Students rated the seminar highly and many reported transferring argument visualization to other coursework¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students strongly agreed the seminar improved their ability to construct and evaluate written arguments (4.9/5) and to read academic articles (4.9/5), and many reported using argument visualization outside the seminar. → Simon Cullen 2018

Evidence¶

Simon Cullen 2018¶

Simon Cullen, Judith Fan, Eva van der Brugge and Adam Elga (2018). Improving analytical reasoning and argument understanding: a quasi-experimental field study of argument visualization. npj Science of Learning 3:21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0038-5

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Self-report from anonymous end-of-semester surveys across seminar iterations, which also reported an overall course rating of 4.9/5 and a fourfold increase in philosophy-major intention in the seminar group.

"Students strongly agreed that the seminar improved their ability to construct and evaluate written arguments (4.9/5, SD = 0.36), to read and understand academic articles (4.9/5, SD = 0.36), and that their new skills would help them in other coursework (4.2/5, SD = 0.75)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Blind-scored essays from seminar students were more accurate, better structured, and showed better understanding than control students' essays (d = 0.87) — related
• Seminar students improved more on LSAT Logical Reasoning than control students (d = 0.71, 95% CI (0.37, 1.04), p < 0.001) — related
• Each essay rubric dimension separately favored seminar students: structure d = 0.76, accuracy d = 0.74, understanding d = 0.97 — related