8

Karacapilidis, N. (2011). Supporting collaboration, enhancing learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 5 (2), 131–143.

Kennedy, R. R. (2009). The power of in-class debates. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10 (3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787409343186

Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion, and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition & Emotion, 14 (1), 93–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300379003

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

Book   Google Scholar  

Kuhn, D. (2018). A role for reasoning in a dialogic approach to critical thinking. Topoi, 37 (1), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9373-4

Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22 (4), 545–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679761140251

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Problematizing cultural stereotypes in TESOL. Tesol Quarterly, 37 (4), 709–719. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588219

Kurti, A., Spikol, D., & Milrad, M. (2008). Bridging outdoors and indoors educational activities in schools with the support of mobile and positioning technologies. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 2 (2), 166–186.

Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (3), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319858

Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44 (3), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300424

Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43 (6), 332–360. https://doi.org/10.1159/000022695

Li, X., Han, Z., Fu, J., Mei, Y., & Liu, J. (2021). Debate: A new approach for improving the dialectical thinking of university students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 58 (1), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1640123

Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., & Lawrenz, F. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 59 (2), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.019

Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2020). Counterargumentation at the primary level: An intervention study investigating the argumentative writing of second language learners. System, 89 , 102198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102198

Lord, A. Y., Chen, M. P., Cheng, Y. Y., Tai, K. C., & Pan, W. H. (2017). Enhancing nutrition-majored students’ reflective judgment through online collective reflection. Computers & Education, 114 , 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.010

Lun, V. M. C., Fischer, R., & Ward, C. (2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: Is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (6), 604–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.07.001

Meyers, R. A., Brashers, D. E., & Hanner, J. (2000). Majority-minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Communication, 50 (4), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02861.x

Moshman, D. (1982). Exogenous, endogenous, and dialectical constructivism. Developmental Review, 2 (4), 371–384.

Najjemba, J. L., & Cronjé, J. (2020). Engagement with and participation in online role play collaborative arguments: A sociocultural perspective. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18 (5), 436–448. https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.18.5.006

Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46 (3), 273–304. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.3.4

Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108 (2), 291. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291

Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26 (5), 653–684. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2605_4

Nussbaum, E. M., Kardash, C. M., & Graham, S. E. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157

O’Donnell, A. M. (2012). Constructivism. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 61–84). American Psychological Association.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x

Omarchevska, Y., Lachner, A., Richter, J., & Scheiter, K. (2021). It takes two to tango: How scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes impact argumentation quality. Journal of the Learning Sciences . https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1966633

Oostdam, R. J., & de Glopper, K. (1994). Argumentation in written discourse; Secondary school students’ writing problems. Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 130–141). ICG Printing.

Pavlidis, P. (2010). Critical thinking as dialectics: A hegelian marxist approach. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8 (2), 74–102.

Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54 (9), 741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741

Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38 (3), 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.012

Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32 (2–3), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651596

Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., Carolan, B., Michaud, O., Rogers, J., & Sequeira, L. (2012). Examining transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37 (4), 288–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.02.003

Rosmiati, R., Liliasari, L., Tjasyono, B., Ramalis, T. R., & Satriawan, M. (2020). Measuring level of reflective thinking of physics pre-service teachers using effective essay argumentation. Reflective Practice, 21 (4), 565–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1777957

Sanders, J. A., Wiseman, R. L., & Gass, R. H. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking? Communication Reports , 7 (1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219409367580

Scianna, J., Kaliisa, R., Boisvenue, J. J., & Zörgő, S. (2022). Approaching structured debate with quantitative ethnography in mind. International conference on quantitative ethnography (pp. 33–48). Springer.

Shaffer, D. W. (2017). Quantitative ethnography . Cathcart Press.

Shaffer, D. W., & Ruis, A. R. (2017). Epistemic network analysis: A worked example of theory-based learning analytics. Handbook of learning analytics (p. 175). Society for Learning Analytics Research.

Shaw, V. F. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 2 (1), 51–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467896394564

Soysal, Y. (2021). An exploration of the determinants of middle school students’ argument quality by classroom discourse analysis. Research in Science & Technological Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1908981

Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M. J., & Peng, K. (2010). Cultural differences in expectations of change and tolerance for contradiction: A decade of empirical research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14 (3), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310362982

Sun, M., Wang, M., Wegerif, R., & Peng, J. (2022). How do students generate ideas together in scientific creativity tasks through computer-based mind mapping? Computers & Education, 176 , 104359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104359

Tanaka, J., & Gilliland, B. (2017). Critical thinking instruction in English for academic purposes writing courses: A dialectical thinking approach. TESOL Journal, 8 (3), 657–674. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.291

Thao, L. T., Trut Thuy, P., Anh Thi, N., Hoang Yen, P., Thu, H. T. A., & Huong Tra, N. (2023). An insight into reflective teaching levels of Vietnamese EFL teachers in a premier language center. Cogent Education, 10 (2), 2243118. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2243118

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

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument . Cambridge University Press.

Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358

Walton, D. (2013). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning . Routledge.

Wills, S., Leigh, E., & Ip, A. (2011). The power of role-based e-learning: Designing and moderating online role play . Routledge.

Wishart, J. M., Oades, C. E., & Morris, M. (2007). Using online role play to teach internet safety awareness. Computers & Education, 48 (3), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.03.003

Wu, C. H., & Lin, Y. C. (2005). Development of a Zhong-Yong thinking style scale. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24 , 247–300.

Wu, Y., Shih, P. C., & Carroll, J. M. (2014). Design for supporting dialectical constructivist learning activities. In EDULEARN14 proceedings (pp. 4156–4164). IATED.

Xu, C., & Tu, C. C. (2023). Impact of college students learning adaptation on learning conformity behavior in Hengyang: moderating role of peer attachment. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00678-x

Yang, F. J., Su, C. Y., Xu, W. W., & Hu, Y. (2022). Effects of developing prompt scaffolding to support collaborative scientific argumentation in simulation-based physics learning. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2041673

Yang, R. (2022). An empirical study of claims and qualifiers in ESL students’ argumentative writing based on Toulmin model. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00133-w

Yang, S. Y. (2008). A process view of wisdom. Journal of Adult Development, 15 (2), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-008-9037-8

Young, A. P., Joglekar, S., Boschi, G., & Sastry, N. (2021). Ranking comment sorting policies in online debates. Argument & Computation, 12 (2), 265–285.

Zhang, L., Beach, R., & Sheng, Y. (2016). Understanding the use of online role-play for collaborative argument through teacher experiencing: A case study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (3), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2015.1081673

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported in part by the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan under contract numbers NSTC 112-2410-H-011-012-MY3 and MOST 111-2410-H-011 -007 -MY3. The study is also supported by the “Empower Vocational Education Research Center” of National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST) from the Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan.

Funding was provided by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Grant No. MOST-109-2511-H-011-002-MY3).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Empower Vocational Education Research Center, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, #43, Sec.4, Keelung Rd., Taipei, 106, Taiwan

Darmawansah Darmawansah

Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, #43, Sec.4, Keelung Rd., Taipei, 106, Taiwan

Gwo-Jen Hwang

Graduate Institute of Educational Information and Measurement, National Taichung University of Education, Taichung, Taiwan

College of Management, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

Higher Education SPROUT Project Office, Chung Shan Medical University, #110, Sec.1, Jianguo N.Rd., Taichung, 40201, Taiwan

Chi-Jen Lin

Global Foreign Language Education Program, Providence University, Sec.7, Taiwan Avenue, Taichung, 43301, Taiwan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwo-Jen Hwang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors would like to declare that there is no conflict of interest in this study.

Informed consent

The participants were protected by hiding their personal information during the research process. They knew that the participation was voluntary and they could withdraw from the study at any time.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Darmawansah, D., Hwang, GJ. & Lin, CJ. Integrating dialectical constructivist scaffolding-based argumentation mapping to support students’ dialectical thinking, oral and dialogical argumentation complexity. Education Tech Research Dev (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10395-5

Download citation

Accepted : 08 June 2024

Published : 17 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10395-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Argumentation mapping
• Argumentation complexity
• Dialectical thinking
• Dialectical constructivism
• Epistemic network analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Corpus ID: 148158099

The promotion of critical thinking skills through argument mapping

• Christopher P. Dwyer , M. Hogan , I. Stewart
• Published 2011
• Psychology, Education

Figures and Tables from this paper

53 Citations

The effects of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction on reflective judgement performance, an evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments.

• Highly Influenced

An exploratory quantitative case study of critical thinking development through adult distance learning

Computer-aided argument mapping in an efl setting: does technology precede traditional paper and pencil approach in developing critical thinking, investigating the effects of a systematic and model-based design of computer-supported argument visualization on critical thinking, rationale as an innovative learning application to improve students’ critical thinking in argumentative writing, facilitating a student-educator conceptual model of dispositions towards critical thinking through interactive management, exploring the effects of argument map-supported online group debate activities on college students’ critical thinking, 42 references, improving critical thinking using web based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback.

• Highly Influential

The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool: Comparing the effects of map reading versus text reading on comprehension and recall of arguments

Learning to improve: using writing to increase critical thinking performance in general education biology., instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis, critical thinking ability and disposition as factors of performance on a written critical thinking test., assessing students' critical thinking performance: urging for measurements using multi-response format., the development of critical thinking skills in undergraduate supervisory management units: efficacy of student peer assessment, the improvement of critical thinking skills in what philosophy, validating the watson glaser critical thinking appraisal, a model for thinking critically about ethical issues, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Published in 2011

Christopher P. Dwyer M. Hogan I. Stewart