Exploring college students’ depth and processing patterns of critical thinking skills and their perception in argument map(AM)-supported online group debate activities

Abstract

Although argument maps (AM) have been proven to be an effective tool for visually presenting arguments and enhancing students’ critical thinking skills, the time available for argumentation in traditional face-to-face environments is often limited. Additionally, AMs are typically created by group members from the same side, with few conflicting views. In this study, 17 sophomores majoring in education were divided into four groups, with each group consisting of pros and cons. These groups participated in debates centred around analysing scientific papers. Using a collaborative online platform called ‘ZJUYuQue’, all the groups engaged in six online group debate activities, anonymously and simultaneously creating AMs. To examine the depth and processing patterns of college students’ critical thinking skills in these activities, both content analysis and lag sequence analysis (LSA) were employed to analyse the quality of the debates. Additionally, interviews were conducted with eight participants to explore their perceptions of this instructional design. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the interview data. Results indicated that: first, students’ depth of critical thinking skills increased gradually across the six activities, and second that three processing patterns of critical thinking skills emerged: Recognise→Understand, Evaluate→Recognise and Create→Understand. This suggests that students typically identified certain issues with supporting facts and criticised opposing arguments, while also proposing creative ideas during the debates. Lastly, the interviews showed the AM-supported online group debates were appreciated. The online environment provided ample time for students to express their thoughts, while the AMs encouraged clear articulation of arguments. Several implications were highlighted based on these findings. Instructors should provide timely feedback during students’ debate, the number of debate topics should be appropriate, and the value of professional knowledge and debating skills should be emphasized.