A Digital Tool for Argument Standardisation
Authors: Tracy James , Duke-Yonge Jennifer , Corbin Thomas A. , Rampe Michael , Gillett Alexander , Reeves Peter 
Published: November 2024

In PHIL1037: Critical Thinking, a first-year compulsory unit in the Bachelor of Arts at Macquarie University, mastering the structure and evaluation of arguments is an essential learning outcome. The process through which students learn to do this is argument standardisation.
The need for a tool arose from challenges in traditional critical thinking instruction, where the explicit and systematic representation of arguments is often overlooked. Dwyer et al. (2002) describe argument mapping as a visual representation of text-based arguments using a ‘box-and-arrow’ style flow-chart. Their research suggested that argument mapping can reduced cognitive load and facilitate both learning and cultivation of critical thinking skills. To address these challenges, we developed a digital Argument Standardisation Tool, taking into account feedback from PHIL1037 students and instructors.
The tool is designed to help students identify and represent the premises and conclusions of arguments while disregarding non-essential elements. It provides a workspace for students to input statements, organise them into structured arguments, and label components such as conclusion, main premises, sub-premises, convergent, or linked. Key features include free text entry, labelling, logical ordering, sharing, saving and downloading of work for future use. This structured representation clarifies complex reasoning and supports critical analysis whilst ensuring an accessible and efficient process.
The theoretical foundation of our tool is supported by research on argument mapping and cognitive science. Studies by van Gelder (2005) and Dwyer, Hogan, & Stewart (2012) highlight the benefits of explicating argumentative relationships, which our tool achieves through visual and textual representation. Gelder's emphasis on systematic skill development and practical teaching strategies guided our design to incorporate structured and iterative practice sessions. Meanwhile, Dwyer et al.'s findings inspired us to integrate visual representation techniques to clarify the logical structure of arguments and promote iterative analysis.
Key stakeholders identified critical features for the tool: a general workspace for initial text input, a structured area for building arguments with appropriate labels, automatic logical ordering, and easy error correction. The tool also allows premises to be labelled as linked or convergent, ensuring an accurate representation of argumentative relationships.
The tool was launched in Session 1, 2024. Initial feedback (n=80, representing an 80% response rate from the course) indicated high satisfaction, with an average user-friendliness and effectiveness rating of 8/10. Ninety-two percent of respondents reported an enhanced learning experience, 82% found it facilitated collaboration with peers and staff, and 48% anticipated using the tool in future studies.
Initial implementation results are promising, indicating strong user engagement and effectiveness in enhancing critical thinking skills. The next phase will be informed by continued feedback from students and instructors, to refine the tool and explore its potential applications across other disciplines within the university.
The Argumentation Standardisation Tool is a major advancement in TEL, enhancing teaching and learning of argumentation. It supports critical thinking in PHIL1037 and offers a model for future TEL initiatives in higher education. Given the broad applicability of critical thinking skills, this tool could be adapted for various disciplines, where effective argument analysis is essential.