Byrd, N. (2025, July). Map My Words—Using Waitlist Controlled Trials To Test Whether Argument Mapping Improves Individuals’ Persuasive Writing or Critical Thinking. Experimental Argument Analysis, University of East Anglia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390977878 Abstract. Argument mapping is the practice of diagraming the logical relationships between each proposition in an argument, including objections and counter-objections. Some studies find that courses that teach students how to map arguments exhibit better critical thinking and persuasive writing than students in other courses. These promising results are sometimes from surveyors of argument mapping goods and services, and they garner plenty of attention in fields that champion careful thinking and communication. However, the total evidence is mixed, null results are often never published, and many promising studies have not controlled for known confounds. Two waitlist control trials (N = 83) attempted to address these issues; they detected no benefits of argument map training within or between groups (p > 0.13). Rather, variance in outcomes was explained by enrollment in the instructor’s other courses, prior academic achievement, and — most robustly — engagement in flipped classroom activities. These findings raise questions about whether benefits previously attributed to argument mapping in less controlled studies were caused by other factors that were already known to produce such benefits. Implications for pedagogy, course assessment, and the science of learning are discussed.
🧠🏔️ Below I'll share mine and others' presentations from the Society for Judgment and Decision Making conference in #Denver.
Did you attend a session I missed?
Did I fail to tag a presenter?
Feel free to add to the thread!
Long live #openAccess conferencing.
#SJDM #SJDM25 @sjdm-tweets.bsky.social
