Argument Mapping in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Given the emphasis on critical thinking across the undergraduate curricula, research on argument visualisation has significant implications for designing learning activities in higher education. This systematic review examines research on the use of argument maps or diagrams by postsecondary students. The goals were to identify the themes, research questions, and results of systematically identified studies, and to assess the current prospects for meta‐analyses. Relevant databases were searched for qualitative, observational and experimental studies. We coded 124 studies on research design, mapping software, student attitudes, collaborative mapping and thinking skills. There were 102 empirical studies, of which 44% assessed student attitudes toward argument mapping, 40% investigated collaborative argument mapping and 51% examined the quality or structure of student‐constructed argument maps. The causal relationship most frequently investigated was the effect of argument mapping on critical thinking skills. We present the results from selected studies and consider their significance for learning design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it