Advertisement

Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 219–244 | Cite as

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

  • Christopher P. DwyerEmail author
  • Michael J. Hogan
  • Ian Stewart
Article

Abstract

The current research examined the effects of a critical thinking (CT) e-learning course taught through argument mapping (AM) on measures of CT ability. Seventy-four undergraduate psychology students were allocated to either an AM-infused CT e-learning course or a no instruction control group and were tested both before and after an 8-week intervention period on CT ability using the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment. Results revealed that participation in the AM-infused CT course significantly enhanced overall CT ability and all CT sub-scale abilities from pre- to post-testing and that post-test performance was positively correlated with motivation towards learning and dispositional need for cognition. In addition, AM-infused CT course participants exhibited a significantly larger gain in both overall CT and in argument analysis (a CT subscale) than controls. There were no effects of training on either motivation for learning or need for cognition. However, both the latter variables were correlated with CT ability at post-testing. Results are discussed in light of research and theory on the best practices of providing CT instruction through argument mapping and e-learning environments.

Keywords

Argument mapping Critical thinking e-Learning Disposition Cognitive load 

References

  1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez-Ortiz, C. (2007). Does philosophy improve critical thinking skills? Unpublished thesis. The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  3. Association of American Colleges & Universities (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report on student achievement in college. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Council for Educational Research (2002). Graduate skills assessment. Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Boekaerts, M., & Simons, P. R. J. (1993). Learning and instruction: Psychology of the pupil and the learning process. Assen: Dekker & van de Vegt.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Reiner & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Butchart, S., Bigelow, J., Oppy, G., Korb, K., & Gold, I. (2009). Improving critical thinking using web-based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 268–291.Google Scholar
  8. Caciappo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need or cogntion. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawson, T. L. (2008). Metacognition and learning in adulthood. Northhampton: Developmental Testing Service, LLC.Google Scholar
  10. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2010). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool: Comparing the effects of map reading versus text reading on comprehension and recall of arguments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1), 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart I. (2011). The promotion of critical thinking skills through argument mapping. Nova Publishing, in press.Google Scholar
  12. Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engelmann, T., Baumeister, A., Dingel, A., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). The added value of communication in a CSCL-scenario compared to just having access to the partners’ knowledge and information. In J. Sánchez, A. Cañas, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept maps making learning meaningful: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on concept mapping, 1 (pp. 377–384). Viña del Mar: University of Chile.Google Scholar
  14. Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18, 4–10.Google Scholar
  15. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Ennis, R. H. (1998). Is critical thinking culturally biased? Teaching Philosophy, 21(1), 15–33.Google Scholar
  17. Facione, P.A. (1990). The Delphi report. Committee on pre-college philosophy. American Philosophical Association.Google Scholar
  18. Farrand, P., Hussain, F., & Hennessy, E. (2002). The efficacy of the ‘mind map’ study technique. Medical Education, 36, 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of psychological inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gadzella, B.M. (1996). Teaching and learning critical thinking skills (ERIC ED 405 313), U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  21. Garcia, T., Pintrich, P. R., & Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking and its relationship to motivation, learning strategies and classroom experience. Paper presented at the 100th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, August 14–18.Google Scholar
  22. Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed.). New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Halpern, D. F. (2006). Is intelligence critical thinking? Why we need a new definition of intelligence. In P. C. Kyllonen, R. D. Roberts, & L. Stankov (Eds.), Extending intelligence: Enhancement and new constructs (pp. 293–310). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  24. Halpern, D. F. (2010). The Halpern critical thinking assessment: Manual. Vienna: Schuhfried.Google Scholar
  25. Harrell, M. (2004). The improvement of critical thinking skills. In What philosophy is (Tech. Rep. CMU-PHIL-158). Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  26. Harrell, M. (2005). Using argument diagramming software in the classroom. Teaching Philosophy, 28, 2. www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/harrell/ArgumentDiagramsInClassroom.pdf.
  27. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99–136.Google Scholar
  28. Higher Education Quality Council, Quality Enhancement Group. (1996). What are graduates? Clarifying the attributes of “graduateness”. London: HEQC.Google Scholar
  29. Hitchcock, D. (2003). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in critical thinking. Philosophy department. McMaster University.Google Scholar
  30. Holmes, J., & Clizbe, E. (1997). Facing the 21st century. Business Education Forum, 52(1), 33–35.Google Scholar
  31. Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2003). The new science of learning: active learning, metacognition and transfer of knowledge in e-learning applications. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hwang, G. J., Shi, Y. R., & Chu, H. C. (2011). A concept map approach to developing collaborative mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 778–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jensen, L. L. (1998). The role of need for cognition in the development of reflective judgment. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Denver, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Jiang, Y., Olson, I. R., & Chun, M. M. (2000). Organization of visual short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 26, 683–702. 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Stanne, M.S. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved 21/06/2011, from http://www.cooperation.org/pages/cl-methods.html.
  36. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of epistemic cognition. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37–61). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  37. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ku, K. Y. L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ku, K. Y. L., & Ho, I. T. (2010a). Dispositional factors predicting Chinese students’ critical thinking performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 54–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ku, K. Y. L., & Ho, I. T. (2010b). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition Learning, 5, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: a microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1310–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ma, A. W. W. (2009). Computer supported collaborative learning and higher order thinking skills: A case study of textile studies. The Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 145–167.Google Scholar
  44. Marzano, R.J. (1998). A theory-based meta-analysis of research on instruction. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved 26/10/2007, from http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/instruction/5982rr_instructionmeta_analysis.pdf.
  45. Maybery, M. T., Bain, J. D., & Halford, G. S. (1986). Information-processing demands of transitive inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(4), 600–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 814–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Monk, P. (2001). Mapping the future of argument. Australian Financial Review. 16, March, pp.8–9.Google Scholar
  50. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energising and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington: Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy for the 21st Century.Google Scholar
  51. Norris, S. P. (1994). The meaning of critical thinking test performance: The effects of abilities and dispositions on scores. Critical thinking: Current research, theory, and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  52. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Paul, R. (1987). Dialogical thinking: Critical thought essential to the acquisition of rational knowledge and passions. In J. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 127–148). New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  55. Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park: Foundation for Critical Thinking.Google Scholar
  56. Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: a dispositional theory of thinking. Merrilll Palmer Quarterly, 39, 1–1.Google Scholar
  57. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Michigan: National Center for Research to Improve Post-secondary Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
  58. Reed, J. H., & Kromrey, J. D. (2001). Teaching critical thinking in a community college history course: empirical evidence from infusing Paul’s model. College Student Journal, 35(2), 201–215.Google Scholar
  59. Robbins, S., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Science discourse through collaborative concept mapping: New perspectives for the teacher. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sherrard, M., & Czaja, R. (1999). Extending two cognitive processing scales: Need for cognition and need for evaluation for use in a health intervention. European Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 135–142.Google Scholar
  62. Solon, T. (2007). Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(2), 95–109.Google Scholar
  63. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Australian Education Review No. 43. Victoria: Acer Press.Google Scholar
  65. Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 29–47). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 3(4), 257–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2002). The domain specificity and generality of disjunctive reasoning: searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Twardy, C. R. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116.Google Scholar
  69. Valenzuela, J., Nieto, A. M., & Saiz, C. (2011). Critical thinking motivational scale: a contribution to the study of relationship between critical thinking and motivation. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(2), 823–848.Google Scholar
  70. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Planitin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  71. van Gelder, T. J. (2001). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught, & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the crossroads: Proceedings of the 18th annual conference of the Australian society for computers in learning in tertiary education (pp. 539–548). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  72. van Gelder, T. J. (2003). Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument mapping. In P. Kirschner, S. Buckingham Shum, & C. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 97–115). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  73. van Gelder, T. J. (2007). The rationale for RationaleTM. Law, Probability & Risk, 6, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van Gelder, T.J., & Rizzo, A. (2001). Reason!Able across curriculum, in Is IT an Odyssey in Learning? Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of ICT in Education, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
  75. van Gelder, T. J., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Enhancing expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 142–152.Google Scholar
  76. Wankat, P. (2002). The effective efficient professor: Teaching, scholarship and service. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  77. Wegerif, R. (2002). Literature review in thinking skills, technology and learning: Report 2. Bristol: NESTA Futurelab.Google Scholar
  78. Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (2004). Thinking and learning with ICT: Raising achievement in the primary classroom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 3, 8–19.Google Scholar
  80. Woodman, G. F., Vecera, S. P., & Luck, S. J. (2003). Perceptual organization influences visual working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 80–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher P. Dwyer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael J. Hogan
    • 1
  • Ian Stewart
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyNUIGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations