View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teaching Critical Thinking with Argument Mapping

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teaching Critical Thinking with Argument Mapping
Language: English
Authors: David L. Rousseau, Tim van Gelder
Source: Journal of Political Science Education. 2025 21(3):406-422.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Critical Thinking, Persuasive Discourse, Concept Mapping, Undergraduate Students, Teaching Methods, Political Science, Public Policy, Majors (Students), Assignments
Geographic Terms: New York (Albany)
DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2024.2388821
ISSN: 1551-2169
1551-2177
Abstract: Critical thinking is the cornerstone of any undergraduate education. One technique for helping students develop critical thinking skills is "argument mapping." Argument mapping involves diagraming the arguments for and against a proposition. The map also includes each piece of evidence used to support these arguments. Argument mapping can help students avoid confirmation bias by bringing attention to arguments and evidence which may run counter to their prior beliefs. It also prompts consideration of the strength of arguments and the quality of evidence. We describe how argument mapping can be incorporated in an undergraduate class and then present an example of a classroom exercise. The exercise involves mapping the arguments in a speech by American Secretary of State Colin Powell justifying the use of military force in Iraq before the United Nations Security Council in February 2013.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1502164
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGvp1bk9RWoyEuFMyyi-J57AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKqgyafz5BYfPqWnswIBEICBmzaUOu26eW4eGAO4JQ_A6_UklfrV4Kl-4TOg6C6wi9Im1-o7lQQwaClKb7wOxeqQ3Jks6yK0mZOAQvMAEruALYvOyqwhO0_T8NFhHnZLcjNrcfNeKkn5S09gn7XFrvzSKHymzSm-yAZ_DTMo6wYJYlL5CKhtlfBJRaiCv5u5cooFRUs-3Bn14kcYYiESYxCQ2HeFvAqXOGSxbior
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186838341;[15ub]01jul.25;2025Jul30.03:23;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186838341-1">Teaching Critical Thinking With Argument Mapping </title> <sbt id="AN0186838341-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Critical thinking is the cornerstone of any undergraduate education. One technique for helping students develop critical thinking skills is argument mapping. Argument mapping involves diagraming the arguments for and against a proposition. The map also includes each piece of evidence used to support these arguments. Argument mapping can help students avoid confirmation bias by bringing attention to arguments and evidence which may run counter to their prior beliefs. It also prompts consideration of the strength of arguments and the quality of evidence. We describe how argument mapping can be incorporated in an undergraduate class and then present an example of a classroom exercise. The exercise involves mapping the arguments in a speech by American Secretary of State Colin Powell justifying the use of military force in Iraq before the United Nations Security Council in February 2013.</p> <p>It is widely agreed that the cornerstone of any undergraduate education is nurturing critical thinking (Moon [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref1">28</reflink>]). Researchers have identified a number of techniques that appear to enhance critical thinking such as role play and simulations (Asal and Kratoville [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>]), debates (Llano [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref3">26</reflink>]; Oros [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref4">30</reflink>]), analysis briefs (Alex-Assensoh [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]), writing assignments (Çavdar and Doe [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]), rewriting papers (Tsui [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref7">34</reflink>]), case studies (Klebba and Hamilton [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]), and reflective journals (Arter, Wallace, and Shaffer [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>]). A growing body of evidence, discussed below, suggests that another technique, argument mapping, can substantially enhance critical thinking. Although William Dunn has introduced argument mapping into public policy education in his textbook <emph>Public Policy Analysis</emph>, in our view the technique deserves much wider attention and use (Dunn [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>This article is an introduction to argument mapping for educators in political science and neighboring disciplines. There are five main sections. First, we explain what argument mapping is, and second, we describe the process of argument mapping. Third, we briefly review the empirical evidence regarding the impact of argument mapping on critical thinking. Fourth, we discuss how argument mapping can be incorporated into an undergraduate political science or public policy course. Fifth, we provided a detailed example of an argument mapping exercise used in a course one of us teaches. To conclude, we summarize our findings and offer some general thoughts about argument mapping.</p> <hd id="AN0186838341-3">What is argument mapping?</hd> <p>Argument mapping (also called argument diagraming and argument visualization) involves creating diagrams which display the structure of arguments (van Gelder [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref11">35</reflink>]; Davies [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]; Davies, Barnett, and van Gelder [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>]). Here arguments are taken to be sets of claims and their logical relationships which are intended to establish or support one of the claims, usually called the conclusion, contention, or proposition. Argument maps are typically "box and arrow" diagrams in which the boxes correspond to individual claims (and in some forms of argument mapping, contain sentences expressing those claims), and the arrows indicate relationships of support or conflict.</p> <p>Any argument, whether presented orally or in prose, can be diagramed in order to reveal both the implicit and explicit structure of the argument. Revealing this structure can help a student or professional evaluate the reasoning in an argument (i.e., appreciate its strengths or identify gaps and other weaknesses). By summarizing an argument in a concise and systematic fashion, the map allows the user to swiftly evaluate the persuasive power of the argument.</p> <p>Argument mapping can be used to analyze any public policy proposition. For example, we can map arguments for and against term limits in Congress. Similarly, arguments for and against comprehensive immigration reform can be mapped in order to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the proposal. Even the arguments relating to narrow proposals (e.g., should a new scanner at an international airport be purchased?) can be mapped, though rigorous studies to generate evidence would be needed to assess the extent of benefit gained from doing so.</p> <p>Argument mapping has a long history. Reed, Walton, and Macagno ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref14">31</reflink>]) trace its origins to English logician Richard Whately's 1836 textbook <emph>Elements of Logic</emph>. Within the realm of legal argumentation, Wigmore was an early user of the technique in the early 1900s (Goodwin [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref15">19</reflink>]). But argument mapping really does not take off until the 1950s with the work of Beardsley and Toulmin. Toulmin was interested in practical arguments used in everyday life to persuade audiences. This informal argumentation, which stood in stark contrast to the era's focus formal mathematical arguments, was easy to visualize through mapping. The advent of the personal computers in the 1980s and 1990s, and the development of specialized software such as <emph>Rationale</emph> (https://<ulink href="http://www.rationaleonline.com/">www.rationaleonline.com/</ulink>) and <emph>Araucaria</emph>, helped stimulate the use of argument mapping across many disciplines and in some workplace contexts (for example, biosecurity risk analysis—see Kruger, Thorburn, and van Gelder [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>]). However, maps can be drawn on a whiteboard or with pencil and paper, and some research suggests that even this can have benefits (Harrell [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186838341-4">How do you map arguments?