I’ve recently begun experimenting with diagramming arguments in my classes–and not my Critical Thinking/Informal Logic classes, but the other more traditional philosophy classes that I teach. I’ve tried using a few different programs to set my diagrams up (Araucaria, Carneades) but so far what works best are color-coded, free-hand “VanGelder-style” diagrams done on a transparency and projected via a document camera. (I’d love to have ReasonAble, but so far I can’t seem to talk anyone into getting it into the budget for me.)
What I’ve found is that diagramming arguments actually seems to work better than setting the arguments out in classical standard form (i.e. premises numbered sequentially with a line under the last premise as in an arithmetic problem, followed by the conclusion, etc.). When I diagram the argument students seem to get a clearer idea of the argumentation in the text, and a better appreciation for the overall structure of the article or chapter. I haven’t been doing it long enough to back it up with trends in test scores or anything like that, but the students tell me it really helps them get a grip on what’s going on in the text. I’ve yet to hear anyone tell me that it confuses them even more.
Is anyone else using argument diagramming/mapping in this way outside of classes where a primary aim is to teach argumentation? If so, how are you doing it and how is it working for you?
RAIL 
Any chance you can post a picture of a sample diagrammed argument? (It would be especially helpful, too, if you could post the text you’ve diagrammed.)
Very interesting topic, and I’d sure appreciate learning more from you!
Sure. I’d love to have the feedback, actually. Just give me a few days to get my graphical act together and I’ll see if I can’t post them as a comment here.
Pictures would be nice. Thanks.
Okay! The attached image (sorry for the poor quality!) is of a diagram for both the pro and contra sides of a hypothetical case concerning a ban on smoking. The text on which the diagram is based is partially drawn from John Christman’s introduction to political philosophy, and partially from class discussion.
Basically, the procedure I used was to diagram the argument in the book prior to class, then project it on a SMART board. We then used it as a focus for discussion. The students helped flesh the diagram out by coming up with their own reasons, asking questions, and so forth.
Personally, I felt the method to be very successful in terms of generating a quality discussion not just of the hypothetical smoking ban, but of the larger issues of paternalism, public safety and individual freedom that the case was supposed to bring into focus. I had taught from this book twice before, using this hypothetical case each time, but without diagramming it like this. I found this past time to be the best experience yet with this text.
Though I haven’t seen the formal feedback from the class yet, the students informally reported that having things laid out in this way helped them see both sides of the issue much more clearly than they would have had I simply given them arguments in “standard form” (i.e. in text with numbered premises and conclusions). I did use that method for other hypothetical cases in the book prior to doing this one with diagramming, so the students who commented did experience both.
This is just a comment to let those of you who may be following this one by RSS that I’ve added the above comment in response to requests for an image and more explanation about how I use argument diagramming in class.