Developing Critical Thinking Skills in High Ability Adolescents: Effects of a Debate and Argument Analysis Curriculum

Abstract

This study evaluated the impact of a debate intervention on students’ critical thinking. The design-based research project included a quasi-experimental, one group pre-test, post-test design. Results indicated small effect sizes on critical thinking using the Cornell Critical Thinking Test-Level X (d = 0.40) and an assessment of argument analysis (d = 0.41). High-ability students en-tered the project with stronger critical thinking than general-education stu-dents (d = .82; d = .41), and high-ability students appeared to benefit more from the intervention as the performance gaps increased in the post-test phase (d = 1.08; d = .80) suggesting possible aptitude-treatment interactions or the Matthew effect. Qualitative data indicated that students learned to (a) think on the spot, (b) analyze arguments, (c) see other perspectives, and (d) construct counter-arguments. This study corroborates previous research that indicated a relationship between high ability and critical thinking.

Keywords

• gifted and talented,high ability,middle school,argumentation,debate,critical thinking,argument analysis,adolescents,design-based research

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, 1102-1134. doi:10.3102/003465431455106.
2. Allen, M., & Berkowitz, S., Hunt, S., & Louden, A. (1999). A meta-analysis of the impact of forensics and communication education on critical thinking. Communication Education, 48(1), 18-30.doi:10.1080/03634529909379149
3. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41, 16-25. Bakker, A., & van Eerde, H. A. A. (2015). An introduction to design-based research with an example from statistics education. In A. Kikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education: Examples of methodology and methods (pp. 429-466). New York, NY: Springer.
4. Bellon, J. (2000). A research-based justification for debate across the curriculum. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36(3), 161-175. doi: 10.1080/00028533.2000.11951646
5. Black, B. (2008). Critical thinking – a definition and taxonomy for Cambridge Assessment: Supporting validity arguments about critical thinking assessments administered by Cambridge Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/images/126340-critical-thinkinga-definition-and-taxonomy.pdf
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
7. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New, York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8. Cone, C., Godwin, D., Salazar, K., Bond, R., Thompson, M., & Myers, O. (2016). Incorporation of an explicit critical-thinking curriculum to improve pharmacy students’ critical thinking skills. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(3), Article 41.

9. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
10. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. Oxford, England: Irvington.
11. Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition & Development, 15(2), 363-381. doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
12. Educational Records Bureau. (2011). CTP 4 content standards manual. Retrieved from https://www.lelycee.org/uploaded/Academics/ERB/2011_CTP_Content_Standards.pdf
13. Ennis, R. H. (2013). Critical thinking across the disciplines: The wisdom of CTAC program. Inquiry, 28(2), 25-45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
14. Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topai, 37, 165-184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
15. Ennis, R. H., Millman, J., & Tomko, T. N. (2005). Cornell critical thinking tests (5th ed., Revised). Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company.
16. Everett, A. C., Anderson, O. S., Wright, M. C., & Fontana, M. (2018). Longitudinal assessment of critical thinking skills across a dental curriculum. Journal of Dental Education, 82, 921-928. doi:10.21815/JDE.018.088
17. Hsu, P., Van Dyke, M., & Chen, Y. (2015). Examining the effect of teacher guidance on collaborative argumentation in middle level classrooms. RMLE Online, 38(9), 1-11. doi: 10.1080/19404476.2015.11641185
18. Jen, E., Moon, S., & Samarapungavan, A. (2015). Using design-based research in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 190-200. doi:10.1177/0016986215583871
19. Kennedy, R. (2009). The power of in-class debates. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10, 225-236, doi:10.1177/1469787409343186
20. Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: Comparing identified gifted and general education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 127-136. doi:10.1177/0016986214522508
21. Kettler, T. (2016). A differentiated approach to critical thinking in curriculum design. In T. Kettler (Ed.), Modern curriculum for gifted and advanced academic students (pp. 91-110). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
22. Kline, R. B. (2009). Becoming a behavioral science researcher: A guide to producing research that matters. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23. Koo, T. K., & Li. M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155-163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
24. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents' thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552. doi: 10.1177/0956797611402512
25. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2014). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
26. Marin, L.M. & Halpern, D.F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002
27. McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46. Murphy, P.K., Rowe, M.L., Ramani, G., & Silverman, R. (2014). Promoting critical-analytic thinking in children and adolescents at home and in school. Educational Psychology Review, 26(4), 561-578. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9281-3
28. Oliveras, B., Márquez, C. & Sanmartí, N. (2013). The use of newspaper articles as a tool to develop critical thinking in science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 885-905. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.586736
29. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Calvert, E., Steenbergen-Hu, S., Chandler, K., Robins, J., Sanguras, L. Y., Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. (2018, April). A design-based study on accelerated online ELA curriculum for disadvantaged high potential 7th-8th graders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association annual, New York, NY.
30. Oros, A. L. (2007). Let's debate: Active learning encourages student participation and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 3(3), 293-311. doi:10.1080/15512160701558273
31. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004). Moving education forward. Retrieved from http://www.21stCenturySkills.org
32. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.) (2007). An introduction to educational design research. Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO.
33. Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483-520. doi:10.3102/0034654313487606
34. Salgado, C. M., Azevedo, C., Proença, H., & Vieira, S. M. (2016). Missing data. In MIT Critical Data (Eds.), Secondary analysis of electronic health records (pp. 143-162). New York, NY: Springer.
35. Scott, S. (2008). Perceptions of students' learning critical thinking through debate in a technology classroom: A case study. Journal of Technology Studies, 34(1), 39-44.
36. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
37. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428. Snow, R. (1989). Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. In P. Ackerman, R. J. Sternberg, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Learning and individual differences (pp. 13-59). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
38. Steckler, A., McLeroy, K. R., Goodman, R. M., Bird, S. T., & McCormick, L. (1992). Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: An introduction. Health Education Quarterly, 19(1), 1–8.
39. Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Charleston, SC: Authors. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). Theory and research on curriculum development for the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik, (Eds.), The international handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 345-365). Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
40. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bracken, B., Feng, A., & Brown, E. (2009). A longitudinal study of enhancing critical thinking and reading comprehension in title I classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 7-37. doi: 10.1177/016235320903300102
41. Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y., & Glassner, A. (2006). Identification of informal reasoning fallacies as a function of epistemological level, grade level, and cognitive ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 327–341. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.327
42. Wesnes, K., & Pincock, C. (2002). Practice effects on cognitive tasks: a major problem? The Lancet Neurology, 1(8), 473. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(02)00236-3