Cognitive and Pedagogical Benefits of Argument Mapping: L.A.M.P. Guides the Way to Better Thinking

  • Yanna Rider
  • Neil Thomason
Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP)


Experimental evidence shows that in dedicated Critical Thinking courses “Lots of Argument Mapping Practice” (LAMP) using a software tool like Rationale considerably improves students’ critical thinking skills. We believe that teaching with LAMP has additional cognitive and pedagogical benefits, even outside dedicated Critical Thinking subjects. Students learn to better understand and critique arguments, improve in their reading and writing, become clearer in their thinking and, perhaps, even gain meta-cognitive skills that ultimately make them better learners. We discuss some of the evidence for these claims, explain how, as we believe, LAMP confers these benefits, and call for proper experimental and educational research.


Reading Comprehension Critical Thinking Metacognitive Skill Critical Thinking Skill Public Health Risk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We would like to thank Mark Daley, Steve Crowley, Olaf Ciolek, Tim van Gelder, the editors and anonymous reviewers for very helpful feedback.


  1. Alvarez, C (2007) “Does Philosophy Improve Reasoning Skills?”
  2. Ericsson, K.A. and Lehmann, A.C. (1996) Expert and exceptional performance: evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology. 47, 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P.J. and Hoffman R.R.(Eds.) (2006) The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Kahneman, D.; P. Slovic; and A. Tversky (Eds.) (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Kahneman, D (2013) Thinking, Fast and Slow Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  6. Kuhn, D. (1991) The Skills of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mazur, E. (1997) Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Popper, K. (1952) “Science: Conjectures and Refutations” reprinted in Popper (1962) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Harper.Google Scholar
  9. Schneider, S. L. and J. Shanteau (2003) Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Scriven, M. (1977) Reasoning. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Thomason, N.R. (1990) Making Student Groups Work: “To teach is to learn twice”. Teaching Philosophy. 13:2, 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Twardy, C. (2004) Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking. Teaching Philosophy. 27:2, 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. van Gelder, T. J., Bissett, M., and Cumming, G. (2004) Cultivating Expertise in Informal Reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology. 58, 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Van Heuveln, B. (2004) Reason!Able, an Argument Diagramming Software Package. Teaching Philosophy. 27: 2, 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Whately, R. (1836) Elements of Logic, New York, Jackson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yanna Rider ConsultingMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Historical and Philosophical StudiesUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations