Teaching Innovation Staff Development Grant – Final Report

Using Computer Aided

Argument Mapping as a

Teaching Aid in a

Management Subject Project Leaders:

Dr Martin Davies (TLU) and Dr Benjamin Neville (DMM)

2

1. Summary

Project Aim To foster the development of critical thinking skills within FBE undergraduate students. Accordingly, Argument Mapping and CAAM methods were integrated into the Marketing and Society (325-336) tutorial programme, to help these students develop the critical thinking skills demanded by business and essential to success in the course.

Subject 325-336 Marketing and Society

Teaching Innovation Argument mapping techniques were integrated into the Marketing and Society subject (semester 2 2009) in three ways: (1) an introduction to AM and CAAM techniques in a dedicated tutorial; (2) ongoing practice in tutorial classes; and (3) an augmentation to the students’ major assignment.

Learning Outcomes Aligned with the aims of the project, the marketing and society students responded in a self-reported evaluation survey that they felt that AM helped them create a visual map of the argument, have a clear understanding of the argument and to break down complex arguments into manageable components, and then to support arguments with evidence. Indeed, 59% of students agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that AM was an effective critical thinking tool. These results are corroborated by the results of a Californian Critical Thinking Skills Test (pre-test/post-test) which empirically suggested that the students’ overall critical thinking skills had improved by 4.4%.

Empirical Support 1. Evaluation Survey 2. Californian Critical Thinking Skills Test

Dissemination 1. TLU Half-Day Seminar (internal & external audience) 2. Conference Paper (Herdsa 2010) 3. Journal Article (in review)

Budget Summary a) Grant Allocation: $9751.60 b) Remainder:

3

2. Project Aim

All disciplines, regardless of their academic nature (empirical, non-empirical, practical,

theoretical, text-based, etc) require students to demonstrate adequate critical thinking

skills. The skill of critical thinking is promoted in many universities, indeed the UoM and FBE

view critical thinking as a key graduate attribute. The capacity to think critically is highly

valuable, especially among employers ("Graduate Outlook," 2006). However, critical

thinking is a learned skill and—like other learned skills (playing the piano, competence in

mathematics)—expertise takes considerable effort, time and dedicated practice (Ericsson &

Lehmann, 1996). Currently, critical thinking skills are not explicitly taught to students in the

FBE, as it is assumed critical thinking skills are obtained while studying discipline-specific

course material. It is not surprising, therefore, that Australian employers, for example,

report “capacity for independent and critical thinking…sets apart successful from

unsuccessful applicants…but it is rare” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000). Moreover,

recent research suggests that undergraduate students achieve minimal improvement in

their critical thinking skills over the duration of their undergraduate degrees (Hitchcock,

2004). To address these graduate deficiencies, it is suggested that explicit approaches are

required to effectively teach critical thinking (Davies, 2009a, 2009b).

Critical thinking requires, in part at least, the ability to understand and assess arguments.

This ability can be enhanced with the use of argument maps. Argument maps are visual

tools enhancing critical analysis and evaluation of arguments. The aim of this teaching

innovation project was to foster the development of critical thinking skills within FBE

undergraduate students. Accordingly, Argument Mapping and CAAM methods were

integrated into the Marketing and Society (325-336) tutorial programme, to help these

students develop the critical thinking skills demanded by business and essential to success in

the course. Marketing and Society examines the role of marketing in wider society, beyond

its relationship with consumers and shareholders. The course looks at the benefits that

marketing provides, but also takes a critical view to holistically examine the influence of

marketing; including its negative impacts upon individuals and society as a whole. Critical

analysis, effective argument development, and clear argument presentation underpin

student development within this undergraduate subject. This subject was taught in

semester 2 2009, and had a large student cohort of 182 undergraduate students.

3. Teaching Innovation

Argument mapping techniques were integrated into the Marketing and Society subject

(semester 2 2009) in three ways: (1) an introduction to AM and CAAM techniques in a

4

dedicated tutorial; (2) ongoing practice in tutorial classes; and (3) an augmentation to the

students’ major assignment.

