Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking

Twardy, Dr. Charles R. (2003) Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking. [Preprint]

Full text available as:



Computer-based argument mapping greatly enhances student critical thinking, more than tripling absolute gains made by other methods. I describe the method and my experience as an outsider. Argument mapping often showed precisely how students were erring (for example: confusing helping premises for separate reasons), making it much easier for them to fix their errors.

Item Type:Preprint
Additional Information:Revised for Teaching Philosophy. Posted with permission.
Keywords:Critical thinking, Teaching philosophy, Argument maps, Argument analysis
Subjects:Psychology > Applied Cognitive Psychology
ID Code:3008
Deposited By:Twardy, Dr. Charles R.
Deposited On:13 Jun 2003
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:55

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Second ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Donohue, A., van Gelder, T. J., Cumming, G., & Bissett, M. (2002). Reason! project studies, 1999-2002 (Tech. Rep. No. 2002/1). Department of Philosophy: University of Melbourne.

Educational Statistics, N. C. for. (1997). The condition of education. Government Printing Office. (NCES 97-388,

Facione, P. A. (1990, 1992). California critical thinking skills test. Available from California Academic Press.

Garcia-Encinas, M. (2003 forthcoming). A posteriori necessity in singular causation and the Humean argument. Dialectica, 57.

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64 74. ( visited 27 Feb. 2003)

Hake, R. R. (1999, June). Analyzing change/gain scores. (An analysis of the data of Hake 1998 in terms of effect sizes . Available at AnalyzingChange-Gain.pdf. Originally posted on 13 March 1999 to AERA-D American Educational Research Associations s Division D, Measurement and Research Methodology.)

Hitchcock, D. L. (2003, February). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in criti-cal thinking. (Unpublished draft manuscript accepted for a conference in May 2003. Available from, cited with per-mission)

Kohn, A. S. (1993). Punished by rewards. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: a user s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (forthcoming). How college affects students revisited: Research from the decade of the 1990s. Jossey-Bass.

Powers, D. E., & Rock, D. A. (1998). Effects of coaching on SAT I: Reasoning scores (Report No. 98-6). The College Board.

Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69 (1), 21 51. (

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 (ASCILITE 2001) (pp. 539 548). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, The University of Melbourne. ( pdf/papers/vang%eldert.pdf)

van Gelder, T. J. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers.

van Gelder, T. J., & Cumming, G. (forthcoming). Change in critical thinking skills during college: A meta-analysis.


Repository Staff Only: item control page