Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Argument mapping as a pre-writing activity: Does it promote writing skills of EFL learners?

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Argumentation is a complex intellectual skill essential for academic achievement in a range of scholarly disciplines. Argumentative writing demands effective coordination of language use, reasoning processes, and background knowledge about a given topic. It is a cognitively challenging activity, especially for students learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL). The Dialectical Map (DMap) is an open-source argument visualization tool that scaffolds argument analysis, evaluation, and construction. A quasi-experiment was conducted with 190 undergraduate EFL students to investigate the pedagogical value of DMapping as a pre-writing activity. The research also explored the effect of DMapping on student motivation in learning argumentation. We found the DMap functioned as an effective pre-writing tool for argumentative writing and promoted transfer of argumentation skills. DMapping facilitated more balanced arguments, and students reported positive experiences and attitudes toward learning argumentation with the DMap. This paper concludes with implications and future research directions for using the DMap as a cognitive tool to foster meaningful learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets and materials used in the present study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Notes

  1. In this paper, the terms con argument and counterargument are used interchangeably.

  2. 2 This informed the selection of words to be included in the vocabulary test.

References

  • Abdelaal, M., Schiele, N. D., Angerbauer, K., Kurzhals, K., Sedlmair, M., & Weiskopf, D. (2022). Comparative evaluation of bipartite, node-link, and matrix-based network representations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1), 896–906.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2013). Animated and static concept maps enhance learning from spoken narration. Learning and Instruction, 27, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Shaer, I. M. (2014). Employing concept mapping as a pre-writing strategy to help EFL learners better generate argumentative compositions. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S. Y., Reznitskaya, A., Tillmanns, M., & Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R. (2015). Critical thinking and/or argumentation in higher education. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 49–62). Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Bacha, N. N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beardsley, M. C. (1950). Practical logic. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binks, A., Toniolo, A., & Nacenta, M. A. (2022). Representational transformations: Using maps to write essays. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 165(102851), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovair, S., & Kieras, D. E. (1985). A guide to propositional analysis for research on technical prose. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 315–362). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burch, M., Huang, W., Wakefield, M., Purchase, H. C., Weiskopf, D., & Hua, J. (2020). The state of the art in empirical user evaluation of graph visualizations. IEEE Access, 9, 4173–4198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., ... & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777–1832.

  • Chiang, K. H., Fan, C. Y., Liu, H. H., & Chen, G. D. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted argument map learning strategy on sixth-grade students’ argumentative essay reading comprehension. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75(16), 9973–9990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M., Barnett, A., & van Gelder, T. (2021). Using computer-assisted argument mapping to teach reasoning to students. In J. Anthony Blair (Ed.), Studies in critical thinking (pp. 115–152), Windsor Studies in Argumentation (2021), Windsor, ON.

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E. (2003). Transfer as the productive use of acquired knowledge, skills, and motivations. Current Firections in Psychological Science, 12(4), 142–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Y., & Wang, H. (2017). Research on evaluation of Chinese students’ competence in written scientific argumentation in the context of chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 127–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Q. Y., Nesbit, J. C., Liu, Q., Sharp, J., Cukierman, D., Shahabi, B., Teng, K., Pakdaman Savoji, A., Ilten-Gee, R., & Flores, O. (2021). Assessing Student Attitudes Toward an Argument Visualization Tool [Paper presentation]. The 4th International Conference on Teaching, Learning and Education (ICTLE), Zurich, Switzerland.

  • Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7(3), 219–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2013). An examination of the effects of argument mapping on students’ memory and comprehension performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Majidi, A., Janssen, D., & de Graaff, R. (2021). The effects of in-class debates on argumentation skills in second language education. System, 101(102576), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleckenstein, J., Meyer, J., Jansen, T., Keller, S., & Köller, O. (2020). Is a long essay always a good essay? The effect of text length on writing assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 562462. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.562462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia Romano, L., Occelli, M., & Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2021). School scientific argumentation enriched by digital technologies: Results with pre-and in-service science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(7), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghanbari, N., & Salari, M. (2022). Problematizing argumentative writing in an Iranian EFL undergraduate context. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(862400), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 10–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, C. W. (1998). Improving students’ writing strategies: Knowing versus doing. College Teaching, 46(2), 48–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hege, I., Kononowicz, A. A., & Adler, M. (2017). A clinical reasoning tool for virtual patients: Design-based research study. JMIR Medical Education, 3(2), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heitmann, P., Hecht, M., Schwanewedel, J., & Schipolowski, S. (2014). Students’ argumentative writing skills in science and first-language education: Commonalities and differences. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 3148–3170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (2000). Dialogue as data: Assessing students’ scientific reasoning with interactive protocols. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 95–127). Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, W. (2007). Using eye tracking to investigate graph layout effects. In 2007 6th International Asia-Pacific Symposium on Visualization (pp. 97–100). IEEE.

  • Iordanou, K., & Rapanta, C. (2021). “Argue with me”: A method for developing argument skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(631203), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3–27). Springer.

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1001–1015). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, C. W. (2021). Exploring general versus academic English proficiency as predictors of adolescent EFL essay writing. Written Communication, 38(2), 208–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SAGE. ISBN 9781412954563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communication and technology (pp. 693–719). Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jumariati, J., Febriyanti, E., & Rizki, M. (2021). Argumentation skills: An analysis on EFL students’ essays based on Toulmin’s Model of Argument. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education, Language, Literature, and Arts, 86–95.

  • Khartabil, D., Collins, C., Wells, S., Bach, B., & Kennedy, J. (2021). Design and evaluation of visualization techniques to facilitate argument exploration. Computer Graphics Forum, 40(6), 447–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261–288). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, M., & Liao, Y. (2022). Improving Chinese college students’ argumentative writing: A presentation-assimilation-discussion-exercise approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 874531. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.874531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Q. (2020). Retrieval-based argument mapping promotes learning transfer (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.

  • Luo, X., Wei, B., Shi, M., & Xiao, X. (2020). Exploring the impact of the reasoning flow scaffold (RFS) on students’ scientific argumentation: Based on the structure of observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(4), 1083–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mejía, K. P. G., & Neve, L. J. A. (2018). The problem of argumentation teaching in Mexican schools (El problema de la enseñanza de la argumentación en la escuela Mexicana). Pensamiento Educativo, Revista De Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 55(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S., & Riddle, M. (2000). Improving the quality of argument in higher education: Final report. School of Lifelong Learning and Education, Middlesex University.

  • Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (U.S.). (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesbit, J., Niu, H., & Liu, Q. (2019). Cognitive tools for scaffolding argumentation: Maximizing student engagement, motivation, and learning. In O. Adesope & A. Rud (Eds.), Contemporary technologies in education (pp. 97–117). Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Ngajie, B. N., Li, Y., Tiruneh, D. T., & Cheng, M. (2020). Investigating the effects of a systematic and model-based design of computer-supported argument visualization on critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38(100742), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niu, H. (2016). Pedagogical efficacy of argument visualization tools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.

  • Noroozi, O. (2023). The role of students’ epistemic beliefs for their argumentation performance in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 60(4), 501–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 549–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1415–1443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osman, W. H., & Januin, J. (2021). Analysing ESL persuasive essay writing using Toulmin’s model of argument. Psychology and Education, 58(1), 1810–1821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford University Press. (2001). Quick placement test. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakdaman-Savoji, A., Nesbit, J. C., & Gajdamaschko, N. (2019). The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and technology: A review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(2), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pei, Z., Zheng, C., Zhang, M., & Liu, F. (2017). Critical thinking and argumentative writing: Inspecting the association among EFL learners in China. English Language Teaching, 10(10), 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. In C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 319–334). The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1976). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: three modes of learning. University of California.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. (2014). Introduction: The New Science of Learning. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 1–18). Cambridge University Press.

  • Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapleton, P. (2011). A survey of attitudes towards critical thinking among Hong Kong secondary school teachers: Implications for policy change. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B., Fidell, L., & Ullman, J. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, C. (2020). Conceptions and practices of critical thinking in Chinese schools: An example from Shanghai. Educational Studies, 56(4), 331–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. N. (1973). Practical reasoning in natural language. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Braak, S. W., Oostendorp, H. V., Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. A. (2008). A critical review of argument visualization tools: Do users become better reasoners?. In Workshop notes of the ECAI-06 workshop on computational models of natural argument (pp. 67–75).

  • van Gelder, T. (2007). The rationale for Rationale™. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1–4), 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T. (2015). Using argument mapping to improve critical thinking skills. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 183–192). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (2015). The skill of identifying argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp. 733–741). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (2013). Methods of argumentation. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Buck, G. (2015). The relationship between Chinese students’ subject matter knowledge and argumentation pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 340–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westrick, P. A. (2005). Score reliability and placement testing. Japan Association for Language Teaching, 27(1), 71–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whately, R. (1834/1826). Elements of Logic: Comprising the Substance of the Article in the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana. B. Fellowes.

  • Wigmore, J. (1913). The problem of proof. Illinois Law Review, 8(2), 77–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore, J. (1937). Science of judicial proof, as given by logic, psychology, and general experience and illustrated in judicial trials. Little, Brown and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26(2), 183–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Q., & So, W. (2012). Understanding and practice of argumentation: A pilot study with Mainland Chinese pre-service teachers in secondary science classrooms. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamamoto, T., & Kamiyama, S. (2018). Teacher beliefs about argumentation in Japanese in-service teachers. In O. Finlayson, E. McLoughlin, S. Erduran, & P. Childs (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference: Research, Practice and Collaboration in Science Education (pp. 952–959). Dublin City University.

  • Yamamoto, T., Yamaguchi, E., Muratsu, K., Nakashin, S., & Inagaki, S. (2014). Evaluation of Japanese pre-service teachers’ arguments on global warming. In C. P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris, & A. Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.), E-book proceedings of the ESERA 2013 conference (pp. 2284–2289). ESERA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoghourdjian, V., Yang, Y., Dwyer, T., Lawrence, L., Wybrow, M., & Marriott, K. (2021). Scalability of network visualisation from a cognitive load perspective. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2), 1677–1687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, G., Zhao, R., Li, X., Duan, Y., & Long, T. (2023). Are preservice science teachers (PSTs) prepared for teaching argumentation? Evidence from a university teacher preparation program in China. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(1), 170–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the following persons for their invaluable assistance: Arati Santhanakrishnan, Lu Zhou, Yaling Zhu, Jikun Qian, Yanling Zhong, Zhiling Wu, Xiaohong Chen, Yating Li, Wenjue Yu, and Han Liu.

Funding

This research was funded by the Educational Bureau of Guangdong Province, PRC (2019GXJK162).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Dr, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada

    Qing Liu & John C. Nesbit

  2. South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, China

    Zhiying Zhong

Authors
  1. Qing Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhiying Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John C. Nesbit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

• The first author (Qing Liu) conducted the research design, created the research materials and instruments, assisted in data collection, analyzed the research data, and drafted the manuscript.

• The second author (Zhiying Zhong) provided suggestions on research design, conducted data collection, and assisted in data analysis.

• The third author (John C. Nesbit) provided suggestions on research design and data analysis and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qing Liu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

None.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Q., Zhong, Z. & Nesbit, J.C. Argument mapping as a pre-writing activity: Does it promote writing skills of EFL learners?. Educ Inf Technol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12098-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12098-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation