Put on Your Thinking Hat! A Creative Approach to Argument Analysis
Candice Benjes-Small, Erin Berman, Susan Van Patten, Radford University
Abstract: Skills expected of college graduates include being able to construct their own
arguments using supporting evidence and claims as well as analyzing the arguments of others. The
challenge is for students to move beyond an emotional response to a true critical analysis of an
issue. We adapted a critical thinking approach, De Bono’s six thinking hats, to help students
analyze arguments in a logical manner. Students were expected to summarize the author’s
argument, identify the strengths and weaknesses, provide their emotional reaction, and identify the
audience that benefits from the argument. We found that investigating an argument from a
particular viewpoint (i.e., thinking hat) and then working together as a group to fully analyze the
issue to be a successful teaching strategy.
Literature Review
The ability to evaluate and create arguments is considered to be essential to critical thinking (Ennis, 1991; Kuhn,
1991; Kuhn & Dean, 1994). However, teaching students argumentation skills has been a challenge in higher
education (Pithers & Soden, 2000). Some educators have reported success in advancing students’ critical thinking
abilities through the use of creative techniques such as De Bono’s six “thinking hats” (De Bono, 1985), which stress
the need to consider different perspectives when confronted with a problem. Professors in business, nursing, and
education have employed the six thinking hats in problem-solving and decision-making assignments (Hodge &
Ozag, 2007; Geissler, Edison, & Wayland, 2012; Karadag, Saritas & Erginer, 2009; Rivzi, Bilal, Gaffar & Asdaque,
2011; Schellens, Van Keer, De Wever, & Valcke, 2009). While the literature supports the six thinking hats approach
in terms of problem solving, it does not explore its role in teaching argument analysis.
Goals and Objectives
Upon completion of this session, participants will be able to:
1. Describe how thinking hats can be used to analyze an argument;
2. Apply thinking hats for argument analysis; and
3. Incorporate thinking hats in discussion boards and class activities.
Description of Practice to Be Modeled
As instructors, we struggled with ways to help students analyze arguments that required them to offer more than just
their personal reactions. Since other educators had experienced success with De Bono’s thinking hats, we decided to
adapt this approach for argument analysis. De Bono’s thinking hats emphasize parallel thinking: a constructive
approach that focuses on exploring different perspectives rather than attacking an adversarial position. Because De
Bono’s intent was to encourage problem solving rather than analyze arguments, we modified the thinking hats
accordingly (Table 1).
Table 1. Adaptation of De Bono’s Thinking Hats for Argument Analysis
Hat Color
White
Yellow
Black
Red
Blue
Green
De Bono’s Use
Information known
Positives
Negatives
Emotional reaction
Control mechanism
Future possibilities
Argument Analysis Use
Summarize the author’s argument
Identify the strengths of the argument
Identify the weaknesses of the argument
Provide your emotional reaction
Identify the audience that benefits from this argument
Not used
To prepare students to complete an individual argument analysis we started by explaining our version of the thinking
hats in detail. Next, students were divided into groups and assigned a different article for analysis. Each student in a
group was assigned a hat color and asked to respond to the article according to the corresponding role in argument
analysis. The assigned role and articles changed weekly.
Analysis began on a discussion board where students were required to post their initial response. This allowed for
some reflective thinking outside of class. Students were then asked to respond to other group members and expand
on what each had posted in order to advance the discussion beyond initial thoughts. This interaction fostered critical
thinking and enhanced their understanding of argument analysis, while also providing a way for student to engage
with the material and other students. Finally, each group presented their argument analysis to the class.
Discussion
The ability to understand, analyze and evaluate arguments is crucial to critical thinking. In fact, the GRE revised
General Test now includes a section on analytical writing that requires test takers to “Analyze an Argument”
(Educational Testing Service, 2013). The thinking hats provide a structured approach to analysis, encouraging
students to explore different aspects of the argument. Breaking the argument apart made it much easier for the
students to offer critiques. As instructors, we also found the red thinking hat was beneficial as it gave a safe place for
students to discuss their own reactions to the arguments while isolating the personal reflection from the more
rational thinking hats. Consequently, when we brought the groups together and told them to put the red hats aside
and focus on the other colors for their final analyses, the students then successfully evaluated the logical structure
and evidence in the argument.
Thinking hats are not a new way to engage in problem solving; in fact, institutions of higher education have been
both teaching and using this process for years. What is innovative is the idea of using this process to analyze
arguments. By working in small groups and applying the thinking hats, students were able to summarize the varying
components of an argument, discuss the strengths and weaknesses, explore their emotional reactions, and identify
potential consequences. As a result, we saw a marked improvement in students’ argument analysis abilities.
References
DeBono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Educational Testing Service (2013). Introduction to the Analytical Writing measure. Retrieved from
http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/
Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179-186.
Gessler, G. L. , Edison, S. W., & Wayland, J. P. (2012). Improving students’ critical thinking, creativity, and
communication skills. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 8, 1-11.
Hodge, E., & Ozag, D. (2007). Experiencing ‘six thinking hats’: A practical system for improving managerial
decision making in online course instruction. Business Education Forum, 61(4), 26-29.
Karadag, M., Saritas, S., & Erginer, E. (2009). Using the six thinking hats model of learning in a surgical nursing
class: Sharing the experience and student opinions. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(3), 59-71.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice.
Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268-273.
Pithers, R. T., & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42(3), 237-249.
Rivzi, A. A., Bilal, M., Ghaffar, A., & Asdaque, M. (2011). Application of six thinking hats in education.
International Journal of Academic Research, 3(3), 775-780.
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2009). Tagging thinking types in asynchronous
discussion groups: Effects on critical thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 77-94.