Advertisement

Higher Education

, 58:799 | Cite as

Computer-assisted argument mapping: a rationale approach

  • W. Martin Davies
Article

Abstract

Computer-Assisted Argument Mapping (CAAM) is a new way of understanding arguments. While still embryonic in its development and application, CAAM is being used increasingly as a training and development tool in the professions and government. Inroads are also being made in its application within education. CAAM claims to be helpful in an educational context, as a tool for students in responding to assessment tasks. However, to date there is little evidence from students that this is the case. This paper outlines the use of CAAM as an educational tool within an Economics and Commerce Faculty in a major Australian research university. Evaluation results are provided from students from a CAAM pilot within an upper-level Economics subject. Results indicate promising support for the use of CAAM and its potential for transferability within the disciplines. If shown to be valuable with further studies, CAAM could be included in capstone subjects, allowing computer technology to be utilised in the service of generic skill development.

Keywords

Computer-aided argument mapping Critical thinking Argument Inference-making 

Notes

Acknowledgments

My thanks to Tim van Gelder, an anonymous referee from the journal, and to St. John’s College at the University of Sydney where I was a Visiting Fellow during 2007.

References

  1. Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1988). Studying in Australia. Longman: Cheshire.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).Google Scholar
  3. Biktimirov, E. N., & Nilson, L. B. (2006). Show them the money: Using mind mapping in the introductory finance course. Journal of Financial Education, 32(Fall), 72–86.Google Scholar
  4. Cameron, R. (1965). Has economic history a role in an economist’s education? The American Economic Review, 55(1/2), 112–115.Google Scholar
  5. Commonwealth of Australia. (2000). Employer satisfaction with graduate skills. ACT: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA).Google Scholar
  6. Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number four in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies, W. M. (2006a). Cognitive contours: Recent work on cross-cultural psychology and its relevance for education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26(1), 13–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies, W. M. (2006b). An “infusion” approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking debate. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(2), 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donohue, A., van Gelder, T., Cumming, G., & Bissett, M. (2002). Reason! project studies 1999–2002. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  10. Ennis, R. H. (1985). Critical thinking and the curriculum. National Forum, 65, 28–31.Google Scholar
  11. Ennis, R. H. (1990). The rationality of rationality: Why think critically? In R. Page (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1989 (pp. 402–405). Bloomington, Ill: Philosophy of Education Society.Google Scholar
  12. Ennis, R. H. (1997). Incorporating critical thinking in the curriculum: An introduction to some basic issues. Inquiry, 16(3), 1–19.Google Scholar
  13. Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching; an integrated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance. American Psychologist, 49, 725–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graduate Outlook. (2006). Graduate careers Australia. Retrieved 12/10/07, from http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/content/view/full/52.
  17. Halpern, D. F. (2002). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Harrell, M. (2005). Using argument diagrams to improve critical thinking skills in 80–100 what philosophy is. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/harrell/Harrell_Submission_EISTA2007.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2009.
  19. Hitchcock, D. (2004). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in critical thinking. Informal Logic, 24(3), 183–218. Google Scholar
  20. Jefferies, D. (2007). Maths and language. AnnteneX, 118, 1–5.Google Scholar
  21. Ji, L.-J., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett, R. E. (2004). Is it culture or is it language? Examination of language effects in cross-cultural research on categorisation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones, A. (2008). Generic attributes as espoused theory: The importance of context. High Educ. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9189-2
  23. Knight, P., & Page, A. (2007). The assessment of “wicked” competencies: Report to the practice-based learning centre. Retrieved 5/6/07, from http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/getfile.cfm?documentfileid=11063.
  24. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lewis Carroll Puzzles. (2007). Retrieved 12/10/2007 from http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~hile/math100/logice.htm.
  26. Martin, G. (1976). Economic motives for the founding of Botany Bay. Australian Economic History Review, 16(2), 128–143.Google Scholar
  27. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning, I-outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.Google Scholar
  28. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning, II-outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.Google Scholar
  29. McMillan, J. (1987). Enhancing college student’s critical thinking: A review of studies. Research in Higher Education, 26(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McPeck, J. (1990). Teaching critical thinking: Dialogue and dialectic. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. McPeck, J. (1992). Thoughts on subject specificity. In S. Norris (Ed.), The generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on an educational ideal (pp. 198–205). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  32. Melville Jones, H. E. (1999, December). Infusing critical thinking in teaching educational theory. Paper presented at the AARE-NZARE Conference, Melbourne. http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/mel99107.htm. Accessed 10 March 2009.
  33. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number 7, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moore, T. (2004). The critical thinking debate: How general are general thinking skills? Higher Education Research and Development, 23(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently … and why. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Quinn, V. (1994). In defence of critical thinking as a subject: If McPeck is wrong he is wrong. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 28(1), 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of Overseas students: Two sides of a story. Higher Education Research and Development, 6(2), 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simon, J. (2007). Concept mapping in a financial accounting course. Accounting Education, 16(3), 273–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Solon, T. (2001). Improving critical thinking in an introductory psychology course. Michigan Community College Journal, 7(2), 73–80.Google Scholar
  41. Solon, T. (2003). Teaching critical thinking! The more, the better. The Community College Enterprise, 9(2), 25–38.Google Scholar
  42. Twardy, C. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116.Google Scholar
  43. van der Laan, S., & Dean, G. (2007). Assessment to encourage meaningful learning in groups: Concept mapping. Working Paper from the Discipline of Accounting Working Paper Series, the University of Sydney, Australia. http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/accounting/research.
  44. van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 45(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  45. van Gelder, T. (2007). The rationale for rationale™. Law, Probability and Risk, 6, 23–42. doi: 10.1093/lpr/mgm032. http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/6/1-4/23. Accessed 10 March 2009
  46. van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Enhancing expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 142–152.Google Scholar
  47. VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 47. In J. Spence, J. Darly & D.J. Foss (Eds.), Annual Reviews (pp. 513–539). Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  48. Walton, D. (2000). Problems and useful techniques: My experiences in teaching courses in argumentation, informal logic and critical thinking. Informal Logic, 20(Teaching Supplement 2), 35–39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations