Computer-aided argument mapping in an EFL setting: does technology precede traditional paper and pencil approach in developing critical thinking?

  • Maryam Eftekhari
  • Elaheh Sotoudehnama
  • S. Susan Marandi
Cultural and Regional Perspectives


Developing higher-order critical thinking skills as one of the central objectives of education has been recently facilitated via software packages. Whereas one such technology as computer-aided argument mapping is reported to enhance levels of critical thinking (van Gelder 2001), its application as a pedagogical tool in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) settings has been rarely explored. In addition, the literature fails to acknowledge whether having the basic skill of representing an argument diagrammatically even with paper and pencil can lead to similar results. That being the case, this study was conducted with the aim of comparing the impact of teaching argument mapping via Rationale TM software versus paper and pencil on Iranian EFL majors’ critical thinking skills development. To this end, 180 EFL participants were screened into low and high levels of reading proficiency based on their scores on a sample reading proficiency test. Next, they were randomly assigned to two experimental and one comparison groups. During 12 sessions, the experimental groups were provided with argument mapping instructions while the comparison group received a conventional reading instruction. All participants were pre- and post-tested with the California critical thinking skills test (CCTST). Results suggested that students in the software group significantly outperformed those in the paper and pencil group on overall CCTST and the sub-skills of inference and inductive reasoning. They also scored significantly higher on all tests compared to the comparison group. However, participants’ level of proficiency as well as sex did not show any significant effect on their performance on overall CCTST and its sub-skills.


Critical thinking Computer-aided argument mapping Analysis Evaluation Inference EFL Technology 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aliakbari, M., & Sadeghdaghighi, A. (2011). Investigation of the Relationship between Gender, Field of Study, and Critical Thinking Skill: the Case of Iranian Students. In Proceedings of the 16th conference of Pan Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez-Ortiz, C. (2007). Does philosophy improve critical thinking skills? (Unpublished master’s thesis). Australia: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Andrade, M. S. (2012). Self regulated learning activities: Supporting success in online courses. In J. S. Moore & A. D. Benson (Eds.), International perspectives of distance learning in higher education (pp. 111-123). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
  6. Atai, M. R., & Mazlum, F. (2013). English language curriculum in Iran: Planning and practice. The Curriculum Journal, 24(3), 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azizi, M. (2012). Critical thinking in General English coursebooks taught in Iranian Universities. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation, 1(3), 15–36.Google Scholar
  8. Barjesteh, H., & Vaseghi, R. (2012). Critical thinking: A reading strategy in developing English reading comprehension performance. Sheikhbahaee EFL Journal, 1, 21–34.Google Scholar
  9. Barnawi, O. (2011). Finding a place for critical thinking and self-voice in college English as a foreign language writing classrooms. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 190–197. doi: 10.5539/elt.v4n2p190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birjandi, P., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2010). The relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ critical thinking ability and their professional success. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialetical. Argumentation, 1, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Case, R. (2005). Moving critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada, 45(2), 45–49.Google Scholar
  14. Catchings, G. (2015). A practical coaching model for critical thinking skill and leadership development (C/CTSLD). Management and Organizational Studies, 2(4), 42–53. doi: 10.5430/mos.v2n4p42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chamot, A. U. (1995). Creating a community of thinkers in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESOL Matters, 5(5), 1–16.Google Scholar
  16. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 351–362. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chapple, L., & Curtis, A. (2000). Content-based instruction in Hong Kong: Student responses to film. System, 28(3), 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davidson, B. (1994). Critical thinking: A perspective and prescriptions for language teachers. The Language Teacher, 18(4), 20–26.Google Scholar
  19. Davies, M. (2009). Computer-assisted argument mapping: A Rationale approach. Higher Education, 58, 799–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davies, M. (2010). Concept mapping, mind mapping, and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279–301. doi: 10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davies, M. (2011). Mind mapping, concept mapping, argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279–301. doi: 10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davies, M. (2012). Computer-aided argument map- ping and the teaching of critical thinking: Part II. INQUIRY: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 27(3), 15–28. doi: 10.5840/inquiryct20122729.Google Scholar
  23. Donohue, A., van Gelder, T., Cumming, G., & Bissett, M. (2002). Reason! Project Studies, 19992002. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne.
