Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Argument Mapping Software: Semiotic Foundations

  • Michael H.G. Hoffmann
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_27-1



The abilities to argue, to evaluate the quality of argumentative reasoning, and to structure reasoning by means of arguments, all these argument-related skills are crucial not only for the scientific mind but for everybody who strives for a self-determined life without external manipulation, for competent decision making about important matters of life, for self-confident interaction with others, and for participation in public deliberation. Reacting to the need to teach the skills of argument, researchers in the areas of education, philosophy, and computer science developed over the last decades a large number of software tools known as “argument mapping software” or “computer-supported argument visualization” (CSAV) tools.

Based on the fact that any argument needs to be represented in one way or another,...


Argument Scheme Convincing Argument Graphical Element Wicked Problem Representational System 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Andriessen, J. E. B., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2011). Cognitive conditions of diagrammatic reasoning. Semiotica, 186(1/4), 189–212.Google Scholar
  3. Hoffmann, M. H. G., & Roth, W.-M. (2010). Four functions of signs in learning and interdisciplinary collaboration. In I. Semetsky (Ed.), Semiotics education experience (pp. 131–150). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Peirce. (CP). (1931–1958) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Semetsky, I. (2013). The edusemiotics of images: Essays on the art ~ science of Tarot. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Stjernfelt, F. (2007). Diagrammatology: An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology, and semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA