














































ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 2 (2024) 

  
 

87 
 

 

Notes from the Field 
Argument Mapping in Philosophical Dialogue with Young 

Thinkers 
 

 
Ediz Dikmelik   
 
 

hilosophy for/with Children (P4wC) is a pedagogical practice that aims to enhance 
thinking skills through group dialogue. One way it achieves this goal is by providing 
exposure to arguments. In a philosophical group dialogue, participants encounter, 

examine, or construct arguments. These arguments not only emerge spontaneously during discussions 
but are also integrated into specific activities, some of which draw from the history of philosophy. 
 

Given the importance of arguments in cultivating thinking skills, teaching how to effectively 
engage with them becomes essential, if not a prerequisite, for fruitful philosophical group dialogues. 
Traditional ways of teaching logic, however, can be abstract and daunting for young learners. One way 
to help students in this regard is to think about how we represent arguments. In spoken discourse, 
when someone presents an argument, there isn't much room for creativity; it unfolds as a series of 
sentences spoken consecutively. However, when arguments are committed to writing, numerous 
representation methods come into play. They may be organized within paragraphs or presented as a 
list of sentences, each occupying a separate line. Argument maps or diagrams provide an alternative 
method. By providing a visual way to represent arguments, they offer a valuable tool to enhance 
philosophical group dialogues in P4wC. 
 

This report comprises four parts detailing my use of argument maps in P4wC sessions. The first 
section explains what argument maps are and highlights their distinctions from other visualization 
tools. In the second part, I delve into the reasons why employing such a tool proves beneficial in 
P4wC. The third section outlines my experiences incorporating argument visualization in philosophy 
sessions. Finally, the fourth part shares some observations. 

 
What is an Argument Map? 

 
An argument map is a tree diagram that visually represents the content and logical structure of 

an argument. 
 

P 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 2 (2024) 

  
 

88 
 

 
Figure 1: A simple argument map representing an argument advanced by a student in class. The argument has a 
single premise at the bottom and the conclusion on top. 
 

To construct an argument map, each proposition of an argument is written in a separate box. 
The box containing the conclusion is placed at the top, with premises written in separate boxes 
positioned below the conclusion. If a premise supports a claim, it is placed directly beneath that claim. 
Connections between propositions, indicating support relationships, are represented by lines or 
arrows. The resulting diagram conveys both the argument's content, encompassing all propositions, 
and its structure through the inclusion of connections and spatial relationships.1 
 

It is crucial to distinguish argument maps from other visualization tools commonly used in 
educational settings, such as concept maps and mind maps. 

 
In a mind map, the primary goal is to illustrate how a central idea or term connects to other 

ideas. Mind maps radiate outward from a central idea, incorporating pictures, colors, and varied line 
thickness. Mind maps are best utilized spontaneously and prove useful for brainstorming sessions. 

 
A concept map is designed to enhance the understanding of a concept by explicitly depicting its 

connections to other concepts. Clarity is prioritized in a concept map, with named connections and 
the recommendation to use a focus question (e.g., "What is a volcano?"). This approach makes concept 
maps more structured and less spontaneous, aiding in the comprehension of a concept by showcasing 
its relationships with others. 

 
In contrast, argument maps serve a different purpose with distinct construction norms. They are 

employed for thinking and communicating about reasoning, adhering to specific norms. For instance, 
 
 

 
 
 

1 Different conventions exist for constructing argument maps. For instance, it is possible to build the map bottom-up, 
placing the conclusion at the bottom. However, the general principles remain consistent. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 2 (2024)
 
 

89

 
● Each box in an argument map should hold only one proposition. This ensures clarity when 

adding objections or premises, making their target explicit,
● Premises and objections should be differentiated using distinct line colors; for example, green 

for premises and red for objections. This enhances readability. 
● Hidden premises should be placed within a box featuring distinct formatting. This 

differentiation aids in distinguishing the stated argument from the mapped one. 
 

 
Figure 2: An argument map with objections, hidden premises, and co-premises. 
 
Why Use Argument Maps in P4wC? 
 

Philosophy inherently involves the analysis of arguments, and many P4wC sessions incorporate 
at least one argument. There are instances when an entire session revolves around the discussion of an 
argument, be it generated by a group member or drawn from the history of philosophy. Consequently, 
any method of representing an argument proves valuable and essential for P4wC practice. 

 
Typically, facilitators lean towards more conventional styles of communication, presenting 

arguments in prose format through written or spoken paragraphs, or adopting a numbered 
proposition approach akin to logic textbooks. However, argument maps introduce an alternative style 
with a distinct advantage: visual presentation. 

 
The visual nature of argument maps contributes to clarity and focus. Each proposition is neatly 

enclosed in a separate box, facilitating its isolation from the rest of the argument. This visual 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 2 (2024) 

  
 

90 
 

 
representation not only enhances clarity but also provides a clearer insight into the role each 
proposition plays in the overall reasoning process. 

 
Argument maps not only serve as a visual representation of reasoning but also illuminate two 

different aspects of argument evaluation: assessing the truth of premises and evaluating the validity of 
reasoning. This distinction becomes apparent during the process of working with argument maps. 
When examining an argument, if we find ourselves asking whether the contents of a box is true, we 
are engaged in evaluating the truth of the premises. Conversely, discussions about whether the boxes 
succeed in providing support for the ones above them entail an evaluation of the strength of the 
reasoning. While this distinction can be hard to grasp for beginning students, the practice of 
argument mapping effectively clarifies these distinctions. 

 
Additionally, another notable benefit of working with argument maps is the preliminary 

evidence suggesting that repeated practice leads to improved outcomes in thinking skills. This 
reinforces the pedagogical value of incorporating argument maps into educational practices for 
fostering critical thinking and analytical abilities (Cullen et al., 2018). 

 
How to Use Argument Maps in P4wC? 
 

The present project involved six participants, 10-11-year-old students in a homeschool setting. 
Over the span of a year, we conducted weekly sessions that evolved in structure over time. Initially, the 
focus was on philosophical group discussions held every week. After a few months of pure P4wC 
sessions, we transitioned to a format where philosophical dialogue alternated with dedicated sessions 
for learning argument mapping. The final months integrated both aspects. 

 
In the early stages of P4wC, our sessions centered around writing down emerging claims on a 

whiteboard during group discussions. We experimented with various methods to connect supporting 
claims and objections, showcasing the use and function of visual representation to help philosophical 
dialogue. Afterwards, I introduced the students to argument mapping. 

 
Our weekly schedule alternated between P4wC and dedicated argument mapping sessions. 

During each argument mapping teaching session, we explored specific aspects of arguments, learning 
how to visualize them through mini lectures. Practical exercises were incorporated to reinforce these 
concepts. After approximately six sessions, the students achieved proficiency in reading and 
constructing simple argument maps. Subsequently, we switched to doing P4wC sessions every week, 
but integrated the use of argument maps into our sessions, thereby enhancing the depth and clarity of 
our discussions. 

 
One effective application of argument maps in our sessions was to use them as stimuli to 

facilitate in-depth discussions about specific arguments. Following a suitable introduction, we would 
present an argument map on the board, providing a departure from the conventional approach of 
presenting arguments in a series of sentences. The advantage lies in the maps not only displaying the 
propositions involved but also showcasing the underlying structure of reasoning. This visual 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 2 (2024) 

  
 

91 
 

 
representation enabled us to explore arguments in ways previously unattainable. We could 
systematically assess the truth of each proposition and discuss the interconnections between different 
parts of the map, evaluating the support provided by one part to another. 

 

 
Figure 3: An argument map we used as a stimulus, illustrating an argument in the philosophy of sport. The note 
on the right provides additional information for context. It is not a part of the reasoning. 
 

Another valuable use of argument maps was in the construction of visual representations based 
on our session discussions. In this activity, each student independently created a map reflecting the 
question under consideration, incorporating their own contributions, the ideas of others, and even 
introducing entirely new premises. While more challenging than reading and examining a map, this 
activity proved mentally stimulating, especially when adhering to the rules of correct mapping. This 
involved rigorously checking whether each premise genuinely supported the proposition above it. 
Students especially enjoyed adding premises and objections to a map, with one student exclaiming, “I 
could go on forever!” 

 
 
 
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 2 (2024) 

  
 

92 
 

 
Comments about Using Argument Maps in P4wC 
 

The integration of argument mapping into a P4wC program was a valuable experiment. Several 
key points and observations can be highlighted. 

 
Firstly, for the facilitator, acquiring proficiency in using argument maps is crucial. This involves 

developing skills in reading argument maps, which can be achieved through a short-term study. 
Constructing maps is a more intricate skill, both when mapping one's own argument and someone 
else's. Another essential skill, which aligns with general logic and critical thinking, is the ability to 
evaluate a given map. The facilitator must be adept in all these skills to effectively teach and assist 
students in mapping situations. 

 
Secondly, teaching argument mapping to students is a process that requires time and effort. The 

introduction of this skill introduces a different style of activity into P4wC sessions. In practice, 
students may find dialogue sessions more comfortable and liberating, while perceiving mapping 
teaching sessions as more traditional. Some students commented that engaging in philosophy through 
dialogue is more enjoyable compared to learning the fundamentals of argument maps. Balancing these 
different styles and ensuring that both are engaging for the students is an important consideration for 
the facilitator. 

 
Thirdly, it's important to note that creating argument maps often necessitates the use of 

electronic devices. While it's technically possible to draw maps on paper, the process is considerably 
more cumbersome. The efficiency of digital platforms becomes evident when tasks such as moving a 
box to an upper level take mere seconds on a tablet or a PC. In contrast, the manual process of 
erasing, writing, and reorganizing on paper is time-consuming and demanding. The use of electronic 
devices may not be suitable for all classes or groups, posing a potential challenge in implementing 
these methods. 

 
Beyond the advantages outlined in section two, one of the most significant benefits, in my view, 

is the introduction of rigor and precision to dialogues. Whether assessing the truth of a premise or 
evaluating the strength of a piece of reasoning, argument mapping fosters a focused consideration of 
one element at a time. Additionally, it serves as a valuable method of communication about 
arguments, offering a shared language for representing objections, conclusions, missing premises, and 
more. Armed with these tools, both facilitators and young thinkers can achieve more, enhancing the 
depth and effectiveness of their philosophical engagements. 

 
In conclusion, argument mapping enriches the skill set of both students and facilitators. It 

should be acknowledged that it may not be suitable for every P4wC session, particularly with younger 
students or those with limited access to technology, as it necessitates the use of electronic devices. 
Furthermore, its implementation often necessitates traditional teaching methods, such as lectures and 
exercises, which may diverge from the spontaneous nature of philosophical dialogue. But there are 
clear benefits to using this method, at least in specific situations. It serves to sharpen focus within 
dialogues, reinforces the vocabulary essential to reasoning, and crucially, introduces a structured visual 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 2 (2024) 

  
 

93 
 

 
component to philosophical discussions. Particularly for facilitators emphasizing logic education, 
argument mapping proves indispensable. Equipping both students and facilitators with this skill set 
represents a significant enhancement to the efficacy and depth of philosophical engagement in 
educational settings. 
 
References 
 
Cullen, S., Fan, J., van der Brugge, E., & Elga, A. (2018). Improving analytical reasoning and 

argument understanding: A quasi-experimental field study of argument visualization. Npj 
Science of Learning, 3(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0038-5 

 
Author Information: 
Ediz Dikmelik- Independent Researcher 

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0038-5