Firstly, Dr Martin Davies (TLU) coordinated and presented a dedicated tutorial to the

Marketing and Society students, outlining the AM technique, providing examples, and then

assisting the students to develop their own argument map in response to the tutorial case

study using CAAM software. This teaching intervention was carried out in a departmental

computer laboratory across all 9 Marketing and Society tutorial classes, with each tutorial

well attended. This tutorial occurred in week 6 of the semester (tutorial 5). Secondly,

argument mapping was integrated into subsequent tutorial classes, with the subject tutors

assisting the students to respond to tutorial questions that required critical analysis,

dissection of arguments and the development of supported contentions with a structured

argument map. Finally, the students were required to develop an argument map to

augment their major assignment – a critical essay. While these argument maps were not

included in the overall mark for the essay, the students were required to expose the

underlying logic of their essay.

4. Learning Outcomes

For many Marketing and Society students, this subject represented their first experience in

critically examining the tenets of the marketing discipline and its practice in the real world,

and evaluating marketing practices using ethical frameworks. The integration of argument

mapping into the course enabled the students to deconstruct the complex arguments posed

regarding specific marketing scenarios and practices (e.g. advertising to children) from many

sides of the debate, and critically evaluate these arguments to form their own contentions.

Argument mapping also assisted the students to logically develop and structure their own

arguments, and clearly communicate these arguments both visually (in a map) and in

written prose.

Aligned with the aims of the project, the marketing and society students responded in a self-

reported evaluation survey that they felt that AM helped them create a visual map of the

argument, have a clear understanding of the argument and to break down complex

arguments into manageable components, and then to support arguments with evidence.

Indeed, 59% of students agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that AM was an

effective critical thinking tool. These results are corroborated by the results of a Californian

Critical Thinking Skills Test (pre-test/post-test) which empirically suggested that the

students’ overall critical thinking skills had improved by 4.4%.

Despite the overall assessment by students that argument mapping was an effective tool to

develop their critical thinking skills, their opinions on the application of argument mapping

to the writing of essays was polarised. While some students found AM to be simple to learn,

5

easy to apply and helped them with their essay writing; others found it overly complex and

time consuming. We suggest that while the learning styles of some students may be

unsuited to argument mapping, that these responses also highlight deficiencies in the

teaching approach taken to integrate argument mapping into the marketing and society

tutorial programme. We suggest that this intervention has given valuable insight for further

improvement in the teaching and learning of argument mapping techniques to improve

critical thinking skills. These findings are now discussed further.

4.1 Empirical Findings

We sought to empirically examine the effectiveness of the argument mapping (AM) teaching

innovation by analysing data from a self-reported questionnaire, and empirically with the

employment of the Californian Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST). The self-reported

questionnaire was developed by the ‘Financial Accounting’ subject coordinators from within

the FBE (Richard Chen and Jagit Kauh), who were also staging an identical teaching

innovation. This evaluation questionnaire was completed by the students across both

subjects in the last two weeks of the teaching during Semester 2, 2009. It consisted of nine

likert scale questions and three general questions (optional) for which student could

comment on (see Appendix).

The nine likert scale questions adopted a five-point scale, with “1” being “Strongly Disagree”

and “5” being “Strongly Agree”. If a question was not applicable to the student, for example,

because the student did not attend the relevant sessions or complete a particular

assessment task, the student could choose “N/A” as the response. Question 1, “AM is an

effective critical analytical thinking tool”, is the key question of interest. It measures the

overall usefulness of AM in helping the students improve their critical and analytical

thinking. Questions 2 to 7 deal with the impact of AM on the individual critical and analytical

thinking components, namely, as a visual aid (Q2), in understanding arguments (Q3),

enabling breakdown of arguments into manageable components (Q4), drawing logical

connections (Q5), providing assistance in essay writing (Q6), improving productivity (as

measured as the time spent on essay writing) (Q7). Question 8 examines the students’

willingness to apply AM knowledge into other critical thinking areas. Finally, Question 9

checks whether the students had any difficulties in completing the AM task due to lack of

knowledge.

Students were then asked to provide additional comments (optional) on the aspects that

they most and least like about the AM. If they felt that AM was not sufficient to improve

their critical thinking skills, they could provide suggestions on additional methods.

The questionnaire was distributed in paper form during the final tutorial classes in Semester

2, 2009. In total, 123 students (out of 182) from the Marketing and Society cohort returned

6

the questionnaire. All students completed the mandatory sections of the questionnaire and

all their responses were usable.

