Improving critical thinking using web based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback

Abstract

In this paper we describe a simple software system that allows students to practise their critical thinking skills by constructing argument maps of natural language arguments. As the students construct their maps of an argument, the system provides automatic, real time feedback on their progress. We outline the background and theoretical framework that led to the development of the system and then give a detailed example of how a student would work through a particular argument mapping exercise using the software. We then describe how the system was used in a single semester undergraduate critical thinking course. We evaluated the course using a standardised critical thinking test and measured an improvement in critical thinking skills of 0.45 standard deviations from pre-test to post-test; a modest, but encouraging result for a single semester course. We compare these results to those obtained in a number of other critical thinking courses, incorporating a variety of teaching methods. We conclude the paper with some comments on the limitations of the system and ways in which it might be improved and extended.

An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments

“…Nevertheless, available research has identified the use of AM as a strategy that may enhance overall levels of critical thinking (e.g. Alvarez-Ortiz, 2007;Butchart et al, 2009;Twardy, 2004;van Gelder, Bissett & Cumming, 2004;van 7 Gelder 2000;2001). For example, in a meta-analysis conducted by Alvarez-Ortiz (2007), it was found that students who participated in semester-long CT courses that used at least some AM within the course achieved gains in CT ability with an effect size of .68 SD, CI (.51, .86).…”

“…Twardy, 2004;van Gelder, 2001;van Gelder, Bissett & Cumming, 2004); not adequately matching or randomly assigning conditions (e.g. Butchart et al, 2009;van Gelder, 2000); and the lack of statistical comparison between experimental and control groups (e.g. Butchart et al, 2009;van Gelder, 2000).…”

An examination of the effects of argument mapping on students’ memory and comprehension performance

“…The importance of this active construction of arguments is also relevant given recent research findings regarding the beneficial effects on learning outcomes of infusing active learning into classroom settings (e.g. Burbach, Matkin, & Fritz, 2004;Butchart et al, 2009;Perry, Huss, McAuliff, & Galas, 1996). As AM software is designed specifically for active construction of arguments, a logical progression in AM research is to assess whether active learning conducted through AM construction enhances memory performance.…”

“…Burbach et al, 2004;Hake, 1998;Laws, Sokoloff, & Thornton, 1999;Perry et al, 1996;Redish, Saul, & Steinberg, 1997). In addition, all three strategies examined in Experiment 3 can be usefully employed to actively study and assimilate text-based arguments (Butchart et al, 2009;Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978;Taylor, 1982;Taylor & Beach, 1984). However, it can be argued that AMs offer particular advantages in this regard, given that the active construction of AMs may make the relationships among propositions clearer via its 'boxand-arrow' format, thus enhancing the ability to assimilate arguments (van Gelder, 2003).…”

“…A small number of studies suggest that AM may help to improve overall critical thinking after extended deliberate practice (Butchart, Bigelow, Oppy, Korb, & Gold, 2009;van Gelder & Rizzo, 2001; van Gelder, Bissett, & Cumming, 2004) and memory ability after minimal exposure to argument maps (Dwyer et al, 2010). For example, a recent study conducted by Dwyer et al (2010) suggests that the reading of AMs results in better memory performance than the reading of text.…”