Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 75, Issue 16, pp 9973–9990 | Cite as

Effects of a computer-assisted argument map learning strategy on sixth-grade students’ argumentative essay reading comprehension

  • Kuang-Hung Chiang
  • Cheng-Yu Fan
  • Hsiao-Hung Liu
  • Gwo-Dong ChenEmail author


Numerous studies have proved that graphic strategies, such as graphic organization and concept mapping, can facilitate improving reading comprehension. However, the question as to what graphic strategies can improve argumentative essay reading comprehension ability is not yet resolved. To determine whether graphic strategies can improve students’ reading comprehension ability, we designed a computer-aided argumentative essay reading system that can construct graphic strategies. In the designed system, three approaches, namely a traditional teaching approach without graphic strategies, concept mapping, and argument mapping, are created for determining the effects of graphic strategies on students’ argumentative essay reading comprehension ability. In addition, the proposed argument mapping system provides a function for helping students identify three key argumentative essay elements, namely claims, reasons, and evidence, to enable them to construct an argument map with no burden. The designed system can help students learn how to read argumentative essays easily, improving their reading comprehension ability. The experimental results from 373 sixth graders showed that the argument mapping method enhanced students’ argumentative essay reading comprehension ability compared with traditional and concept mapping approaches. Statistical results revealed that between-group differences were statistically significant (p value between the experimental and Control Group 1 was 0.001 and that between the experimental and Control Group 2 was 0.013).


Argument mapping Graphic organization Reading comprehension Argumentative essay 



This project was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under contract numbers MOST103-2511-S-008-002.


  1. 1.
    Aidman EV, Egan G (1998) Academic assessment through computerized concept mapping: validating a method of implicit map reconstruction. Int J Instr Media 25(3):277–94Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akhondi M, Malayeri FA, Samad AA (2011) How to teach expository text structure to facilitate reading comprehension. Read Teach 64(5):368–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Almasi JF, Fullerton SK (2012) Teaching strategic processes in reading. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blunt JR, Karpicke JD (2014) Learning with retrieval-based concept mapping. J Educ Psychol 106(3):849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braund M et al (2013) First steps in teaching argumentation: a South African study. Int J Educ Dev 33(2):175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Britt MA, Larson AA (2003) Constructing representations of arguments. J Mem Lang 48(4):794–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Butchart S et al. (2009) Improving critical thinking using web based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. Australas J Educ Technol 25(2)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buzan T, Buzan B (2000) The concept map book. BBC Worldwide Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chambliss MJ (1995) Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Read Res Q 778–807Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chambliss MJ, Murphy PK (2002) Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument structure in written texts. Discourse Process 34(1):91–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davies M (2011) Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? Higher Educ 62(3):279–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeLauder H, Lin M (2012) Improving reading comprehension through the use of graphic organizing websites. Soc Inf Technol Teach Educ Int Conf 2012(1)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dwyer CP, Hogan MJ, 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. Think Skills Creat 5(1):16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dyer PA (1985) A study of computer assisted reading the effects of pre-reading mapping on comprehension and transfer of learning. Diss Abstr Int 46(9):26–41Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Felton MK, Herko S (2004) From dialogue to two-sided argument: scaffolding adolescents’ persuasive writing. J Adolesc Adult Lit 672–683Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gifford M (2014) The effects of technology-based graphic organizers to teach reading comprehension skills of students with learning disabilities. Diss. Rowan UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldman SR, Graesser AC, Van Den Broek P (ed.) (1999) Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: essays in honor of Tom Trabasso. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Griffin CC, Simmons DC, Kameenui EJ (1991) Investigating the effectiveness of graphic organizer instruction on the comprehension and recall of science content by students with learning disabilities. Read Writ Learn Disabil 7(4):355–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grogan MS (2014) Reading, argumentation, and writing: collaboration and development of a reading comprehension intervention for struggling adolescents. University of Arkansas at Little RockGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guri-Rozenblit S (1989) Effects of a tree diagram on students’ comprehension of main ideas in an expository text with multiple themes. Read Res Q 236–247Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hogan M, Owen H, Benjamin B (2014) Integrating argument mapping with systems thinking tools: advancing applied systems science. In: Knowledge cartography. Springer, London, pp 401–421Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hsu C-K, Hwang G-J, Chang C-K (2013) A personalized recommendation-based mobile learning approach to improving the reading performance of EFL students. Comput Educ 63:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hwang G-J et al (2014) Effects of an integrated concept mapping and web-based problem-solving approach on students’ learning achievements, perceptions and cognitive loads. Comput Educ 71:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kalhor M, Shakibaei G (2012) Teaching reading comprehension through concept map. Life Sci J 9(4):725–731Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karpicke JD, Blunt JR (2011) Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science 331(6018):772–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khajavi Y, Saeed K (2012) Influencing EFL learners’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy beliefs: the effect of concept mapping strategyGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kiili C (2013) Argument graph as a tool for promoting collaborative online reading. J Comput Assist Learn 29(3):248–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kintsch W, Van Dijk TA (1978) Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychol Rev 85(5):363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kunsch DW, Schnarr K, van Tyle R (2014) The use of argument mapping to enhance critical thinking skills in business education. J Educ Bus 89(8):403–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larson M, Britt MA, Larson AA (2004) Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Read Psychol 25(3):205–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li L-Y (2015) Development and evaluation of a web-based e-book with a concept mapping system. J Comput Educ 2(2):211–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lin S-S, Mintzes JJ (2010) Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: the effect of ability level. Int J Sci Math Educ 8(6):993–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liu P-L, Chen C-J, Chang Y-J (2010) Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Comput Educ 54(2):436–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liu C-C et al (2011) An enhanced concept map approach to improving children’s storytelling ability. Comput Educ 56(3):873–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lorch RF Jr, Lorch EP (1996) Effects of organizational signals on free recall of expository text. J Educ Psychol 88(1):38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mayer RE (1996) Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: the SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educ Psychol Rev 8(4):357–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Merkley DM, Jefferies D (2000) Guidelines for implementing a graphic organizer. Read Teach 350–357Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Munneke L, Van Amelsvoort M, Andriessen J (2003) The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. Int J Educ Res 39(1):113–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Newell GE et al (2011) Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: a review of research. Read Res Q 46(3):273–304Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Northup S, Wilson D (2013) Twelve years a slave. In: Eakin SL, Logsdon J (Eds.) Penguin booksGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nussbaum EM, Schraw G (2007) Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. J Exp Educ 76(1):59–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Okada A, Shum SB (2008) Evidence-based dialogue maps as a research tool to investigate the quality of school pupils’ scientific argumentation. Int J Res Method Educ 31(3):291–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Okada A, Shum SB, Sherborne T (eds) (2014) Knowledge cartography: software tools and mapping techniques. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Redford JS et al (2012) Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learn Instr 22(4):262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Reed C, Walton D, Macagno F (2007) Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. Knowl Eng Rev 22(01):87–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ruddell RB, Boylen OF (1989) A study of cognitive mapping as a means to improve summarization and comprehension of expository text. Lit Res Instr 29(1):12–22Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shum SB (2003) The roots of computer supported argument visualization. In: Visualizing argumentation. Springer, London, pp 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Soleimani H, Nabizadeh F (2012) The effect of learner constructed, fill in the map concept Map technique, and summarizing strategy on Iranian pre-university students’ reading comprehension. Engl Lang Teach 5(9):p78Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Toulmin SE (2003) The uses of argument. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Van Amelsvoort M, Andriessen J, Kanselaar G (2008) How students structure and relate argumentative knowledge when learning together with diagrams. Comput Hum Behav 24(3):1293–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Van Drie J et al (2005) Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Comput Hum Behav 21(4):575–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Van Gelder T (2002) Argument mapping with reason!able. Am Philos Assoc Newsl Philos Comput 2(1):85–90Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Van Gelder T (2007) The rationale for rationale™. Law Probab Risk 6(1–4):23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zumbach J (2009) The role of graphical and text based argumentation tools in hypermedia learning. Comput Hum Behav 25(4):811–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kuang-Hung Chiang
    • 1
  • Cheng-Yu Fan
    • 1
  • Hsiao-Hung Liu
    • 2
  • Gwo-Dong Chen
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information EngineeringNational Central UniversityTaoyuanRepublic of China
  2. 2.Bihua Elementary SchoolNew Taipei CityRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations