The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool: Comparing the effects of map reading versus text reading on comprehension and recall of arguments

Abstract

The current study compared the effects on comprehension and memory of learning via text versus learning via argument map. Argument mapping is a method of diagrammatic representation of arguments designed to simplify the reading of an argument structure and allow for easy assimilation of core propositions and relations. In the current study, 400 undergraduate volunteers were presented with a colour map, black-and-white map, or text version of a large (50 bit) or small (30 bit) argument that centred on the question: can computers think? Argument comprehension and memory was tested immediately after a 10 min study period. Results indicated that participants who studied the argument maps scored higher than those who studied text, on tests of memory, though not comprehension, and that participants had more difficulty assimilating the large (50 bit) argument in the time allotted. Results are discussed in light of research and theory on human learning and memory.