The CCTST was voluntarily completed as an online pre-test/post-test by the Marketing and

Society students, with a matched sample of 25 students completing both the first and

second tests. Although a small sample size, the resulting data emerged as statistically

significant when analysed.

4.1.1 Questionnaire Responses

The questionnaire results for the Marketing and Society students are outlined in Table 1.

The mean scores presented in the descriptive statistics (Panel A) suggest that the students

viewed AM overall as an effective critical thinking tool (mean score 3.55, significantly higher

than the scale midpoint of 3 with p-value<0.0001), and AM as being particularly effective in

assisting them to visualise (3.85, p-value<0.0001), understand (3.46, p-value<0.0001), break

down (3.64, p-value<0.0001) and connect (3.54, p-value<0.0001) arguments (Q2 – Q5

respectively). These results are further supported by the distribution of responses reported

in Panel B, where 59% of students agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that AM

was an effective critical thinking tool. The results in Panel B for Q2 – Q5 are consistent with

Panel A, further supporting the effectiveness of AM in critical thinking and argument

construction.

The Panel A responses to Q6, Q7 and Q8 were mixed, however, with mean scores ranging

from 2.76 to 3.08. These results are reflected in Panel B, with only 37% of students

indicating that AM helped them to prepare their essays (31% neutral). Similarly, only 28% of

MS students believed that the application of AM saved them time when writing the essay

(28% neutral), while 43% indicated that AM actually increased the time taken to write their

essays. In addition, only 38% of MS students indicated that they would seek to apply AM to

other areas (Q8), while the majority of students were either neutral (27%) or disagreed

(35%) with this statement.

Finally, the students tended to disagree that they had difficulties with AM due to lack of

knowledge (Panel A Q9 mean score at 2.44). Accordingly, the results in Panel B indicate that

only 18% of students suggested that lack of knowledge obstructed their application of the

AM tool, and the majority of students (56%) indicated that it did not.

7

Table 1 Results from the questionnaire

Panel A: Descriptive statistics (n=123)

Q Mean Std P-value Strongly

Agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly

Disagree

N/A

5 4 3 2 1 NA

Q1 3.55 1.05 <0.0001 22 50 29 18 4 0

Q2 3.85 0.98 <0.0001 32 57 21 10 3 0

Q3 3.46 1.10 <0.0001 22 44 30 22 5 0

Q4 3.64 0.94 <0.0001 21 54 33 13 2 0

Q5 3.54 1.00 <0.0001 18 55 30 16 4 0

Q6 3.08 1.18 0.4427 16 29 38 27 12 1

Q7 2.76 1.12 0.0171 6 29 35 35 18 0

Q8 3.01 1.11 0.8711 9 38 33 32 11 0

Q9 2.44 1.08 <0.0001 4 18 31 44 25 1

Panel B Distribution of Responses

Question

%Agree

(4 and 5)

%Neutral

(3)

%Disagree

(1 and 2) %NA TOTAL

Q1 59 24 18 0 100

Q2 72 17 11 0 100

Q3 54 24 22 0 100

Q4 61 27 12 0 100

Q5 59 24 16 0 100

Q6 37 31 32 1 100

Q7 28 28 43 0 100

Q8 38 27 35 0 100

8

Q9 18 25 56 1 100

4.1.2. Analysis of Descriptive Comments

The students’ descriptive comments from the questionnaire were open-coded and

interpretively analysed. In general, the student’s responses to the first open descriptive

question (‘What did you like most about AM?’) were positive and favourable towards the

AM method, and the responses to the second and third open descriptive questions (‘What

did you like least about AM?’; and ‘In your opinion, what method in addition to AM could

help to improve critical thinking skills?’) highlighted the deficiencies and negative aspects of

the AM method and its integration into the subject perceived by the marketing and society

students. Accordingly, the students’ responses to the second and third descriptive questions

tended to fall within the same or similar codes. The codes generated through this analysis

and the resulting frequency of responses within each code is illustrated in Table 2.

Being able to visually structure an argument was seen by the students as one of the key

features of the AM method. Visually mapping the argument provided clarity and deeper

understanding (e.g. “it allows a visual representation of an argument and is clear and easy

to use”; “the visual display of the argument was clearer to understand”). The students also

suggested that AM provided them with a framework to gather their thoughts and ideas, and

to then logically construct their own arguments. In addition, it was suggested that applying

the AM tool to the complex arguments presented in the subject literature enabled them to

deconstruct these arguments into their components and assess both the structure of the

argument and the supporting evidence (“it helps to break an argument down into key

components”).