  24. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2010). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool: Comparing the effects of map reading versus text reading on comprehension and recall of arguments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1), 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 (pp. 97–122). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Elder, L. (2000). Why critical thinking is essential to the community college mission and why it will be difficult to achieve. 1985.
  27. Enayat, M. J., Davoudi, M., & Dabbagh, A. (2015). Critical thinking instruction in Iran’s ELT Curriculum: To be or not to be? International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies, 3(4), 29–41.
  28. Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 45, 44–48.Google Scholar
  29. Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018003004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Evers, C. W. (2007). Culture, cognitive pluralism and rationality. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(4), 364–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Facione, P. A. (1990a). The California critical thinking skills test: College level.
  32. Facione, P. A. (1990b). The California critical thinking skills test (CCTST): Forms A and B; The CCTST test manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Fahim, M., & Ahmadi, H. (2012). Critical thinking, content schemata, and EFL readers’ comprehension and recall. Journal of Comparative Literature and Culture, 1(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
  34. Fahim, M., & Ahmadian, M. (2012). Critical thinking and Iranian EFL context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 793–800. doi: 10.4304/jltr.3.4.793-800.Google Scholar
  35. Fahim, M., Bagherkazemi, M., & Alemi, M. (2010). The Relationship between test takers’ multiple intelligences and their performance on the reading sections of TOFEL and IELTS. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 1(3), 1–14.Google Scholar
  36. Fahim, M., & Mirzaiee, M. (2013). Improving EFL argumentative writing: A dialogic critical thinking approach. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  37. Fahim, M., & Saeepour, M. (2011). The impact of teaching critical thinking skills on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 867–874. doi: 10.4304/jltr.2.4.867-874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fisher, A. (1988). The logic of real arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2008). Recurrent transient underdetermination and the glass half full. Philosophical Studies, 137, 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gurr, C. A. (1998). On the isomorphism, or lack of it, of representations. In K. Marriott & B. Meyer (Eds.), Visual language theory (pp. 288–310). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Harrell, M. (2008). No computer program required: Even pencil-and-paper argument mapping improves critical thinking skills. Teaching Philosophy, 31, 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Harrell, M. (2011). Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory philosophy. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(3), 371–385. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2010.502559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson, R. E. (1992). The problem of defining critical thinking. In S. Norris (Ed.), The generalizability of critical thinking (pp. 38–53). New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  44. Khalili, H., & Hossein Zadeh, M. (2003). Investigation of reliability, validity and normality of the persian version of the California critical thinking skills test form B (CCTST). Journal of Medical Education, 3(1), 29–32.Google Scholar
  45. Hosseini, E., Khodaei, F. B., Sarfallah, S. H., & Dolatabadi, H. R. (2012). Exploring the relationship between critical thinking, reading comprehension and reading strategies of English university students. World Applied Sciences Journal, 17(10), 1356–1364.Google Scholar
  46. King, P. M., Wood, P. K., & Mines, R. A. (1990). Critical thinking among college and graduate students. Review of Higher Education, 13, 167–186.Google Scholar
  47. Kuhn, D., Katz, J., & Dean, D. (2004). Developing reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 10(2), 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laird, N. T. F. (2005). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST).
