Apertura

Vol. 8, Núm. 2 / octubre 2016 – marzo 2017 / ISSN 2007-1094

 

Discussion forums: Tool to increase critical

thinking in higher education

 

Armando Kutugata Estrada[1]

 

Abstract

This qualitative study uses the content analysis method of Newman, Webb, and Cochrane to analyze the contents of the interactions of 21 discussion forums; we succeeded in identifying different types of critical thinking. Carried out in a private institution in the north of México, we sampled three groups with a total of 74 students. Discussion forums were organized using the taxonomy of Socratic questions in order to increase critical thinking. We conclude with guidelines to design quality discussion forums to increase and develop critical thinking in virtual education.

 

Keywords: E-learning; computer assisted instruction; b-learning; cooperative learning; critical thinking.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This study has the objective of determining the types of critical thinking in a group of university students through discussion forums in an academic course, and to describe the perspective of the degrees of the types of critical thinking through the analyzed interactions.

 

In order to achieve the aforementioned, we depart from the understanding that the use of the information and communications technologies (ICTs) has increased on in-person education, as well as in the modality of mixed courses. In classroom presence, its application strengthens learning with the implementation of online discussion forums, a tool that effectively integrates itself to the group outside the classroom and allows the students to post messages in order to debate, interact and receive feedback from other students and from the facilitator (tutor or professor of the course); thus achieving a more in-depth understanding of the analyzed subject or concept. Among the advantages of the use of discussion forums is the ability to save and reread posted messages however many times it is needed and at whatever time the participant wishes (Balaji & Chakrabarti, 2010, p. 1).

 

The use of technological tools provides support and reinforces the information of the course through multiple types of knowledge for its representation and understanding; this contributes to the increase in learning and critical thinking, according to Pena-Shaff and Nicholls (cited by Balaji & Chakrabarti, 2010, p. 2. Personal translation).

 

Among the studies interested in the impact of collaborative learning through the use of ICTs, specifically of the discussion groups that have addressed the metacognitive processes, are those by Alavi and Ryser, Beeler and McKenzie; among those focused on the construction of knowledge are those by DeWever, Van Winckel and Valcke, as well as those by Pena-Shaff and Nicholls; and with regard to critical thinking, the investigations that stand are those by Duffy, Dueber and Hawley, and Newman, Webb and Cochrane (cited in Schellens, Van Keer, Wever & Valcke, 2009). For Kanuka and Perkins and Murphy (cited in Mason, 2011), discussion forums increase the participation of the student and critical thinking.

 

 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

 

In the literature reviewed for the implementation of discussion forums in order to raise the level of critical thinking in higher education students stand out the conclusions of Althaus (cited in Christopher, Thomas & Tallent-Runnels, 2004), who note that the implementation of online discussion forums “allowed the students access to these in accordance to their schedules and thus they had more time to read and analyze the messages; this favored the reflection and construction of more in-depth replicas” (p. 167. Personal translation).

 

“Durham found that online discussion allowed an increase in the sensitivity towards the comments of the participants” (cited in Christopher et al., 2004, p. 167. Personal translation); for their part, Smith, Smith & Boone distinguish a “significantly greater participation of students in discussion forums regarding the debates in the classroom” (cited in Christopher et al., 2004, p. 167. Personal translation); furthermore, “understanding is developed through debate and diverse perspectives and interpretations of the analyzed subjects are shared” according with Light (cited in Christopher et al., 2004, p. 167. Personal translation).

 

In order to promote interaction, the discussion forums must be planned and structured either with instructional activities, projects or reports that contribute to collaborative learning, in accordance with the objectives and competences considered. In accordance to the guidelines expressed in the studies by Dennen, Prinsen, Volman and Terwel, Vonderwell and Zachariah, and Yukselturk and Vildirim, “the tutor/facilitator must motivate the participants so that they intervene in an active manner and send their feedback in a timely manner” (cited in Yukselturk, 2010, p. 31. Personal translation).

