Cognitive Load of Critical Thinking Strategies

• In Event: Argument Evaluation in Education

Abstract

OBJECTIVES AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK. Kuhn and Udell (2007) hold that sound argumentation is central to critical thinking and skilled decision making. Critical thinking includes evaluating multiple viewpoints (Angeli & Valanides, 2009). Nussbaum (2008) emphasized that effective argumentation includes not only considering counterarguments but also evaluating, weighing, and combining the arguments and counterarguments into support for a final conclusion. Nussbaum called this process argument-counterargument integration. He identified three strategies that could be used to construct an integrative argument in the context of writing reflective essays: refutation, weighing, and constructing a design claim. He also developed a graphic organizer, the argumentation vee diagram (AVD), for helping students write reflective essay.

In teaching students to use these strategies, it is important to consider the cognitive load that each imposes on learners’ working memory (Sweller & Chandler, 1994). The goal of this study was to compare the cognitive load of two of the strategies: (a) weighing pros against cons, versus (b) constructing a design claim (i.e., designing a solution that minimizes the cons). We hypothesized that the first involves more cognitive load because disparate elements must be held in working memory simultaneously. Our second research question concerned comparing the cognitive load of using AVDs compared to a less diagrammatic structure (linear list).

METHOD. Participants were 285 undergraduates enrolled in educational psychology classes. We used a randomized 2x3 factorial design (two different strategy prompts x AVD and linear list), with a control group included in each factor. Participants were provided an AVD with preprinted arguments/counterarguments on the question,“Should students be graded on class participation?” and then prompted to write an integrated paragraph with the applicable strategy. We measured the cognitive load of each tasks\ by (a) a self-report instrument (Pass, 1992) and (b) time to completion. All essays were double coded for number and complexity of weighing refutations and design claims; interrater reliability was satisfactory.

RESULTS. For the first research question, weighing refutations involved more (self-reported) cognitive effort than design claims, even when controlling for essay complexity. Average completion times were not significantly different between weighing and design claims (but significantly longer than for the control group). This suggests that weighing involves more intrinsic load because arguments/counterarguments have to be considered simultaneously, whereas design claims involve more sequential processing (problems are first considered, then solutions), thus accounting for the longer completion times. The results of the second research question were non-significant.

SIGNIFICANCE. Measuring the cognitive load of argument-counterargument integration strategies informs the type of scaffolding needed to support their acquisition and use. Constructing good design claims requires time for students to think about the nature of the problem, solutions, and whether the solutions are realistic. Evaluating/weighing arguments against counterargument may require instructors to help students isolate the most important aspects of each side and hold these in working memory simultaneously with evaluative criteria. Efforts to simplify the task in various ways (e.g., by considering fewer arguments on each side) might also be considered.

Authors

• Hanem Moawad Shehab, University of Nevada - Las Vegas

• Michael Nussbaum, University of Nevada - Las Vegas