  49. Liaw, M. L. (2007). Content-based reading and writing for critical thinking skills in an EFL context. English Teaching and Learning, 31, 45–87.Google Scholar
  50. Maftoon, P., Birjandi, P., & Pahlavani, P. (2014). The impact of using computer-aided argument mapping (CAAM) on the improvement of writing achievement of Iranian learners’ of English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(5), 982–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mall-Amiri, B., & Ahmadi, Z. (2014). The relationship between EFL learners’ critical thinking and metacognitive strategies. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(1), 488–505.Google Scholar
  52. Marzano, R. J. (2001). A new taxonomy of educational objectives. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 181–188). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  53. Mirzaie, Z. (2008). The relationship between critical thinking and lexical inferences of Iranian EFL learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tehran: Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Campus.Google Scholar
  54. Mulhall, M. L. (2011). Quantitative measurement of critical thinking skills in novice and experienced physical therapists (Doctoral dissertation). Eric database. (ED523006)Google Scholar
  55. Myers, B. E., & Dyer, J. E. (2006). The influence of student learning style on critical thinking skill. Journal of Agricultural Education, 74(1), 43–52. doi: 10.5032/jae.2006.01043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Paul, R. W. (1984). Critical thinking: Fundamental to education for a free society. Educational Leadership, 42, 4–14. doi: 10.1177/002248718904000303.Google Scholar
  58. Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning & Instruction, 12, 61–86. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00016-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pusack, J. P., & Otto, S. K. (1997). Taking control of multimedia. In M. D. Bush & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 1–46). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
  60. Ramsay, P. (2009). Blooming with the pious: Critical thinking, reading and writing across the curriculum. Miami, Florida: Ian Randle.Google Scholar
  61. Reed, C., Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2007). Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 22(1), 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rezaei, S., Derakhshan, A., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2011). Critical thinking in language education. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 769–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Romiszowski, A. J. (1981). Designing instructional systems: Decision making in course planning and curriculum design. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  64. Semeric, N. (2010). The relationship between self leadership and critical thinking. African Journal of Business Management, 4(8), 1639–1643.Google Scholar
  65. Sheikhy Behdani, R. (2009). The relationship between autonomy, critical thinking ability, and reading comprehension ability of Iranian EFL learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tehran: Islamic Azad University, Science and research campus.Google Scholar
  66. Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Solon, T. (2007). Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34, 95–109.Google Scholar
  68. Stroupe, R. R. (2006). Integrating critical thinking throughout ESL curricula. TESL Reporter, 39(2), 42–61.Google Scholar
  69. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  70. Synder, L. G., & Synder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 1(2), 90–99.Google Scholar
  71. Tarvin, W., & Al-Arishi, A. (1991). Rethinking communicative language teaching: Reflection and the EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Terry, N., & Ervin, B. (2012). Student performance on the California critical thinking skills test. Academy of. Educational Leadership Journal, 16, 25–34.Google Scholar
  73. Tung, C. A., & Chang, S. Y. (2009). Developing critical thinking through literature reading. Feng Chia Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 19, 287–317.Google Scholar
  74. Twardy, C. R. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116. doi: 10.5840/teachphil200427213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Utah, C., & Waters, A. (2014). Confronting critical thinking challenges in the college classroom. In L. J. Shedletsky & J. S. Beaurdy (Eds.), Cases on teachning critical thinking through visual representation strategies (pp. 140–156). Harshey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. van Erp, N. L. (2008). Critical thinking in online graduate courses: A phenomenological study (Doctoral dissertation). South Dakota State University. (UMI No. 3316338).Google Scholar
  77. van Gelder, T. J. (2000). Learning to reason: A Reason!Able approach. In C. Davis, T. J. van Gelder, & R. Wales (Eds.), Cognitive Science in Australia, 2000: Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Cognitive Science Society Conference, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  78. 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 Australasia Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 539–548). Melbourne, Australia: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, The University of MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  79. van Gelder, T. J. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, pp. 85–90.
  80. van Gelder, T. J. (2003). Enhancing deliberation through computer-supported argument mapping. In P. A. Kirschner, S. Buckingham-Shum, & C. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 97–114). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Van Gelder, T. J. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. van Gelder, T. J. (2007). The rationale for Rationale™. Law, Probability & Risk, 6, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. van Gelder, T. J., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Enhancing expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Waters, A. (2006). Thinking and language learning. ELT Journal, 60(4), 319–327. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccl022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wu, S. M. (2006). Creating a rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization students’ argumentation. RELC Journal, 37(3), 329–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maryam Eftekhari
    • 1
  • Elaheh Sotoudehnama
    • 1
  • S. Susan Marandi
    • 1
  1. 1.English Language DepartmentAlzahra UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations