Computer-based argument mapping greatly enhances student critical thinking, more than tripling absolute gains made by other methods.I describe the method and my experience as an outsider.Argument mapping often showed precisely how students were erring (for example: confusing helping premises for separate reasons), making it much easier for them to fix their errors.I've been skeptical about claims for various approaches to teaching critical thinking, including those for argument maps coming from nearby University of Melbourne.Indeed, confident in our skepticism, we at Monash Philosophy accepted a challenge to compare our methods with theirs on pre-and post-test gains on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) developed by Peter Facione (1990, 1992).The Monash students did a bit better than theirs on the pre-test, raising our hopes.But when Melbourne University's post-test results showed far higher performance gains, I thought their method worth a closer look.In short, I think computer-based argument mapping is the key to Melbourne's success, and that it should feature centrally in any critical thinking course.In fact, it is useful quite beyond critical thinking courses.I will describe the method, my experiences with it, and the results.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 202 citations exist upstream.