The students’ responses regarding the application of the AM method, however, were

polarised. While some students found AM to be simple to learn and easy to apply; others

found it overly complex. Some students suggested that the application of AM saved time

and helped them with writing their essay, others found it time consuming. Additionally,

while some students found AM to a practical and valuable tool that could be transferred to

their approach in other subject areas, other students viewed AM to be unnecessary and not

beneficial.

Based upon open questionnaire responses, it is possible that the factors driving this

polarisation in the students’ experience and response to AM were threefold; (1) some

students needed more time dedicated to learning, practising and applying the AM method,

while others did not; (2) some students found the CAAM software to be difficult and time

consuming, while others found the CAAM software to be simple and useful; and (3) AM

appeals to some students’ natural style of thinking and writing, and not to others. It follows

that while the natural learning styles of some of the students enabled them to quickly and

9

effectively engage with, learn and apply the AM method, the learning styles of other

students meant that they needed more time and practice to absorb the AM method and to

see any tangible learning benefit. It may also be that for some students, the AM method is

completely unsuited to their learning and thinking approach. This provides direction for

future research into the teaching and application of AM, and also our approach to

integrating the AM tool more effectively into the subjects for future student cohorts.

Table 2 Coded Descriptive Comments

Panel A Positive Responses

Theme Code

No. of

Responses

Visual

Elements

of AM

AM provides arguments with a visual structure 14

Visual representation makes the argument clear and easier to

understand 18

Visual representation ensures that arguments are supported

with evidence 6

The AM method is especially effective for visual learners 1

AM

provides

logical

structure

and flow

AM assists with the linking of arguments 5

AM assists with making arguments flow logically 3

AM helps to coherently structure essay arguments 4

The AM method provides a powerful and logical approach for

constructing complex and balanced arguments 13

AM brings clarity and logic to thoughts and ideas 4

AM helps

to simplify

complex

arguments

AM helps to breakdown complex arguments and questions

into components 9

AM simplifies arguments 2

AM helps to be succinct and to the point 2

The AM

Method

Learning AM has changed my approach and thought processes

towards constructing and understanding arguments 5

AM saves time and assists with essay preparation 10

10

AM was simple to learn and easy to apply 9

AM is a practical and valuable tool 2

The AM method is transferrable to other subjects 3

CAAM

Software The Software was useful and easy to use 6

Panel B Negative Responses

Theme Code

No. of

Responses

Learning

styles and

practices

AM does not suit my style of writing and thinking 11

I constructed or changed the AM after writing the essay 5

Difficult to do it as a group assignment as different students

had different AM –

Issues with

teaching

and

practicing

Required more time practicing and learning the AM method 17

Needed more information and help on applying my AM to the

essay 11

Did not have adequate knowledge of the software 5

Explicit teaching of the AM method more appropriate to 1st

year university students 5

Issues with

the AM

Method

AM is not a beneficial skill or method 4

AM is not necessary to understand a topic or argument 8

The AM method is unnecessarily complex 4

The AM method is limiting and inflexible 3

Using the AM method was time consuming 15

Issues with

the CAAM

software

The software was not compatible with Macs 4

The software was not user friendly 15

Using the software was time consuming 9

The software was inflexible 5

11

4.1.3. Measuring Pre- and Post- Critical Thinking Skills

In addition to the questionnaire described above, the Marketing and Society student cohort

was also invited to participate in an online Californian Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) to

independently evaluate the effectiveness of the integration of AM techniques into the

marketing and society course structure. The CCTST is designed to measure an individual’s

critical thinking ability, and has been widely used for this purpose, including assessing CAAM

(see, for example, van Gelder et al., 2004). As the underlying aim of integrating AM into the

marketing and society subject was to enhance the students’ critical thinking ability, it was

assumed that using the CCTST was an appropriate tool to measure the effectiveness of AM

intervention. The students completed the CCTST online test twice: initially before AM was

introduced to the students (pre-test) and at the end of the semester (post-test), with a

period of 10 weeks between tests. Participation was entirely voluntary. Of the 182 students

enrolled in the subject, 111 participated in the first test. Participation in the second test was

limited to these 111 students, and only 25 completed this second test (response rate

22.5%). The results for the 25 students who complete both the pre-test and post-test CCTST

were matched and are reported in Table 3. Panel A represents the descriptive statistics and

the p-values obtained by employing a t-test (paired two sample for means) to determine the

statistical significance. Panel B highlights the frequency of test takers’ overall scores.