</hd> <p>We generally make arguments to persuade ourselves or others that a claim is correct or a particular proposal is the best option available (e.g., term limits, immigration reform, and the best scanner) (Mercier and Sperber [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>]). We can talk of individuals behaving as <emph>analysts</emph> when they systematically examine all key arguments for and against a proposal as well as the evidence supporting these arguments. In contrast, individuals behave as <emph>advocates</emph> when they only focus on supporting arguments and evidence. Lawyers and politicians, who play the role of advocates in the American system, only present ideas that support their appointed or preferred positions. Individuals suffering from confirmation bias—the process of searching for and overweighting information which support one's prior belief and ignoring or discounting information which challenges this belief—also act like advocates rather than analysts. Confirmation bias is one of the most discussed and prevalent cognitive bias and the teaching of critical thinking on college campus is designed in part to reduce the bias (Nickerson [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref19">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Other situations are more complex. For example, when Secretary of State Colin Powell and his State Department team were privately debating the pros and cons of invading Iraq in 2003, they were engaged in analysis (which presumedly could have been mapped if the conversations were recorded). However, when Powell made his presentation to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003, he presented an advocacy argument that only included claims and evidence in support of his position. We obviously expect government officials to make advocacy arguments when trying to persuade the public of their preferred policies; we hope that they use rigorous analysis to determine the best course forward before going public.</p> <p>There is no uniform terminology used in argument mapping, in part because the technique emerged independently in several different traditions (e.g., law, philosophy, rhetoric). In a political science context, the first author has found the following set of terms to be useful: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>) proposition (i.e., the central policy proposal or contention); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>) claim (i.e., a premise, assumption, assertion, or deduction); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>) evidence (i.e., support for a claim); and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>) qualification (i.e., a limit on a claim).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref24">1</reflink>]</p> <p>Figure 1 presents a schematic argument map. The proposition is that the United States should implement a particular policy. Three supporting claims, or reasons justifying this position, are put forward. Each of these claims has at least one piece of supporting evidence. Evidence can vary in terms of the direction of the evidence (supporting or counter), the number of independent pieces of evidence, and the strength of each piece of evidence. Figure 1 also reveals that there is one argument against the proposal with two pieces of supporting evidence and one piece of counter-evidence (i.e., evidence against the counter-claim). The structure of the argument in Figure 1 makes it clear that this is an analysis of the proposition rather than an advocacy argument because counter-claims and counter-evidence are included in the analysis.</p> <p>MAP: Figure 1. An abstract map of an argument.</p> <p>Claims come in a number of different flavors. Causal claims are analytical propositions that attempt to link two variables in a cause-and-effect relationship (e.g., term limits will reduce the influence of big donors). Descriptive claims seek to establish a "fact" that everyone can agree on (e.g., 1.2% of nonimmigrant admissions to the U.S. in 2019 overstayed their visas). Finally, value claims reflect the ranking of items (including abstractions, objects, experiences, behaviors, personal characteristics, and states of being) according to social desirability, worth, or goodness (e.g., scanners should not reveal body contours in a public setting). Unlike causal and descriptive claims, value claims cannot be refuted with empirical evidence. However, analysts using value claims must be able to persuade the audience that the value is important and applicable to the situation. Most arguments contain a mix of causal, descriptive, and value claims.</p> <p>More concretely, Figure 2 presents a mapped chain of reasoning taken from the debate within the Kennedy Administration over whether to launch an invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in 1961. One reason for advocating for an invasion is the supporting causal claim that the invasion will trigger a popular uprising which would topple the Castro regime. Why? A descriptive sub-claim answers this question: Castro is very unpopular. Why? A sub-sub-claim points to the implicit assumption shared by members of the Kennedy team: all autocratic leaders are unpopular because people naturally desire liberty and freedom. The desire of the CIA and Kennedy to keep the knowledge of the operation secret even within the U.S. government meant that subject matter experts that could have provided evidence for the claim that Castro was very unpopular were not brought into the discussion (e.g., the Cuba desk in the State Department). Thus, rather than provide empirical evidence for the subclaim that Castro was unpopular the American decision makers simply assumed the issue away. Moreover, it subsequently came to light that the CIA did not even believe an uprising was likely, but failed to correct this assertion by officials in the Kennedy Administration on multiple occasions (Vandenbroucke [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref25">38</reflink>]). An argument map would have made the assumption about Castro's unpopularity more visible which may have led to interrogation. Participants would have been more likely to ask critical questions. Do we have intelligence that challenges this assumption? What happens if the assumption is wrong? Similarly, an argument map highlighting the importance of triggering a popular uprising would have made the questioning of this claim natural.</p> <p>MAP: Figure 2. Map of a claim from the Bay of Pigs Invasion.</p> <p>Evidence comes in all shapes and sizes: statistical studies, interviews with subject matter experts, historical case studies, confidential informants, government documents, personal letters, signal intelligence, reconnaissance flights, cross-national public opinion surveys, computer simulations, experiments, participant observation, etc. Evidence should be accurate, representative, systematically collected, authoritative, clear and relevant. Claims supported by evidence from multiple sources tends to be more persuasive than claims supported by a single piece of evidence. And claims supported by different types of evidence (e.g., exile report, phone intercept, and informant statement) tends to be more persuasive than those supported by a single type (e.g., only using statements by several exiles).</p> <p>There is no formulaic way to aggregate evidence for and against the claim. Do three pieces of weak supporting evidence trump one piece of moderate quality counter-evidence? Is an interview with a refugee about economic stability in his city more persuasive than a population survey analysis revealing strong consumer confidence in the economy? As with any informal argumentation, the audience must weigh the evidence to reach their own conclusion as to the persuasive power of the argument. However, argument mapping makes this subjective task easier for four reasons. First, an argument map will explicitly connect each piece of evidence to a specific claim. Second, a map uses both textual and visual modalities. This dual modality decreases the cognitive load for readers and makes it easier to comprehend the entire argument. Third, an argument map presents all pieces of evidence simultaneously in a cluster for easy comparison and aggregation. In contrast, in speeches and in texts evidence is often sprinkled throughout, often minutes or pages apart. This leads to the evaluation of evidence in isolation because it is difficult if not impossible to keep each piece of evidence in memory as you progress through the speech or text. Fourth, the use of color schemes in software programs such as <emph>Rationale</emph> can be used to highlight counter-evidence as refuting claims. <emph>Rationale</emph> also allows you to visually designate the strength of each piece of evidence from "solid" to "shaky" to "nil." The color schemes and designations make the relative strength of evidence standout which eases the process of evidence aggregation.</p> <p>Argument maps can be created for two purposes: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>) to understand and evaluate an argument in an existing speech or document; or (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>) to build an argument from scratch. With existing materials, you begin by identifying the author's central proposal, proposition, or conclusion. This is typically straight forward, but some longer speeches and policy documents may contain several different propositions (e.g., a 7-hour speech by Castro). Then examining the text or speech, you identify each major reason supporting the proposition as well as any evidence for it. If the text or speech is an analysis, you will also identify opposing arguments and evidence. When building your own argument, you also begin with a contestable proposal, proposition, or conclusion (e.g., The U.S. should have term limits in Congress). Whether or not this is stated in the affirmative (i.e., should) or negative (i.e., should not) is immaterial because as an analyst you will be searching for arguments both supporting and undermining the proposition as well as evidence and counter-evidence for each claim. You only draw your conclusion after weighing the arguments and evidence on both sides of the ledger.</p> <p>Once the argument is mapped, you can begin the evaluation process by asking a series of questions. First, are we missing any claims? Second, how strong is each piece of evidence individually and how strong is the collection of evidence for the claims? Third, is there counter-evidence for the claims? For example, if your claim is that a popular uprising will happen in 6 months and you have supporting evidence from interviews with recent exiles, is there other evidence that might indicate an uprising is unlikely to happen (e.g., subject matter experts)? Fourth, if evidence for a claim is weak, where could you get additional evidence to probe the veracity of the claim? Fifth, are there implicit claims that while not stated are critical to persuasive power of the argument? After placing these claims in the map, is the power of the argument significantly altered? Sixth, are any assumptions, which are statements that are commonly accepted without evidence, really claims that can be evaluated with empirical evidence?</p> <hd id="AN0186838341-5">Argument mapping and critical thinking</hd> <p>The <emph>Foundation for Critical Thinking</emph> defines critical thinking as follows:</p> <p>Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>]</p> <p>Ennis ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>], 32) contends that this definition includes critical thinking dispositions (e.g., seek to offer clear reasons, seriously consider other points of view, be alert for alternatives, be open-minded) as well as critical thinking abilities (e.g., analyze arguments, judge credibility of sources, make and judge inferences, define terms, deal with fallacies).</p> <p>The idea that argument mapping should help critical thinking has face plausibility. As illustrated in the previous section, critical thinking is largely about having warranted confidence in claims; warranted confidence often turns on the balance of arguments and evidence bearing on a claim; and argument mapping helps with laying out, and evaluating, arguments and evidence.</p> <p>Many studies have attempted to determine whether this plausibility translates into demonstrable benefits. The first such studies used a pre- and post-testing approach to measure gains in critical thinking skills over one semester achieved by students enrolled in a critical thinking course based on extensive practice in software-supported argument mapping (van Gelder, Bissett, and Cumming [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>]). The effect size (Cohen's <emph>d</emph>) was 0.8, which counts as large in the standard classification (Cohen [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>]). Indeed, this gain is larger than that typically found across an entire undergraduate education, estimated in a meta-analysis by Huber and Kuncel ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref32">22</reflink>]) to be around 0.59. This suggests that argument mapping can greatly accelerate critical thinking development.</p> <p>Would this dramatic finding replicate? In an early meta-analysis, Alvarez-Ortiz found that critical thinking courses with argument mapping produced much stronger gains in critical thinking skills (effect size 0.68 for classes with a bit of argument mapping and 0.78 for classes with lots of it) than critical thinking courses without argument mapping (effect size 0.34 for courses in philosophy and 0.26 for courses outside philosophy) (Alvarez-Ortiz [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]). Butchart and his colleagues ran a semester length course on argumentation which included 30–40 minutes of argument mapping each week. Students were provided with automated feedback on their maps. Using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) for the pretest (Form A) in week 1 and post-test (Form B) in week 13, the authors found an effect size of 0.45 (Butchart et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>]). Students enrolled in similar critical thinking courses without argument mapping or with argument but without feedback did not demonstrate a statistically significant increase in critical thinking skills.</p> <p>In a series of papers, Dwyer, Hogan, and Stewart found mixed support for benefits of argument mapping. In a 2011 study, the authors conducted an experiment with three groups: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>) argument mapping; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>) hierarchical outlining; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>) control. The students in the 8-week critical thinking course were randomly assigned to the first two conditions, but due to recruitment problems the nonrandom control group was added later. Using the CCTST Form B as their dependent variable, the authors found that argument mapping group scored significantly higher than the control group (but there was no statistically significant difference between the argument mapping group and the hierarchical outlining group) (Dwyer, Hogan, and Stewart [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref38">13</reflink>]). In a follow-up study, the authors found that students in an eight-week argument mapping course on critical thinking scored significantly higher than a nonrandom control group on the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment test (Dwyer, Hogan, and Stewart [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref39">14</reflink>], 233). The students in the argument mapping course scored higher overall as well as on all the index subscales (i.e., hypotheses testing, verbal reasoning, argument analysis, judgment of likelihood and uncertainty, and problem solving). In another follow-up study, Dwyer and his colleagues explored the impact of a six week critical thinking course on reflective judgment. Reflective judgment is a metacognitive process involving the use and evaluation of information to make a judgment in a reflective manner which explicitly recognizes that additional information may alter the judgment. Reflective judgment is often seen as a component of critical thinking. Contrary to their hypothesis, the authors found that neither argument mapping nor hierarchical outlining improved reflective judgment (measured with the Lectical Reflective Judgment Assessment) immediately or six months later (Dwyer, Hogan, and Stewart [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref40">15</reflink>], 21).</p> <p>In contrast to these mixed findings, Thomason (2014) found strong support for positive impact of argument mapping in a series of six studies using professional (e.g., NATO analysts and Canadian Border Services Agency personnel) and student (e.g., United States and Australia) samples.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>] The eleven module critical thinking course included 120 argument mapping challenges which instructors could choose from and end of module quizzes to assess student progress. Using the CCTST for pre- and post-tests in five experiments, the average effect size was 0.85. Using the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment in two experiments, the average effect size was 0.72. But when using the Logical Reasoning subsection of the Law School Aptitude Test (LSAT) in six experiments, the average effect size was only 0.37 (Rider and Thomason [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref42">32</reflink>], 120; Thomason [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>], 33). However, in the most recent and in some ways the most rigorous study of this kind, Cullen et al found a comparable effect size (0.77) on the LSAT, or 0.71 gain over a control group, an impact also revealed when essays from the two groups were blindly scored for quality (Cullen et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref44">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Gains of this magnitude cannot always be expected. In many of the studies discussed thus far, argument mapping was used intensively over a full semester in dedicated critical thinking courses. For obvious practical reasons, most instructors who introduce argument mapping into their subjects can only do so in a more limited way. There have been many studies of the impact of these less-intensive interventions. A meta-analysis in 2014 attempted to include all relevant studies conducted up to that time (van Gelder [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref45">36</reflink>]), including unpublished studies. Studies were loosely classified into three groups—low, medium, and high intensity—based on factors such as the amount of mapping activity students engaged in, the amount of feedback they received, and the extent to which instructors had themselves been trained in argument mapping. An example of a low-intensity intervention would be a single 2-hour exercise, with very small amounts of direct feedback given to groups rather than individuals, led by instructors with little or no training in argument mapping. The findings were unsurprising: the level of impact correlated with intensity, with effect sizes (pre-post Cohen's <emph>d</emph>) of 0.29, 0.39, and 0.82 for low, medium and high-intensity interventions respectively.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref46">4</reflink>] These figures compare well with the mean effect size of 0.30 found in a meta-analysis of 341 effect sizes drawn from critical thinking intervention studies of many different kinds (Abrami et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref48">5</reflink>]</p> <p>Given the methodological and practical challenges involved in measuring the impact of educational interventions, the numbers appearing above should only be regarded as coarse approximations. Bearing this in mind, the relevant research can be qualitatively summarized as follows. Under optimal conditions, argument mapping can produce substantial gains in critical thinking skills; less intense interventions can be expected to still produce worthwhile benefits. Based on our experience, we conjecture that key factors include the amount and quality of feedback students receive on their mapping attempts, the expertise of the instructors, the use of good-quality argument mapping software, and well-designed exercises progressing gradually in complexity.</p> <hd id="AN0186838341-6">Using argument mapping in an undergraduate course</hd> <p>Argument mapping can be used in courses in many ways. For example, for a "low intensity" version it could be one tool among many used by instructors to teach critical thinking. In this case, instructors might devote a week or two to teaching argument mapping. They might begin by explaining how to map arguments in one class session and then have the students tackle increasingly challenging mapping exercises in subsequent sessions. Assignments might involve creating an argument map in class and then writing a 2-page essay based on the argument map as a homework assignment. Or students might read a 2-page argumentative essay by another student and try to diagram the argument. This task is particularly good for helping students understand if the message they are sending in the essay is being received by the reader. Or students might diagram an article and then provide a letter grade for the quality of each piece of evidence in the argument. Finally, the instructor might propose a policy situation (e.g., a military crisis with Iran or a global pandemic) and have student teams diagram arguments for and against two potential policy responses.</p> <p>Alternatively, a "high intensity" course can utilize argument mapping throughout the semester. Dunn takes this approach in his public policy textbook (Dunn [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref49">12</reflink>]). Similarly, in a critical thinking and communication course for sophomores at the University at Albany, students are taught argument mapping in the first few weeks and then utilize the tool repeatedly throughout the semester. At UAlbany, four main topics are selected each semester, such as "enhanced interrogation techniques should not be used in the war on terror," "globalization increases inequality in the United States," "right-wing extremism is a greater domestic threat to the United States than Islamic extremism," and "3-D printed guns should be banned.". Students then build an annotated bibliography on the topic (4 weeks), write arguments for and against the proposition (4 weeks), and rebut written arguments put forward by fellow students (4 weeks). Finally, student teams participate in a debate on the four topics using all the materials created and posted to the course wiki during the prior twelve weeks at the end of the semester.</p> <p>In addition to the main four topics of the semester, the students will complete 15–20 argumentation exercises on independent topics during class time. Many of these exercises, which are typically done in teams using whiteboards, involve mapping arguments. In some cases, they build original argument maps for specific propositions such as which of the two competing policy proposals is likely to be more effective. In other cases, they attempt to diagram arguments found in existing speeches and documents. The following is an example of the later type of exercise.</p> <hd id="AN0186838341-7">Example assignment: Colin Powell's UN speech</hd> <p>Students at UAlbany enrolled in a 15-week required undergraduate course on critical thinking and communication in a major focusing on public policy were given the following assignment:</p> <p>As a team, please provide an argument map on the whiteboard for American Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech before the United Nations in February 2003. The map should include the major arguments and evidence to support these arguments. As a group, indicate if you find his argument very persuasive, persuasive, unpersuasive, or very unpersuasive.</p> <p>Students were shown a video of the introduction of the Powell speech and were provided a shortened version of the speech because the exercise was designed to fit into an 80-minute class session with no preparation prior to class. (Instructors could assign the entire speech as a transcript or video as homework). This particular assignment was given after the halfway point in the semester because it was considered difficult; students had practiced on smaller texts and their own work in earlier assignments. Student teams spent about 45 minutes constructing their map. Then the class compared the maps produced by different teams. Next, the instructor presented his own map of Powell's advocacy argument. Finally, the instructor presented an analysis map of the argument which included information available to Powell but not included in the speech. In some semesters, the last step is pushed to the next class session due to time constraints. The following discussion focuses on the two instructor maps: advocacy and analysis.</p> <p>American Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent to the United Nations on 5 February 2003 to persuade foreign leaders and the public at home and abroad that military force against Iraq is justified. Figure 3 provides an argument map of the Powell speech produced using the software <emph>Rationale</emph>. The central proposition is at the top of the Figure in a box labeled "Use of Force Against Iraq is Justified." In support of this claim, Powell present three main reasons for supporting military force against Iraq: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>) Iraq is in material breach of UN Resolution 1441, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref51">2</reflink>) Iraq has ties to terrorists, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref52">3</reflink>) Iraq commits human rights violations. For the terrorism and human rights arguments, he simply provides evidence for his claims. In contrast, for the material breach argument, he presents five reasons as sub-claims (secret nuclear program, secret chemical program, secret biological program, interfering with inspections, and an illegal WMD delivery system development) as well as evidence for each of these sub-claims.</p> <p>DIAGRAM: Figure 3. Rationale diagram of advocacy argument presented by Powell at UN on 5 February 2022.</p> <p>A glance at the overall argument map reveals three things. First, the speech is an attempt at advocacy rather than analysis; only arguments and evidence supporting the central claim are included in the speech (i.e., all the boxes are green in the <emph>Rational</emph> software). Second, Powell is for the most part making a convergent argument (rather than a linked argument). That is, all the claims are separate reasons for supporting military action. If the audience is not persuaded about the human rights claim, they might still support invasion because of the material breach claim and/or the terrorism claim. In contrast to a linked argument (which is a set of claims which work together to support a proposition), a convergent argument is much harder to refute. Third, most of Powell's argument focuses on weapons of mass destruction. He briefly addresses human rights and terrorism at the end of the speech, but these claims seem to be designed to broaden support for war by appealing to liberals who might traditionally oppose military intervention.</p> <p>Let's return to the three reasons Powell gives for supporting a use of force. First, why should we believe that Iraq is in material breach of its pledge to disarm? According to Powell we should believe this claim because Iraq has secret nuclear weapons program, secret chemical weapons program, secret biological weapons program, a concerted effort to interfere with inspections, and an illegal WMD delivery system development (Shown in Figure 3 by the five green boxes connected to the green material breach box). How do we know this? In the case of nuclear weapons, Powell presents three pieces of evidence: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>) Iraq has purchased aluminum tubes which can be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>) human intelligence (HUMINT) indicating that Iraq is procuring magnets similar to those used in its old gas centrifuge program; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>) signal intelligence (SIGINT) that Iraq is attempting to import balancing machines. In the case of chemical weapons, Powell presents eight pieces of evidence. (All shown in Figure 3 as connected to the green box labeled "Iraq has a secret chemical weapons program"). This evidence comes from a variety of sources including HUMINT, SIGINT and image intelligence (IMINT). (If Powell does not clearly specify a type of source, it is omitted from the figure). Powell explicitly states early in his speech that intelligence from a variety of sources pointing to the same conclusion strengthens an argument. In the case of biological weapons, Powell presents four pieces of evidence such as HUMINT from multiple sources stating that Iraq has mobile bioweapons factories on trucks. In the case of undermining inspections, Powell presents eight pieces of evidence including hiding equipment, removing weapons prior to inspections, hiding documents in scientists' private homes, and limiting access to scientists for interviews. Finally, in the case of developing illegal WMD delivery systems, Powell presents five pieces of evidence including reports of possession of missile engines that exceed the legal limit of 150 km and weapons tests of unmanned ariel vehicles (UAV) that also exceed the legal limit.</p> <p>It is interesting to note that for both the secret chemical weapons program and the secret biological weapons program Powell states that fact that Iraq historically had such programs AND that it is not proven that it has destroyed all materials produced by the programs is evidence of an ongoing program. This argument shifts the burden of proof from the United States to Iraq. According to Powell, the United States does not have to show that Iraq has an ongoing chemical and biological weapons program. Rather, Iraq must provide evidence that it has destroyed the weapons. In the absence of this evidence, Powell says we can assume they still have these WMD programs.</p> <p>Continuing on with Powell's second argument, why should we believe that Iraq has ties to terrorists? Powell presents eight pieces of evidence for this claim including historical links to terrorism, Iraqi links to the terrorist Zarqawi, and suspected meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda.</p> <p>Finally, why should we believe that Iraq commits human rights violations? Powell presents three pieces of evidence for this claim including Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Kurds in 1989 as part of the Anfal Campaign, Iraqi ethnic cleansing of the Shi'a Iraqis and Marsh Arabs, and the killing of thousands of domestic dissidents in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule. Although most of this evidence was decades old, it was useful for broadening the coalition in support of force to include both realists and liberals.</p> <p>Was Powell's argument to domestic and international audiences persuasive? By all accounts, yes. Although a strong majority of Americans supported the attacking Iraq both before and after the speech, Powell's argument was seen as very persuasive. A Gallup poll taken just after the speech found that 44% of those hearing it said he made a "very strong case," 37% said he made a "fairly strong case," and only 13% say it was not a strong argument (Gallup [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref56">18</reflink>]). Internationally, the speech made a very favorable impression (LaFeber [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref57">25</reflink>], 89). However, the speech did not rally support for a second UN resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The Bush Administration choose to go to war without a second resolution rather than risk a negative vote in the U.N. Security Council.</p> <p>We do not fault Powell for making an advocacy argument at the UN; he was a politician trying to persuade his audience to support the Bush Administration policy. Colin Powell was selected by the Bush Administration to present to the UN precisely because he was seen as trustworthy at home and abroad. Moreover, unlike Cheney and Rumsfeld, he was viewed as a skeptic on Iraq. A credible source would increase the persuasive power of the message.</p> <p>But in his role as Secretary of State and behind closed doors, he also must have conducted an analysis of the central claim. We know that leading up to the speech he conducted a rigorous evaluation and review. He initially rejected a draft prepared by Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby, visited Langley to review CIA intelligence reports on Iraq, and submitted his draft speeches for review by the intelligence shop in the State Department (i.e., the Bureau of Intelligence and Research or INR) (LaFeber [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref58">25</reflink>], 89; Woodward [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref59">39</reflink>], 297, PBS NOW 2006). And no doubt his analysis of this critical foreign policy question began long before he started preparing for the UN speech.</p> <p>As the report by <emph>The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction</emph> (CWMD) makes clear, the intelligence failure surrounding the invasion of Iraq resulted from both poor tradecraft and a failure to communicate uncertainty to decision makers (2005, 46). For example, prior to his speech Powell was never told that many in the CIA questioned the reliability of the primary source for the bioweapons claims (i.e., Curveball). Given that the Intelligence Community was well aware of counter-claims and counter-evidence prior to the Powell speech, we can construct an argument map based on the INR pre-speech reviews as well as post-invasion reviews such as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's <emph>Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq</emph> (RSSCI), and the CWMD. This "analysis" argument map appears in Figure 4. And to be clear, this map only includes evidence available to the US government before the Powell speech (e.g., a third source for the mobile bioweapons truck withdrew his statement after the speech and does not appear in the figure) and much of this evidence was not made available to Powell and other policy makers as it should have been. The purpose of Figure 4 is to illustrate a plausible analytical argument map rather than list all possible counter-evidence (much of which is still classified).</p> <p>DIAGRAM: Figure 4. Rationale diagram of argument to invade Iraq including counter-arguments and counter-evidence.</p> <p>Contrasting Figures 3 and 4 highlights the power of argument mapping. Although the presence of counter-evidence does not definitively refute the argument for attack, it clearly undermines its persuasive power. In part, this is due to the hierarchical structure of the argument map; each piece of counter-evidence is clearly tied to particular claims. This allows the audience to judge the balance of evidence with respect to each claim. For example, support for the claim that Iraq has restarted its nuclear program appears very thin in Figure 4. Moreover, the argument map allows the audience to view the entire argument at a glance which makes it easier to identify strengths and weaknesses of an argument. This can point organizations toward the collection of additional evidence which might strengthen (or undermine) the current policy position. For example, the expansion of Iraq's dual-use chemical infrastructure is suggestive of a possible chemical weapons program but cannot be considered strong evidence. Additional direct evidence is needed.</p> <p>The argument maps produced by the students are never identical to those prepared by the instructor in Figure 3. They often miss arguments because they don't think they rise to the level of significance. They sometimes confuse evidence for particular claims. But what we find amazing is that in general the student maps are remarkably similar to those produced by the instructor. After a mere 8–10 weeks, students are able to understand and communicate the structure of an argument and evidence to support key points.</p> <p>The presentation of the "analysis" map (Figure 4) also tends to shock the students. Most students find the Powell speech persuasive upon first reading (even when they recognize that it is an advocacy argument). This is not surprising given that they are not experts in foreign policy and the events in question happened when they were infants. The shock stems for the fact that evidence they believed was very solid moments before now seems questionable or counter-balanced by evidence pointing the other direction. By juxtaposing the advocacy and analysis maps, students immediately recognize the power of argument maps in helping them formulate opinions about critical issues.</p> <hd id="AN0186838341-8">Conclusion</hd> <p>Argument mapping is a powerful tool for teaching critical thinking in undergraduate political science and public policy classes. It is also a tool that our students can utilize to improve decision making later in their career regardless of their employment trajectory (e.g., in a private firm considering launching a new product, in a government agency debating a new public policy, or in a nonprofit organization deciding whether or not to cancel a program). It is a tool they can use for the rest of their lives.</p> <p>Argument mapping improves our ability to systematically evaluate the quality of an argument in at least five ways. First, most arguments about important decision are very complex which limits our ability to remember, link, and evaluate key pieces of the argument. For example, without argument mapping, it is virtually impossible to systematically understand and evaluate Powell's 116-minute UN speech or even a 42-page transcript of the speech. Second, the technique forces us to identify evidence for claims and evaluate the strength of this evidence. Surprisingly, we often find that no evidence is presented at all; the claim is simply an unquestioned belief of the advocate of the proposal. Third, argument mapping allows us to quickly determine if the proposal is analysis or advocacy. If counter-claims and counter-evidence are systematically ignored, the proponents of the proposal are most likely advocates rather than analysts or impartial decision makers. Fourth, argument mapping allows us to prioritize where we need additional information in order to make an informed decision. If you have two weak pieces of evidence for a key claim, you might look for stronger pieces of evidence. Or if you have only evidence in support of a claim, you might search to see if counter-evidence exists. Finally, the technique encourages us to probe claims and assumptions.</p> <p>The research on argument mapping has shown that the intense use of the technique in a semester long class can dramatically improve the critical thinking skills of students. And even with more limited usage in a class, there can be important intellectual gains. Instructors seeking to expand active learning in the classroom and peer-to-peer instruction should seriously consider adding the technique to their repertoires.</p> <hd id="AN0186838341-9">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We would like to thank Dr. Gary Ackerman for feedback on earlier versions of this paper.</p> <hd id="AN0186838341-10">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>The authors report no affiliation or involvement in an organization or entity with a financial or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.</p> <ref id="AN0186838341-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref20" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Persson. 2015. " Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis." Review of Educational Research 85 (2): 275 – 314. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551063.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alex-Assensoh, Yvette M. 2008. " Teaching Critical Analysis Skills with Analysis Briefs: What They Are and How They Work." Political Science & Politics 41 (1): 189 – 92. doi: 10.1017/S1049096508080293.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref22" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alvarez-Ortiz, Claudia. 2007. " Does Philosophy Improve Critical Thnking Skills?." Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of Melbourne.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arter, Michael L., Lacey N. Wallace, and Thomas L. Shaffer. 2016. " The Use of Reflective Journals to Stimulate Critical Thinking in the Academic Internship." Journal of Criminal Justice Education 27 (1): 140 – 56. doi: 10.1080/10511253.2015.1109132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Asal, Victor, and Jayson Kratoville. 2013. " Constructing International Relations Simulations: Examining the Pedagogy of IR Simulations Through a Constructivist Learning Theory Lens." Journal of Political Science Education 9 (2): 132 – 43. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2013.770982.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref34" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Butchart, Sam, Daniella Forster, Ian Gold, John Bigelow, Kevin Korb, Graham Oppy, and Alexandra Serrenti. 2009. " Improving Critical Thinking Using Web Based Argument Mapping Exercises with Automated Feedback." Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 25 (2): 154. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Çavdar, Gamze, and Sue Doe. 2012. " Learning through Writing: Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in Writing Assignments." Political Science & Politics 45 (2): 298 – 306. doi: 10.1017/S1049096511002137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref31" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, N.J: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref44" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cullen, Simon, Judith Fan, Eva van der Brugge, and Adam Elga. 2018. " Improving Analytical Reasoning and Argument Understanding: A Quasi-Experimental Field Study of Argument Visualization." NPJ Science of Learning 3 (1): 21 doi: 10.1038/s41539-018-0038-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, M. 2011. " Concept Mapping, Mind Mapping, Argument Mapping: What Are the Differences and Do They Matter? " Higher Education 62 (3): 279 – 301. doi: 10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, Martin, Ashley Barnett, and Tim van Gelder. 2019. " Using Computer-Aided Argument Mapping to Teach Reasoning." In Studies in Critical Thinking, Windsor Studies in Argumentation, ed. Anthony Blair. Windsor, ON : WSIA, 131 – 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, William N. 2017. Public Policy Analysis. 6th ed. Abingdon U.K.: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dwyer, Christopher P., Michael J. Hogan, and Ian Stewart. 2011. " The Promotion of Critical Thinking Skills through Argument Mapping." In Critical Thinking, eds. Christopher Horvath and James Forte. New York : NY Nova Science Publishers Inc, 97 – 122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dwyer, Christopher P., Michael J. Hogan, and Ian Stewart. 2012. " An Evaluation of Argument Mapping as a Method of Enhancing Critical Thinking Performance in E-Learning Environments." Metacognition and Learning 7 (3): 219 – 44. doi: 10.1007/s11409-012-9092-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dwyer, Christopher P., Michael J. Hogan, and Ian Stewart. 2015. " The Effects of Argument Mapping-Infused Critical Thinking Instruction on Reflective Judgement Performance." Thinking Skills and Creativity 16 : 11 – 26. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.12.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ennis, Robert H. 2015. " Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception." In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education, eds. M. Davies and R. Barnett. New York, NY : Palgrave Macmillan, 31 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Facione, Peter A. 1990. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction – The Delphi Report. Millbrae, CA : California Academic Press. https://philarchive.org/archive/faccta.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallup. 2003. " No Signs of Major Impact From Powell Speech." Gallup.com https://news.gallup.com/poll/7747/Signs-Major-Impact-From-Powell-Speech.aspx (November 10, 2022).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodwin, Jean. 2000. " Wigmore's Chart Method." Informal Logic 20 (3): 78. doi: 10.22329/il.v20i3.2278.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrell, Maralee. 2008. " No Computer Program Required: Even Pencil-and-Paper Argument Mapping Improves Critical-Thinking Skills." Teaching Philosophy 31 (4): 351 – 74. doi: 10.5840/teachphil200831437.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedges, Larry, and Ingram Olkin. 1985. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando : Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huber, C. R., and N. R. Kuncel. 2015. " Does College Teach Critical Thinking? A Meta-Analysis." Review of Educational Research 86 (2): 431 – 68. doi: 10.3102/0034654315605917.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klebba, Joanne M., and Janet G. Hamilton. 2007. " Structured Case Analysis: Developing Critical Thinking Skills in a Marketing Case Course." Journal of Marketing Education 29 (2): 132 – 9. doi: 10.1177/0273475307302015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kruger, Ariel, Luke Thorburn, and Timothy van Gelder. 2022. " Using Argument Mapping to Improve Clarity and Rigour in Written Intelligence Products." Intelligence and National Security: 1–20 37 (5): 607 – 26. doi: 10.1080/02684527.2022.2026584.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LaFeber, Walter. 2009. " The Rise and Fall of Colin Powell and the Powell Doctrine." Political Science Quarterly 124 (1): 71 – 93. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-165X.2009.tb00642.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Llano, Stephen M. 2015. " Debate's Relationship to Critical Thinking." In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education, eds. M. Davies and R. Barnett. New York, NY : Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2011. " Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory." The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2): 57 – 74. M3- doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moon, Jennifer. 2008. Critical Thinking: An Exploration of Theory and Practice. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nickerson, R. S. 1998. " Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises." Review of General Psychology 2 (2): 175 – 220. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oros, Andrew L. 2007. " Let's Debate: Active Learning Encourages Student Participation and Critical Thinking." Journal of Political Science Education 3 (3): 293 – 311. doi: 10.1080/15512160701558273.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reed, Chris, Douglas Walton, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2007. " Argument Diagramming in Logic, Law and Artificial Intelligence." The Knowledge Engineering Review 22 (1): 87 – 109. doi: 10.1017/S0269888907001051.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rider, Yanna, and Neil Thomason. 2014. " Cognitive and Pedagogical Benefits of Argument Mapping: L.A.M.P. Guides the Way to Better Thinking." In Knowledge Cartography: Software Tools and Mapping Techniques, Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing, eds. Alexandra Okada, Simon J. Buckingham Shum, and Tony Sherborne. London : Springer, 113 – 34. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-6470-8_6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomason, Neil. 2014. A012. Critical Thinking Final Report. University of Melbourne.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsui, Lisa. 2002. " Fostering Critical Thinking through Effective Pedagogy." The Journal of Higher Education 73 (6): 740 – 63. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2002.11777179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Gelder, T. J. 2013. " Argument Mapping." In Encyclopedia of the Mind, ed. H. Pashler. Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Gelder, T. J. 2015. " Using Argument Mapping to Improve Critical Thinking Skills." In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education, eds. Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett. Basingstoke U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, 183 – 92.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Gelder, T. J., M. Bissett, and G. Cumming. 2004. " Cultivating Expertise in Informal Reasoning." Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology = Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Experimentale 58 (2): 142 – 52. doi: 10.1037/h0085794.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandenbroucke, Lucien S. 1984. " Anatomy of a Failure: The Decision to Land at the Bay of Pigs." Political Science Quarterly 99 (3): 471 – 91. doi: 10.2307/2149944.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodward, Bob. 2004. Plan of Attack. First Printing edition. New York : Simon & Schuster.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186838341-12"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The second author currently prefers the terminology in what is called the "CASE" approach (Kruger, Thorburn, and van Gelder [24]). The choice of terminology is mostly a matter of pedagogical utility and aesthetics in a particular context; no deep issues turn on the selection of terms.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This definition is shorter than but consistent with the 1990 Delphi Report by the American Philosophical Association (see Facione [17]). Source of quote: https://<ulink href="http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766">www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> A seventh study, which used a very different educational intervention produced no significant results, is excluded from this discussion.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Note that these effect sizes include any gain that would have occurred regardless of the intervention, due to factors such as maturation, being at college, and general experience. Using Huber and Kuncel's estimate of 0.59 gain over an entire undergraduate education, we expect that this gain would be less than 0.1 in the case of studies conducted over a whole semester, and even smaller for the shorter-duration studies.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Their effect size measure was Hedges <emph>g</emph> (Hedges and Olkin [21]), which adjusts Cohen's <emph>d</emph> to correct for bias in small samples. In practice <emph>d</emph> and <emph>g</emph> are usually very similar.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By David L. Rousseau and Tim van Gelder</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>David L. Rousseau , Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and the College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security and Cybersecurity, University at Albany. He is the author of War and Rights: The Impact of War on Political and Civil Rights (University of Michigan Press, 2021), Identifying Threats and Threatening Identities: The Social Construction of Realism and Liberalism (Stanford University Press, 2006), and Democracy and War: Institutions, Norms, and the Evolution of International Conflict (Stanford University Press, 2005).</p> <p>Tim van Gelder , Associate Professor, School of Biosciences and Director of the Hunt Laboratory for Intelligence Research in the Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Australia. An applied epistemologist, his current research focuses on the nature, evaluation and improvement of reasoning in intelligence analysis. Much of his prior work has been in the development of argument mapping methods and tools, including the widely-used Rationale software.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref59"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1502164
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teaching Critical Thinking with Argument Mapping
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+L%2E+Rousseau%22">David L. Rousseau</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tim+van+Gelder%22">Tim van Gelder</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Political+Science+Education%22"><i>Journal of Political Science Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 21(3):406-422.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Critical+Thinking%22">Critical Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Concept+Mapping%22">Concept Mapping</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Political+Science%22">Political Science</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Policy%22">Public Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Majors+%28Students%29%22">Majors (Students)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Assignments%22">Assignments</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+York+%28Albany%29%22">New York (Albany)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15512169.2024.2388821
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1551-2169<br />1551-2177
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Critical thinking is the cornerstone of any undergraduate education. One technique for helping students develop critical thinking skills is "argument mapping." Argument mapping involves diagraming the arguments for and against a proposition. The map also includes each piece of evidence used to support these arguments. Argument mapping can help students avoid confirmation bias by bringing attention to arguments and evidence which may run counter to their prior beliefs. It also prompts consideration of the strength of arguments and the quality of evidence. We describe how argument mapping can be incorporated in an undergraduate class and then present an example of a classroom exercise. The exercise involves mapping the arguments in a speech by American Secretary of State Colin Powell justifying the use of military force in Iraq before the United Nations Security Council in February 2013.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1502164
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1502164
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15512169.2024.2388821
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 406
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Critical Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Concept Mapping
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Political Science
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Majors (Students)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Assignments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: New York (Albany)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teaching Critical Thinking with Argument Mapping
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David L. Rousseau
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tim van Gelder
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1551-2169
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1551-2177
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Political Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1