Abstract
Argument mapping has been widely recognized as an effective tool for enhancing critical thinking and reasoning skills in higher education. This study compares student performance across two semesters—one in which students constructed argument maps using a traditional PowerPoint-based approach and another in which they employed DMap (Dialectical Map), an open source specialized digital tool designed to support structured argumentation. Preliminary findings indicate statistically detectable but modest differences in essay writing performance, with students using DMap demonstrating better quality of argument in final essays. Survey responses further reveal that, despite encountering some technical challenges, students generally perceive argument mapping as beneficial for visualizing complex reasoning structures and improving their analytical skills. These findings suggest that integrating digital tools like DMap into argument mapping pedagogy may provide a more effective method of fostering structured reasoning and critical engagement with complex controversial topics. Further research is needed to explore long-term impacts and instructional strategies to optimize the use of argument-mapping tools in higher education.
Presenters
Daniel ChangLecturer, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada Michael Lin
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University, Nova Scotia, Canada
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
Considering Digital Pedagogies
KEYWORDS
Argument Visualization, Argumentation, Debate, Writing, Argumentative Essay
