Critical thinking in the humanities: debates, essays, source studies — what better develops argumentation

Abstract

The article examines the comparative effectiveness of three didactic practices used in humanities education to develop argumentation as the core of critical thinking under conditions of information overload and complicated data verification. The analysis is based on a three-year longitudinal experiment conducted at seven federal universities involving 1,240 students in the fields of History, Philosophy, and Philology, distributed into groups comparable in initial characteristics, in which formalized debates, analytically structured essays, and in-depth source studies analysis predominated. Comprehensive diagnostics combined standardized critical thinking testing with multilevel assessment of oral and written argumentation, including the decomposition of arguments into elements of proof, while statistical processing made it possible to identify stable differences in the profiles of the competencies formed. It is shown that essays primarily enhance logical coherence and the ability to structure text (the greatest gains on the corresponding scales), while also ensuring the most balanced retention of skills over time, whereas debates maximally develop rhetorical flexibility and resistance to counterargumentation but demonstrate a more pronounced decline in indicators related to factual grounding under delayed assessment. Source studies analysis yields the highest gains in evidential strength and critical evaluation, revealing a close interconnectedness of verification skills; however, it is accompanied by the maximum cognitive load and frustration, which limits the growth of the integral effectiveness of argumentation when the method is applied in isolation. Additional calculations of retention after six months and a comparison of the cost of cognitive effort with the quality of argumentation demonstrate that pedagogically productive practice lies not in choosing a single tool but in their complementary combination: regression projection of a mixed approach indicates a potentially higher final level of argumentation with optimized load and reduced frustration. The material of the article makes it possible to assess which type of educational practice is relevant to a specific component of argumentative competence and how to design modular courses while minimizing the competence one-sidedness of humanities training.