 

Moreover, “the word ‘critical’ is etymologically derived from two Greek roots: kriticos, which means judgment of discernment, and kriterion, meaning standard. Etymologically, the word implies a development of discernment based on a judgment with standards” (Our concept and definition of critical thinking, s.f., “The Etymology”, paragraph 1. Personal translation).

 

Critical thinking is important for the learning in discussion forums in which, “through Socratic questions, the scaffolding and support of arguments is established that give rise to the alternative discussion postures and their implications” (Paul, cited in McCrae, 2011, p. 132. Personal translation).

 

There is a great variety of definitions on critical thinking regarding education. Chance (cited in Schellens et al., 2009) defines it as “the ability to analyze facts, generate and organize ideas, defend opinions, make comparisons and inferences, evaluate arguments, and solve problems” (p. 78. Personal translation). For Glaser, “critical thinking is an attitude and logical application of abilities in the context of problem resolution” (cited in Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011, p. 26. Personal translation), and for Ennis, it is about the “construction of a logical process and a product of an oriented phenomenon” (cited in Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011, p. 26. Personal translation).

 

Among the current suggested conceptualizations of critical thinking are those of a “reflective process that requires logic” (cited in Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011, p. 26. Personal translation), as noted by Brookfield, Ennis, Paul and Sternberg. For their part, Scriven and Paul (cited in Schellens et al., 2009) describe it as an “active process of intellectual discipline and of the ability to conceptualize, apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information obtained from or generated by observation, experience, reflection, reasoning or communication, as a guide to grow and act” (p. 78. Personal translation).

 

“The Socratic dialogue is perhaps one of the most emblematic examples of a guided environment education in which the learners must discover or build information for themselves” (Goldin, Pezzatti, Battro & Sigman, 2011, p. 183. Personal translation).

 

“Critical thinking helps students evaluate both their own and other’s arguments, solve conflicts and reach analyzed resolutions of complex problems” (Allegretti & Frederick, cited in Behar-Horenstein and Niu, 2011, p. 25. Personal translation).

 

As a result, a cultivated critical thinking manages to formulate vital questions and problems with clarity and precision. They collect and evaluate relevant information using abstract ideas in order to interpret said information in an efficient manner and obtain well-reasoned conclusions and solutions (Defining critical thinking. s.f.)

 

“Only the students that ask questions are really thinking and learning. The quality of the questions they pose determines the quality of their thinking” (The Role of Questions in Teaching, Thinking and Learning, s.f., “Thinking is Driven by Questions”, paragraph 3. Personal translation).

 

The questions that request information promote the search of sources, as well as the selection of quality. On the other hand, the questions that search for the interpretation of information promote the evaluation or the giving of a meaning to said information, as well as the search of alternative means for its interpretation. In this sense, the questions of assertions make us revaluate what we give for a fact, whereas those of implication make us reflect on the direction this thinking follows. When questions are formulated to establish points of view, the assumed posture is able to be examined and, in some cases, to be reconsidered, taking into account other perspectives. From there, the relevant questions oblige the interlocutor to discriminate what must or not be considered in a question. In contrast, precision questions favor the evaluation and verification of the truth and its corrections; they stimulate giving details and being specific in the information issued. Consistency questions manage to the examination of thinking with regard to contradictions, and logic questions integrate the consideration of the thought expressed in full and add the data, concepts and enunciated arguments with congruency and reason. (The Role of Socratic Questioning in Thinking, Teaching, and Learning, s.f., “Feeding Students...”, paragraph 2. Personal translation).

 

“Critical thinking is an important component in the process of digital literacy if we consider the information universe that is offered by the internet” (Ala-Mutka, 2011, p. 26). Brouwer visualizes the information and digital literacy as the center of critical thought with five components: distinguishing between information and knowledge; formulating key questions on information, location and relevance of the sources used; evaluating the use, precision, veracity and temporality validity of the information found; the ability and skill in the search of information; and the efficiency of the technological tools used in the virtual environments of formal education (1997, p. 195).

 

In critical thought, an argument is a series of statements that offer reasons to accept another statement. These statements, which support another statement, are called premises. The statement in which the premises are used to provide support is called the “conclusion”. Therefore, an “argument”, is a group of statements in which some of them (the premises) have the purpose of providing support to others (the conclusion) (Vaughn, 2008). An argument is a posture defended with reasoning; the arguments are comprised of one or more premises and a conclusion. The premises are statements in an argument, offered as evidence or reasons to provide support to another statement; a statement is a sentence that can be seen as false or true and a conclusion is a statement in an argument in which the premises support or provide evidence of what is being expressed (Bassham, Irwin, Nardone & Wallace, 2008). Critical thinking comprises the real and relevant evaluation of information or arguments (Beyer, citated by Ormrod, 2003).

 

Robert Ennis (cited in Sternberg & Williams, 2002) has developed a taxonomy of abilities that, he considers, are part of critical thinking and that define how reflective thinking reasonably focused in deciding what to believe or do. Ennis asserts that these abilities can be taught; among them are: focusing in a question; analyzing arguments; asking and answering questions; judging the credibility of the source; observing and judging the reports of other observations; deducing and judging other deductions; inducing and judging other inductions; making value judgements; definining terms; judging other definitions; identifying assumptions; deciding on actions; and interacting with others.

 

The Socratic methodology is one of the oldest educational strategies that promotes critical thinking with the asking of questions. In this sense, the Socratic interrogator must maintain the discussion focused and ensure that an intellectual responsibility of the interactions of the participants is maintained (Enseñanza socrática. Fundación del pensamiento crítico, s.f.).

 

According to Gose (2009), Socratic methodology focuses on five strategies: formulate explorative questions on ideas and occurrences to be discussed; elaborate expansive questions on the relations between ideas; utilize the role of “devil’s advocate” and other roles to promote discussion; dedicate time in the group to maintain the discussion and the debate process; and take advantage of the positions and roles of the participants to induce the debate and discussion.

 

In this process, “...Socrates helps its interlocutors to illuminate and express truths that he has not made nor placed in their minds, but rather that have matured in their interior and only need to be made explicit and evident” (Abbagnano and Visalberghi, 2014, p. 82).

 

The presuppositions of the Socratic dialectical method are that there is a truth and this can be known through discussion in a Socratic dialogue. The method of elenchus or Socratic debate is synthesized in the process of questions and answers directed by the professor with the dependence of the active participation of the student (Boghossian, 2006, p. 717. Personal translation) in answering and finding the “truth”.

 

The contemporaneous Socratic practice is use mostly as a teaching method for critical thinking, as noted by Schwarze, Lape and Boghossian (cited in Boghossian, 2006, p. 717).

 

According to Enseñanza socrática. Fundación del pensamiento crítico (s.f.), there are six types of Socratic questions:

 

·      Explanatory conceptual questions: stimulate thinking in a reflective manner on what is being thought or asked; for example: why do you say...? and, could you give an example?

·      Questions to prove conjectures or assumptions: have the students make presuppositions and establish believes that they had not questioned; for example: why do you assume...? and, how can you verify...?

·      Questions that explore reasons and evidence: allow for the integration of reasoned explanations to deepen in their reasoning; for example: why do you think...? and, what evidence supports...?

·      Questions on points of view and perspectives: have the effect of considering other angles or points of view regarding a position or situation; for example: what counter argument could you...? and, are there other possibilities that...?

·      Questions to prove implications and consequences: allow the validation of data, figures and analyses presented that give credence to the arguments presented; for example: what are the consequences...? and, what generalizations could be...?

·      Questions regarding the questions: assuming the role of “devil’s advocate”, the interrogator returns the question with another and uses the questions formulated by the very students; for example: what is the objective of asking this question? and, how does your argument apply [...] in a situation such as this one...?

 

 

METHODOLOGY

 

This study was done from a qualitative perspective, with the support of the content analysis method of Newman, Webb and Cochrane (1995), an instrument created based on the grounded theory that allows the analysis of the contents of the interactions in discussion forums; we manage to identify the types of critical thinking through rations (quotients) with the classification of ten categories and 46 codes (see Table 1).

 

With the transcriptions of the discussion forums, we proceeded to read, analyze and categorize each interaction, and we thus placed the text in its respective code according to the guidelines and contexts specified by Newman Webb and Cochrane (1995). Once done, we proceeded to add the corresponding codes (+) and (-) to calculate the quotient (ratio) of each using the following formula: x ratio = (x+ - x-) / (x+ + x-), and we converted the sum of -x (not critical, superficial) to +x (critical, deep) in scales. This procedure creates the measurement that reflects the quality of the interactions, beyond the number of contributions.

 

We utilized the Atlas program. Ti v.6 in the codification process. It is worth noting that a text, paragraph or interaction of a student could contain one or more codes. Newman, Webb and Cochrane (1995) propose measuring critical thinking during learning in a group using ten categories and 46 codes (see Table 1).

 

With this methodology our interest is to answer the following issue: what are the types of critical thinking when implementing discussion forums, using debate through the taxonomy of Socratic questions, in an in-person course with the aid the educational platform at the higher level education, that allow the assurance or rejection of an increase in the perspective of critical thinking?

 

In this sense, the research question is: what are the types of critical thinking obtained through the interactions on behalf of the students and the tutor in the discussion forums?

 

The investigation is relevant in this context, as it requires knowing the types of critical thinking identified in discussion forums in order to be able to take concrete actions and try to raise the types of critical thinking in the redesign of the activity to which the Socratic questions have been incorporated. The goal is to improve the quality of the participation of the tutor/facilitator, if considered pertinent.

 

The investigation establishes a general and a specific objective. The former refers to determining the types of critical thinking in the student by implementing discussion forums in an in-person course of mixed modality in higher education; whereas the specific looks to describe the perspective of the degrees of the types of critical thinking, if any, obtained through the interactions in the discussion forums.

 

The population and sample selected are delimited considering the context of this study, a private higher education institution of the north of Mexico, where the courses called “seals”, of the common core, must be taken by all students of the various careers offered by the institution. In spring, 31 groups opened up with a total of 720 students of diverse careers with the following profile: age: seventeen to twenty-four years; 100% bilingual; social class: upper-middle, upper-lower, and high; use of personal computer and of various social networks, and members of the high school linkage program or that take any semester of any of the 38 bachelor degrees offered.

 

The sample was comprised of three groups with 74 students, divided in groups of three to five members and a total of 21 discussion forums for the analysis of the interactions between participating students and the professor/tutor in order to determine the type of critical thinking.

 

The design and the instructions of the activity to implement said forums respond to the following guidelines:

 

Stage 1

 

A) Go to the corresponding link of the discussion forum at the scheduled time in order to upload the contributions.

 

B) Upload 1 contribution to the discussion forum, having selected one example of each type of argument (Logos, Ethos and Pathos), as selected from the movie Lions for Lambs (Redford, 2007) with the APA basis.

 

C) Provide a response to the question(s) posted by the tutor. The Logos arguments are those that are based on hard data or statistical figures; the Ethos are supported by the relevance of the source that issues the statement as an expert author in the subject; and the Pathos derived from the emotions and feelings of whoever issues an appreciation assessment.

 

Stage 2

 

A) Upload 1 feedback to the discussion forum (response to a contribution of another classmate) for each member of the group.

 

B) Through the interactions between the members of the team, all the members must select the best examples of the three types of arguments from the contributions initially posted by each member of the group in the corresponding discussion forum.

 

C) There is no limit to the number of messages posted.

 

Stage 3

 

The members of the group must write a comment according to the corresponding rubric located at the homepage of the discussion forum. For the submission, as a means of integrating to the forum for the approval of the teacher/tutor, the embers of the group must write a comment, guiding themselves using the corresponding rubric located on the homepage of the forum.

Table 1. Categories and codes of the content analysis method.

Source: Category and code data obtained from Newman, Webb and Cochrane (1995).

 

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 

According to the guidelines of the content analysis method of Newman, Webb and Cochrane (1995), in order to measure critical thinking, we begin with the categorization of the interactions, which are understood as the messages, phrases or full contributions made by the student in relation with a list of ten categories and 46 codes that comprise said indicators.

