Modeling the Reasoning Processes in Experts and Novices' Argument Diagramming Task

A variety of software tools and guidelines have been developed to help students diagram, analyze, and better understand complex arguments. However, little or no empirical evidence exists to validate whether the processes embedded within existing tools and guidelines are processes that produce better argument diagrams. As a result, the purpose of this study was to determine: 1) the mapping and reasoning processes used by experts and novices to analyze complex arguments; 2) how the processes performed by experts versus novices differ; and 3) based on the observed differences, identify the processes that facilitate and hinder more accurate argument analysis. The verbal reasoning and argument-diagramming processes of four experts in argumentation and five novices across four different graduate programs were recorded on video as they constructed their argument maps using a diagramming software application called jMAP and as they verbalized their thought processes in a think-aloud protocol/interview. Sequential analysis was used to identify and differentiate the sequences of mapping actions used by experts versus novices and the sequences of mapping actions that were used to produce the highest versus lowest quality argument diagrams. The findings from this indicated that the experts' processes for positioning, linking, and reviewing nodes produced more accurate maps than the processes used by novices. Based on these findings, I discussed several possible interpretations of the four experts' reasoning processes in the context of argument diagramming tasks and in the context of more global reasoning processes identified from a qualitative analysis of the video recordings and verbal protocols. Lastly, I presented several educational implications with regard to using the experts' processes as a model for scaffolding and helping students better analyze and evaluate complex arguments and for designing diagramming software.