Improving First-Year Writing Using Argument Diagramming

Improving First-Year Writing Using Argument Diagramming Maralee Harrell (mharrell@andrew.cmu.edu) Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Philosophy, 5000 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA Danielle Wetzel (dfz@andrew.cmu.edu) Carnegie Mellon University, Department of English, 5000 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA Abstract There is substantial evidence from many domains that visual representations aid various forms of cognition. We aimed to determine whether learning to construct visual representations of argument structure enhanced the acquisition and development of argumentative writing skills within the context of first-year college writing course. We found a significant effect of the use of argument diagrams, and this effect was stable even when multiple plausible correlates were controlled for. These results suggest that natural⎯and relatively minor⎯modifications to standard first-year composition courses could provide substantial increases in student writing ability. Keywords: argument diagramming; argument mapping; writing; critical thinking; graphic organizers. Introduction The purpose of the First-Year Writing (FW) Program at Carnegie Mellon University is to develop the academic reading and writing skills each student needs to be successful in his or her college career. Each student at CMU must take the course Interpretation and Argument, which is the core of this writing program. Thus, though not titled ‘Critical Thinking,’ the FW course taken during the first year is generally one of the student’s first introductions to thinking critically at a college level. Among other goals, the specific learning objectives for the FW Program is for students to be able to: (a) analyze a written argument by identifying the conclusion and the premises (both implicit and explicit) and describe how the premises support the conclusion, (b) evaluate a written argument by determining whether the premises do in fact support the conclusion, and whether the premises are reasonable, and (c) write an essay that both analyzes and evaluates one or more arguments. The over-arching goal for the FW course is to provide foundational reading and writing skills that will enable students to develop advanced literacy in their own disciplines. Most educators agree that one aspect of “critical thinking” involves the ability to reconstruct, understand and evaluate an argument—cognitive tasks we may describe as ‘argument analysis’ (see, e.g., Ennis, 1987; Fisher & Scriven, 1997; Kuhn, 1991). In college, the most common medium through which arguments are analyzed is writing. Interpretation and Argument is a research-based course that understands that reading and writing are inseparable practices for college-level course work. In the course, students are exposed to a variety of different texts (mostly academic essays) so they can explore a single issue from multiple perspectives and eventually contribute an argument of their own to the discussion. Both the exploration and the contribution rely heavily on argument analysis at various stages. The first step in this analysis is reading a text for the argument, as opposed to, for example, reading for the plot (as in a novel) or for the facts (as in a textbook). Mandler (1984) provides an overview of research supporting the claim that adults and children as young as 3-years-old possess “story schemata” that guide understanding when reading or listening to a story. Thus, learning the skill of reading for the argument requires students to develop a new schema, or set of schemata, with which they can interpret the text appropriately. Schema theory, first introduced by Bartlett (1932, 1958) and further developed by Evans (1967), Mandler (1984) and Rumelhart and Ortony (1977), explains cognition as information processing mediated by schemata. A schema is a packet of knowledge containing both data and information about the interconnections among the data. Rumelhart (1980) refers to schemata as the representations of concepts stored in memory, and Sweller (1994) describes schemata as representations of either concepts or problem-solution procedures. To facilitate the acquisition of new schemas, Sweller (1994) recommends reducing the extraneous cognitive load during the learning process. One common way of reducing extraneous cognitive load is by using graphic organizers (GOs), such as diagrams, to supplement regular reading and instruction. Previous research has shown that students’ use of GOs is generally efficacious in producing improvements on a wide range of cognitive tasks — including those generally labelled CT tasks — that are significantly higher than improvements gained by students engaged in reading and regular instruction alone (Horton, et al., 1993; Moore & Readance, 1984). Thus, we are particularly interested in the efficacy of alternative teaching methods that incorporate GOs to increase argumentative writing performance. In what might these alternative methods consist? Both Larkin and Simon (1987) and Winn (1991) argue that diagrammatic representations of information can make recognition of important features and drawing inferences