The influence of collaborative argument mapping on college students’ critical thinking about contentious arguments

Abstract

College educators and administrators have long valued critical thinking as a desired outcome of undergraduate education for its academic, professional, and personal benefits. While researchers have found a number of instructional strategies that promote critical thinking in college, less is known about how students transfer it to authentic settings outside of the classroom. Transfer of critical thinking outside of academic contexts is complicated by the way real-life situations elicit biases in thinking that make individuals subjective reasoners. Argument mapping is a technique that has been shown to lead to quantitative gains in college students’ critical thinking as measured on tests. Using a basic interpretivist, qualitative research design, this study explored how 16 undergraduate students experienced argument mapping of contentious issues known to elicit subjective reasoning and how it influenced their thinking about these topics. Findings revealed that students faced cognitive and interpersonal challenges in critically thinking about and constructing argument maps for controversial arguments, but that their efforts led them to take a more deliberate and fair-minded approach to examining them. It also showed promise for transfer as students used the skills from argument mapping in evaluating arguments they encountered outside of academia. The study contributes a new understanding of the uses and benefits of argument mapping, demonstrating its potential to encourage students to examine the basis of their viewpoints and the rationale behind other’s. In addition, it contributes an understanding of the affective and social processes involved in students’ critical thinking development.