http://www.amap.org.uk/
The basics
aMap is a quick and easy place for students to work on logic. As the site says, “aMaps are based around the same structure as “informal logic” – this is the logic people use to argue in everyday life. Informal logic has a four-tiered structure:
- Your position (I think . . .) – what you think overall
- Propositions (Because . . .) – reasons that support your position
- Arguments (As . . .) – supporting arguments that back up each of your propositions
- Evidence (Supported by . . .) – supporting evidence to back up your arguments”
The application works easily and leads users through the process of creating an argument. AMaps are shareable (with some difficulty) and there is a rudimentary discussion opportunity as well, linked to the map. Maps are exportable (via embedding in another website).
The start screen once you being to create an argument map
What is intriguing
Argument, meaning the use of logic to structure thoughts and ideas especially prior to then expressing them, is perhaps the most fundamental general skill that students need to learn. Often called critical thinking, the ability to argue is usually developed slowly, with many missteps and is very hard to ‘teach’, even with students willing to learn. AMap is intriguing because, in a structured but inviting way, it prompts users to think in this ‘logical’ manner. Probably the key difficulty in learning to think critically is to be conscious of what one is doing by linking together a conclusion with the premises that support it. AMap makes this process visible.
The Amap website also allows people to comment on and respond to the argument: this is also a valuable because discussion OF arguments usually enables the creator to refine them and, in the process, see mistakes they had made the first time around.
Pedagogic Challenge
Using AMap in teaching would probably not work if all one did is to create the map. AMap is also not going to work specifically to teach critical thinking (in for example a skills or process-oriented unit of study). However, one challenge would be to integrate the use of AMap into another assignment or task as the first step. For example, students who are about to write an essay that requires an argument to be created as the basis for that essay, could be first sent to Amap to develop the logical bones of their essay plan. These maps could them be used as the focal point for discussion, thereby integrating the use of the tool in a more realistic and authentic learning exercise.
Why this tool is not ‘top 10′
There are some limitations. Not every logician will agree with the fixed structure and format which, it must be said, does not necessarily fit with the complex arguments that are needed in much academic work. The resulting maps are a little cartoonish – they would probably work well with school-age children, but perhaps less so with adult learners. While the maps are public at the original site, for best results (for example, having a discussion about a particular argument map), the map would need to be embedded within another website, such as a blog.
An example, however, is embedded here:
Alternatives
There are no real alternatives to this application. One possible tools is Solvr, but it is more of an informal, try it out tool, with limited functionality. Cohere, from the Open University, is a far more comprehensive tool – so complex however that it would take weeks to learn to use effectively. Cohere is also designed more to use logic to enable the organisation of data and resources rather than to simply prototype an argument.