As a pre-test/post-test, we are interested in the shifts in the students’ critical thinking skills

over the duration of the semester with the integration of AM into the MS course structure.

The CCTST consists of 35 questions, which are further categorised into the five attributes of

critical thinking as described by the APA Delphi Research Study: induction, deduction,

analysis, inference, and evaluation. The mean statistic for each of these five attributes and

the students’ total scores are presented in Table 3. Focusing on the shifts in Marketing and

Society students critical thinking ability between the first and second tests, overall the

students critical thinking shifted from a mean score of 23.40 to 24.44 (out of a maximum

possible score of 34), which is statistically supported with a p-value less than 0.05 (two-

tailed). This represents an overall improvement in the test takers’ critical thinking ability of

4.44%. These results are consistent with our expectations. Attaining significance at such

small sample size points to the strong role that AM can play in improving students’ critical

thinking.

We can view the improvement in students’ critical thinking in more detail by the change in

distribution of students’ total scores for the first and second tests. In the first test 28% of

test takers achieved a total CCTST score of 21-23, 32% achieved scores of 24-27, 20%

achieved scores of 28-30, and 0% of test takers achieved the top range of 31-34 (Panel B). In

contrast, these ranges were achieved by 12% (21-23), 40% (24-27), 20% (28-30) and 4% (31-

12

34) in the second test (Panel B). Overall, this represents a significant shift upwards in the

distribution of total scores occurred between the first and second CCTST.

Table 3:

Panel A: Descriptive statistics for Test 1 and Test 2 (n=25)

TEST 1 TEST 2

Critical Thinking

Attribute

Mean Std Mean Std P-Value

Induction 13.12 2.32 13.84 2.78 0.0170**

Deduction 10.28 2.61 10.60 2.43 0.1142

Analysis 8.00 1.66 8.36 1.41 0.0425**

Inference 9.68 2.64 10.20 2.27 0.0069***

Evaluation 5.72 1.40 5.88 1.99 0.4482

TOTAL 23.40 4.38 24.44 4.91 0.0209**

*, **, and *** indicate significance at the 0.10, 0.05 and 0.01 levels (two tailed), respectively.

Panel B: Distribution of Responses

Score Range

% of Test Takers

TEST 1

% of Test Takers

TEST 2

0-2 0 0

3-6 0 0

7-9 0 0

10-13 4 4

14-16 0 0

17-20 16 20

21-23 28 12

24-27 32 40

13

28-30 20 20

31-34 0 4

4.2 Future Recommendations

The results show that students felt that AM helped them create a visual map of the

argument, have a clear understanding of the argument and to break down complex

arguments into manageable components, and then to support arguments with evidence.

That AM techniques improved students’ critical thinking abilities is further supported by the

overall improvement in critical thinking ability as measured by the first and second CCTSTs

conducted on the 25 students. The usefulness of AM and CAAM in helping students with

essay writing is less certain however. The students did not respond positively to the

question concerning essay writing. The students’ open comments shed some light upon the

apparent inconsistency between students’ positive responses about AM and their less than

enthusiastic view on the application of AM to essay writing. A significant number of

students suggested that they needed “more time learning and practising” the AM method

and “more assistance with translating their AM into an essay”.

We submit that a key factor underpinning the disparity in responses is the procedure used

to integrate AM and CAAM into subjects. Some students simply needed more time applying

AM techniques and more assistance translating their own argument maps into to essay

format. This was not an indication of a deficiency in the AM method, but a deficiency in

pedagogy and classroom practice adopted.

Three key issues arise from the integration of AM into Marketing and Society:

The AM method was initially introduced to the students in a tutorial setting. This

involved introduction to argument mapping and the CAAM software, a short practice

session, and application of the method to a new case study. All this was condensed

into a single 50 minute tutorial. In hindsight, this did not give students nearly enough

time to grasp the AM method.

Students were expected to develop and submit a map along with their written essay

to augment the essay and illustrate the argument logic of their essays. However, this

AM was a formality and did not actually count towards the students’ overall grade

for the essay. Therefore, despite regarding AM as useful, many students did not

actively engage with it when constructing their essays. Some may have even viewed

this augmented requirement as burdensome at a particularly busy time of the

semester.

Students were required to submit both their map and their essay electronically.

Although a number of submission options were permissible—e.g., drawing a map by

14

hand, scanning it, or using the drawing tools in PowerPoint or Word—most students

chose to use the CAAM software. This willingness to use the technology could be

seen as a sign of genuine enthusiasm and interest, but in their responses to the open

questions many students reported having difficulty with the CAAM software. This

may have contributed to the overall disparaging view of MS students towards the

application of AM to essay writing. Responses such as “program takes a while to use,

quicker to draw own map on paper” and “time-consuming—extremely difficult to

format on the computer” illustrate the frustration experienced by some of the users.

This is, of course, a technological, not a pedagogical, issue. The students were given

little assistance with learning to use software. In hindsight, it may have been better

to allow students to draw maps by hand.

These findings provide practical insights that can be used to inform similar teaching

interventions.

1. Significant class time must be dedicated to explaining AM techniques to ensure that

all students fully understand and engage with the tool (a single tutorial is insufficient

for this).

2. Argument mapping needs to become a significant part of the assessment and

grading for the subject under consideration; it cannot be a “token” requirement. This

will ensure that the students are sufficiently motivated to use the tool effectively.

3. A balance needs to be struck in teaching AM between those students who quickly

engage with and absorb the AM method, and those who need more assistance.

4. In integrating AM into the subject curriculum, it is imperative that it should begin

with simple mapping exercises, and progress through to complex exercises, and that

sufficient time is taken for all students to absorb these skills.

5. It is vital that more class practice is included in any AM/CAAM intervention in order

to allow students to transfer map-making skills to skills in essay writing.

6. Finally, it should be noted that—owing to the nature of map-making as an essentially

individual developmental skill—any AM/CAAM-based intervention might not

necessarily be suitable in contexts requiring group assessment.

5. Dissemination

In the interests of sharing the insight developed through this teaching innovation, we have

(and continue to) actively disseminate our findings to a broad academic audience.

HERDSA Conference July 2010: Carrington, M., Chen, R., Davies, M., Kaur, J. &

Neville, B. ‘The application of computer-aided argument mapping in a Marketing and

Financial Accounting subject’

15

Half-Day Seminar June 8 2010: Argument Mapping in Your Subject (internal and

external audience)

Journal Article: ‘The application of computer-aided argument mapping in a

Marketing and Financial Accounting subject’ – currently under review

6. Budget Summary

Total grant allocation: $9751.60

Total RA Salary: $5,896.49

CCTST: $US 2500

Unallocated Budget: $

16

APPENDIX

A. Evaluation questionnaire

Please circle the degree to which you agree with the following statements, where 1 = Strongly Disagree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. ‘N/A’ = the statement is not applicable to you ( e.g., because you did not attended these sessions or did not complete the assessment task).

1. THE USE OF ARGUMENT MAPPING

N/A

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neither

Agree or

Disagree

Agree

Strongly

Agree

1. AM is an effective critical analytical thinking tool

N/A 1 2 3 4 5

2. AM helps me to have a visual representation of the argument

N/A 1 2 3 4 5

3. AM helps me to understand the argument

N/A 1 2 3 4 5

4. AM helps to breaks down complex arguments into simple manageable components

N/A 1 2 3 4 5

5. AM helps me to build up logical connections between arguments and evidence

N/A 1 2

3 4 5

6. Preparing an AM helps to write the essay N/A 1 2

3 4 5

7. AM helps me to save time when writing the essay

N/A 1 2

3 4 5

8. I plan to apply the AM knowledge to other critical thinking areas

N/A 1 2

3 4 5

9. I had difficulties in completing the AM assessment task due to lack of knowledge of argument mapping

N/A 1 2

3 4 5

2. GENERAL QUESTIONS

Additional Comments: (please express your views fully)

What did you like MOST about AM?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

17

What did you like LEAST about the AM?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

In your opinion, what method in addition to AM could help to improve critical thinking skills?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________