Abstract:Although argument maps (AM) have been proven to be an effective tool for visually presenting arguments and enhancing students' critical thinking skills, the time available for argumentation in traditional face -to -face environments is often limited. Additionally, AMs are typically created by group members from the same side, with few conflicting views. In this study, 17 sophomores majoring in education were divided into four groups, with each group consisting of pros and cons. These groups participated in debates centred around analysing scientific papers. Using a collaborative online platform called 'ZJUYuQue', all the groups engaged in six online group debate activities, anonymously and simultaneously creating AMs. To examine the depth and processing patterns of college students' critical thinking skills in these activities, both content analysis and lag sequence analysis (LSA) were employed to analyse the quality of the debates. Additionally, interviews were conducted with eight participants to explore their perceptions of this instructional design. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the interview data. Results indicated that: first, students' depth of critical thinking skills increased gradually across the six activities, and second that three processing patterns of critical thinking skills emerged: Recognise -> Understand, Evaluate -> Recognise and Create -> Understand. This suggests that students typically identified certain issues with supporting facts and criticised opposing arguments, while also proposing creative ideas during the debates. Lastly, the interviews showed the AM-supported online group debates were appreciated. The online environment provided ample time for students to express their thoughts, while the AMs encouraged clear articulation of arguments. Several implications were highlighted based on these findings. Instructors should provide timely feedback during students' debate, the number of debate topics should be appropriate, and the value of professional knowledge and debating skills should be emphasized.

Measuring Argumentation Skills Through a Game-Enhanced Scenario-Based Assessment

Building a game-enhanced formative assessment to gather evidence about middle school students’ argumentation skills

Exploring College Students’ Depth and Processing Patterns of Critical Thinking Skills and Their Perception in Argument Map(am)-Supported Online Group Debate Activities

The Sensitivity of a Scenario-Based Assessment of Written Argumentation to School Differences in Curriculum and Instruction

Game-Based Assessment of Students' Digital Literacy Using Evidence-Centered Game Design

Assessing Argumentation Using Machine Learning and Cognitive Diagnostic Modeling

Sociocognitive and Argumentation Perspectives on Psychometric Modeling in Educational Assessment

A Game-Based Online Tool to Measure Cognitive Functions in Students

Improving moral reasoning among college students: a game-based learning approach

Got Game? A Choice-Based Learning Assessment of Data Literacy and Visualization Skills

Measuring Students’ Ability to Engage in Scientific Inquiry: A New Instrument to Assess Data Analysis, Explanation, and Argumentation

Repurposing Video Games as Discussion Tools

A scaffolding tool to assist learners in argumentative writing

Evaluation of a mobile-based scaffolding board game developed by scaffolding-based game editor: analysis of learners’ performance, anxiety and behavior patterns

Sensemaking of Process Data from Evaluation Studies of Educational Games: An Application of Cross‐Classified Item Response Theory Modeling

Dialogue Games for Benchmarking Language Understanding: Motivation, Taxonomy, Strategy

Using a Board Game to Teach about Sustainable Development

Argumentation skills mediate the effect of peer argumentation on content knowledge in middle-school students.

Argotario: Computational Argumentation Meets Serious Games

The effects of digital storytelling games on high school students' critical thinking skills