The research backing Kialo Edu

The benefits of using Kialo Edu are supported by 
a range of research into both the theoretical foundations of the platform and the platform itself.

One of the most important benefits of Kialo is that it trains critical thinking skills, such as self-regulating judgment, analysis, inference, and justifying positions through evidence and reasoning.1 Critical thinking is widely regarded to be one of the most important functions of education, and Kialo is an excellent tool for developing it.2

Kialo’s format is based upon two proven educational practices: argument mapping and structured debate. There is a wealth of research showing that these approaches are effective at developing critical thinking skills in students, as well as providing a range of other practical and pedagogical benefits for learners.

Research into the benefits of argument mapping

Kialo is primarily an argument-mapping platform. Argument mapping is the visual representation of an argument’s structure, which typically uses connecting lines to depict the logical relationships between each step.


Multiple empirical studies conducted in university settings have shown that argument-mapping activities are one of the most effective methods of teaching students critical thinking skills.3 Argument mapping, as on Kialo, can improve self-reflective judgment, and has been observed to improve students’ ability to construct, analyze, and evaluate arguments — all core facets of critical thinking.4 Research indicates that both dedicated critical thinking courses and curricular courses benefit from the inclusion of argument maps.5 According to one study, “Computer-based argument mapping greatly enhances student critical thinking, more than tripling absolute gains made by other methods.”6


Teaching with argument maps can have other advantages for student learning as well. Argument maps have been shown to improve student conduct and memory performance.7 They can also improve student assessment. Compared to a traditional argumentative essay, where students must juggle a myriad of writing conventions, argument maps allow students to focus solely on the content and reasoning of their arguments.8 This makes argument mapping software like Kialo an effective essay-planning tool or even essay alternative, especially because teachers can more easily spot logic errors in their students’ work.9

Research into the benefits of structured debate

Kialo’s format also closely aligns with the conventions of formal debating. Kialo discussions take place around a central thesis, and participants are challenged to develop pros and cons to weaken or support this central thesis as well as others’ arguments.


The benefits of debate for students are well-established in academic literature.10 Researchers argue that debate is an effective tool for teaching critical thinking, as it requires a thorough exploration of arguments and the spontaneous articulation of ideas.11 Empirical analysis suggests that classroom debates improve student comprehension and critical evaluation skills when compared with traditional lectures.12


Classroom debates can also boost student participation and engagement.13 Moreover, in second-language classrooms, debate has been shown to improve both speaking and writing skills in the target language. Kialo offers many of the same advantages, with the added flexibility of asynchronous completion and the greater inclusivity of a text-based format.14

Research on Kialo

One of the first pieces of research on Kialo was conducted in 2017 by scholars from Harvard, Princeton, and the University of Illinois. They found that Kialo enabled “participants to easily see, process, and assess the many facets of completing claims” and that “this platform allows students to more quickly reach deeper levels of understanding and critical thinking through debate.”15


Discussions on Kialo can be conducted asynchronously, making it an ideal choice for flipped learning, whereby students complete aspects of their work outside of class for in-class discussion.16 This method of structuring lessons has become increasingly popular, and research has found that using Kialo to facilitate flipped learning can maximize its benefits. In particular, having students complete work on Kialo as a precursor to class discussion has been found to increase active learning, personalization, and engagement.17 

Kialo also offers significant, documented advantages when used in the second-language classroom. One study found that students of English unanimously preferred Kialo over traditional discussion forums, considering the platform highly effective at improving reading, writing, critical thinking, and student autonomy.18 Another study concluded that Kialo has strong potential for enhancing language learners’ critical thinking and writing skills.19 Furthermore, in a survey of university students, respondents reported higher engagement, better understanding of English-language topics, and improved debate skills as a result of using Kialo.20 All these findings make it clear that Kialo is an excellent tool for second language acquisition.


See further academic research on Kialo Edu:

Certifications and reviews

Common Sense Media judged that “Kialo Edu is a highly useful tool for helping students develop skills essential for civic participation” and rated the platform five stars.21 Education Alliance Finland also certified Kialo Edu, assessing our pedagogical approach as “excellent” and our learning engagement as “well supported” — the highest possible category.22 MERLOT also gave Kialo Edu five stars, while Edutopia writes that “Kialo Edu creates a structure for rich, reflective dialogue online.”23

As a platform designed to foster rational thinking, we at Kialo are proud of our grounding in education science. We are always researching and exploring different ways in which we can incorporate proven pedagogical practices into Kialo.

References

  1. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (ED315423). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED315423.pdf ↩︎

  2. Tiruneh, D. T., Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2014). Effectiveness of critical thinking instruction in higher education: A systematic review of intervention studies. Higher Education Studies, 4(1), 1–17. http://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v4n1p1

    Ennis, C. D. (1991). Discrete thinking skills in two teachers’ physical education classes. The Elementary School Journal, 91(5), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1086/461670

    Huber, C. R., & Kuncel, N. R. (2016). Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917

    Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4jc0

    Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (2015). What is critical thinking in higher education? In Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 27–29). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Abrami, P. C., Bernard, M. B., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, A. S., Tamim, R. & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326084 ↩︎

  3. Van Gelder, T. (2015). Using argument mapping to improve critical thinking skills. In Davies, M. & Barnett, R. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 183–192). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057

    Van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085794

    Twardy, C. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200427213

    Butchart, S., Forster, D., Gold, I., Bigelow, J., Korb, K., Oppy, G., & Serrenti, A. (2009). Improving critical thinking using web based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1154

    Harrell, M. (2008). No computer program required: Even pencil-and-paper argument mapping improves critical thinking skills. Teaching Philosophy, 31(4), 351–378. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200831437

    Dwyer. C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7(3), 218–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9092-1

    Yilmaz-Na, E., & Sönmez, E. (2023). Having qualified arguments: Promoting pre-service teachers’ critical thinking through deliberate computer-assisted argument mapping practices. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, Article 101216. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101216 ↩︎

  4. Butchart, S., Forster, D., Gold, I., Bigelow, J., Korb, K., Oppy, G., & Serrenti, A. (2009). Improving critical thinking using web based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1154

    Davies, M. (2012). Computer-aided mapping and the teaching of critical thinking. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 27(2), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryct20122729

    Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2015). The effects of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction on reflective judgement performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.12.002  ↩︎

  5. Carrington, M., Chen, R., Davies, M., Kaur, J., & Neville, B. (2011). The effectiveness of a single intervention of computer-aided argument mapping in a marketing and a financial accounting subject. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.559197

    Kunsch, D., Schnarr, K., & van Tyle, R. (2014). The use of argument mapping to enhance critical thinking skills in business education. Journal of Education for Business, 89(8), 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.925416

    Kaeppel, K. (2021). The influence of collaborative argument mapping on college students’ critical thinking about contentious arguments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, Article 100809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100809

    Harrell, M. (2011). Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory philosophy. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.502559 ↩︎

  6. Twardy, C. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200427213 ↩︎

  7. Rider, Y., & Thomason, N. (2008). Cognitive and pedagogical benefits of argument mapping: L.A.M.P. guides the way to better thinking. In Okada, A., Shum, S. B., & Sherborne, T. (Eds.), Knowledge cartography: software tools and mapping techniques (pp. 113–130). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-149-7

    Kaeppel, K. (2021). The influence of collaborative argument mapping on college students’ critical thinking about contentious arguments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, Article 100809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100809

    Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2013). An examination of the effects of argument mapping on students’ memory and comprehension performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.12.002

    Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2015). The effects of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction on reflective judgement performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.12.002 ↩︎

  8. Davies, M. (2012). Computer-aided mapping and the teaching of critical thinking. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 27(2), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryct20122729 ↩︎

  9. Litan, R. (2020). Resolved: Debate can revolutionize education and help save our democracy. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctvkjb3jc.1

    Bellon, J. (2000). A research-based justification for debate across the curriculum. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36:3, 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2000.11951646

    Kennedy, R. R. (2009). The power of in-class debates. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787409343186 ↩︎

  10. Litan, R. (2020). Resolved: Debate can revolutionize education and help save our democracy. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctvkjb3jc.1

    Bellon, J. (2000). A research-based justification for debate across the curriculum. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36:3, 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2000.11951646

    Kennedy, R. R. (2009). The power of in-class debates. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787409343186 ↩︎

  11. Llano, S. (2015). Debate’s relationship to critical thinking. In Davies, M. & Barnett, R. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 139–151). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057

    Rodriguez-Dono, A., & Hernández-Fernández, A. (2021). Fostering sustainability and critical thinking through debate—a case study. Sustainability, 13(11), Article 6397. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116397 ↩︎

  12. Omelicheva, M. Y., & Avdeyeva, O. (2008). Teaching with lecture or debate? Testing the effectiveness of traditional versus active learning methods of instruction. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(3), 603–607. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096508080815 

    Oros, A. L. (2007). Let’s debate: Active learning encourages student participation and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 3(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160701558273 ↩︎

  13. Oros, A. L. (2007). Let’s debate: Active learning encourages student participation and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 3(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160701558273

    Rodger, D., & Stewart-Lord, A. (2020). Students’ perceptions of debating as a learning strategy: A qualitative study. Nurse Education in Practice, 42, Article 102681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2019.102681  ↩︎

  14. El Majidi, A., de Graaff, R., & Janssen, D. (2020). Debate as L2 pedagogy: The effects of debating on writing development in secondary education. The Modern Language Journal, 104(4), 804–821. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12673 

    Brown, T., & Bown, J. (2014). Teaching advanced language skills through global debate: Theory and practice. Georgetown University Press. https://doi.org/10.1353/book35993 

    Antilla-Garza, J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (2015). Debating the world – choosing the word: High school debates as academic discourse preparation for bilingual students. Linguistics and Education, 31, 271-285. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.01.001 ↩︎

  15. Chaudoin, S., Shapiro, J., & Tingley, D. (2017). Revolutionizing teaching and research with a structured debate platform [White paper]. University of Illinois, Princeton University, & Harvard University. https://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.harvard.edu/files/dtingley/files/structureddebate.pdf ↩︎

  16. Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126(1), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021 ↩︎

  17. Woodward, H., & Padfield, L. (2021). A blended approach to flipped learning for teaching debate. Journal of Multilingual Pedagogy and Practice, 1, 44–54. https://fler.rikkyo.ac.jp/journal/jc0e3e00000000a9-att/JMPP(2021_Vol.1)_5_Woodward_Padfield.pdf ↩︎

  18. Mora López, N. (2019). The use of Kialo in the online ESL/EFL writing university classroom. Actas del III Congreso Internacional en Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lengua, 205–215. https://www.nebrija.com/vida_universitaria/servicios/pdf-publicaciones/ActasIVCongresoSLANebrija.pdf#page=209  ↩︎

  19. Mei, B., Xiong, P., & Xu, H. (2024). Technology Review: Kialo Edu. RELC Journal,0(0), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231226156  ↩︎

  20. Mahony, J. (2022). Drawing the line: Integrating Kialo to deepen critical thinking in debate. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Research, 3, 175–182. https://fler.rikkyo.ac.jp/journal/jc0e3e00000000a9-att/JFLER(2022_Vol.3)_13_Mahoney.pdf ↩︎

  21. Denby, J. (2020). Kialo Edu: A terrific, troll-free zone for structuring student discussion and debate. Common Sense Education. https://www.commonsense.org/education/reviews/kialo-edu  ↩︎

  22. Education Alliance Finland (2023). Kialo Edu evaluation. https://www.kialo-edu.com/images/cms/sites/2/2024/06/18124335/Kialo-Edu-EAF-evaluation-2023-08-15.pdf ↩︎

  23. Eaton, M. (2021). Technology integration: Powerful, lesser-known tech tools for teachers. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/powerful-lesser-known-tech-tools-teachers

    Teacher Education (2022). Peer review: Kialo Edu – The tool to teach critical thinking and rational debate. MERLOT. https://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewCompositeReview.htm?id=1379667  ↩︎