Hi. I plan to study the effectiveness of argument mapping on critical thinking among undergraduates. I'd appreciate your helpful answers to these:
1. What would be the best (easier to use, more effective, available, etc.) protocol/model/method of applying argument mapping?
2. Would it be plausible to compare more than one models or methods of applying argument mapping? What would be those methods and models?
3. Do you know any alternative (preferably, text-based) method, to apply and compare with argument mapping?
Many papers in this field use a pre-test / post-test design. I may be biased because I participated in some of that, but it is straightforward, easy to control, and directly comparable with existing literature such as those mentioned in Martin Davies' short 2014 piece, and those in Claudio Alvarez' 2007 meta analysis (on the timvangelder link) . It requires a standard critical thinking test which has several variants, and requires devoting two class sessions to the test: one pre, and one post. The goal here is to measure average gains from pre-test to post-test, and compare that to previous studies, known baselines, and/or a control condition. You could try multiple methods if you have a large class, but ensure you have the statistical power to detect effect sizes like those seen in previous studies.)
Previous studies have tested various methods: computer-aided mapping software, pencil-and-paper mapping, regular philosophy classes, traditional critical thinking classes, and particular structured techniques like ACH. I don't think anyone has deliberately controlled #hours practice, but many have recorded it, and it matters.
If you are planning a study, I would highly recommend writing key researchers like Tim van Gelder, Martin Davies, or Maralee Harrell for their ideas on pressing gaps in knowledge, and current best-practices to ensure your study could be used in future meta-analyses.
https://sites.google.com/site/timvangelder/
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/IJLM_a_00106
http://www.reasoninglab.com/research-on-critical-thinking-with-rationale/
Naser,
I agree with Charles recommendation of a kind of quasi experimental study which involve pre and post tests data collection on your variables (argument mapping and critical thinking) of interest. With that being said, I think it would be worthwhile to collect some qualitative data in the process. A mixed-method approach to the study would make a different instead of quantitative alone. Simply put, irrespective of the model you which to employ, collect data both in numeric and non-numeric such as keeping a journal of what you observe. I am suggesting this because your variable have both quantitative and qualitative characteristics. Thus, collecting qual and quant data would help connect some dots.
Again, I will suggest that you should use at least two models and a control group . Probably, one computer enhanced, one non-computer but not traditional and use a typical traditional approach for the control group.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Thanks Matthew. What two models do you recommend, beside computer/online method?
Dear Naser Aghababaei:
I admire your attempt to explore the use of instructional techniques and their outcomes.
I'm not familiar with the method called 'argument mapping' - but whatever it entails it is a tool for us to map arguments and counter-arguments. It has its own merit. Of course, it is likely to be associated with cognitive dimensions.
How effective it is depends on many factors including cultural factors. 'Effectiveness' hence should be clearly and operationally defined.
Please do not just limit your inquiry to 'critical thinking' or 'analytical thinking - ...
Argument mapping itself is an act of analytical thinking.
I'm not sure if I have answered your questions. I do hope my response is helpful in some aspects for your endeavor to explore the world of thinking.
Janpha Thadphoothon
Dr. Twardy,
Hi. Could you introduce me to some software on argument mapping? I'm looking for a software that could, by programming, be used for Persian (Farsi) speaking people. Thanks.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology