Using computer-aided argument mapping (CAAM) to teach critical thinking

Much research supports the notion that the net generation does not possess adequate critical thinking (CT) skills and that graduates leave college ‘unable to understand, evaluate, or write arguments’ (Larson, Britt & Kurby, 2009, p.340; cited in Carrington et al., 2011, p.339).   These authors also cite Arum & Roksa, 2011; Rimer, 2011; Trounson, 2011 who found that 36% of American college graduates could not discern fact from opinion nor remain uninfluenced by persuasion.    These researchers believed that while many tertiary institutes promote CT as a general skill that students will acquire in the process of their courses, the institutes do not overtly teach these skills.  Davies (2009a, 2009bp; ibid, p.338) suggests that CT be explicitly taught.

Cognitive scientists believe that visuals enhance learning (Vekiri, 2002; Winn, 1991; ibid, p.338) and that maps enable processing of information in visual and propositional form, i.e. which Kulhavy, Schwartz, & Caterino,; Paivio, 1983; Schwartz, 1988 (ibid, p.339)  refer to as ‘conjoint retention’ or ‘dual coding’, and that processing information in several modalities increases learning. 

CAAM outlines the contention at the top of the map, and follows with coloured-coded tiers of reasons, objections and rebuttal.  The software provides ‘basis boxes’ for support, objections and rebuttals.  These argument maps can be sourced from www.austhink.com (ibid, p.339).

Researchers trialled the use of  CAAMs into specific CT tutorials each week for a semester.    The Californian Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) was used and the results showed the one-semester gains were equivalent to the gains usually expected in three or four years (van Gelder, Bissett, & Cummin; ibid, p.389).  A Monash University study, also over a semester, showed a 14% gain (The monash critical thinking study, 2009;  Twardy, 2004; ibid, p.389).   Students reported that visual mapping provided clarity and logic to their thoughts and ideas; they reported that it gave them a structure construct logical arguments. Consideration was made however for learners who prefer visuals, and student comment was made considering a group having different preferences for the visual layout.   Some learners reported that AM did not suit their learning styles, and Zhang (2003; ibid, p.339) notes that visualization may benefit certain learning styles more than others.

While it appears that the AM method, teaching simple AM constructs to the more complex, some students reported that they did not easily transfer AMs into a written essay, and class time did not include this.    The implication for the teachers is that information transfer needs also to be included.  The researchers noted that teaching CT did not have to employ CAT but that had the capacity to increase student engagement (Harrell, 2007; ibid, p.389).

Reference

Carrington, M. et al. (2011). The effectiveness of a single intervention of computer-aided argument mapping in a marketing and a financial accounting subject in Higher Education Research & Development Vol. 30, No. 3, June 2011, 387-403