 

We used the Atlas program. Ti. V.6 in order to safeguard and account for the corresponding categorization and codification process, which must be carried out by a single person, in this case by the researcher, in order to avoid contamination of the criteria or points of view in the categorization and codification process. The most relevant examples out of the 1,254 messages categorized and codified from the 21 discussion forums are shown in Table 2.

 

Table 2. Relevant categorized and codified contributions from the discussion forums of the 2012 spring period in the academic course.

Source: JP (+) foresees evidence and examples; AC (+) clarify ambiguous statements; JS (-) offers various solutions without specifying which is the most adequate; L (+) generating new data from collected information; I(+) important points or events; NI (+) new ideas to discuss; R(+) relevant statements; C+) critical evaluation of their own contribution or that of others; W(+) broad discussion (problem with a broad perspective, includes intervention strategies with a theoretical framework); W(-) isolated discussion (includes parts or fragments of a situation, partial suggestions without solid intervention); OK (+) evidence of using prior knowledge; P(+) relates possible solutions to familiar situations; OM (+) utilize relevant external material; CT (+) tutor promotes critical evaluation; CT (-) tutor accepts interactions without critique; NP(-) repeating what has already been said; NS (-) accepting the first solution already offered; and OE (+) departing from personal experiences. Excerpts of contributions obtained from the transcriptions of the 21 discussion forums carried out in the course. The three forums contain 1,254 contributions.

 

 

Ratio: -1 Superficial / +1 Deep

(R)+/- Relevance

(I)+/- Importance

(N)+/- Novelty, New ideas, info.

(A)+/- Ambiguity, Clarity

(O)+/- Incorporating External Knowledge

(L)+/- Linking ideas

[Illegible]+/- Justification

[Illegible]

[Illegible]

Broad/Fragmented Understanding

 

Figure 1. Types of critical thinking scales of the content analysis method of Newman, Webb and Cochrane (1995). Note: data obtained from the calculation of the content analysis method to identify critical thinking in Table 1. Calculation of the critical thinking ratio in categories. Source: radial diagram elaborated by the author of the Atlas program. Ti (2014).

 

 

Table 3. Calculations of the critical thinking ratio in categories

Source: data obtained from the sum of the categorizations and codifications of the transcriptions of the 21 discussion forums with 1,254 total contributions.

 

Once the transcriptions are marked, the totals of the indicators (+) positive and (-) negative are counted and the ratio of each indicator is calculated using the following formula: x ratio = (x⁺ - x^-)/(x⁺ + x^-); the totals are converted to a scale of -1 = without critical value with superficiality to +1 = critical with depth.

 

This procedure allows for the measurement of the quality of the messages in relation with the type and degree of critical thinking that goes beyond the quantity of contributions. Furthermore, for the purpose of visual interpretation, a radial diagram with the types of critical thinking scales is included.

 

According to the results obtained from the content analysis method to identify the type of critical thinking by Newman, Webb and Cochrane (1995), among the high levels are:

 

·      The P (+,-) practical utility, with a value of 1, that represents the possible relations to solutions, situations, and the useful and practical discussion of new ideas that appear familiar to the learner through a substantiated argumentation.

·      The W (+,-) broad understanding, with a value of 0.95, reflects the capability of discussion with an argumentation linked to a theoretical framework, in addition to the inclusion of a situation in a complete or broad context. This is one of the most sophisticated types of thinking that the learners must master and practice.

·      The J (+,-) justification, with a value of 0.85, denotes the ability to establish evidence or timely examples congruent with the expressed arguments. We understand that the selection of the arguments analyzing the script, as well as the link to the tape, has allowed a substantiated justification of said selection.

·      On the other hand, between the mid-levels we find the following:

·      R (+,-) relevance, with a value of 0.77, indicates the capability to express outstanding opinions within the context and limitations of the profile of the participant. Said relevance has the impact of attracting the attention of the other participants and provoking a reaction.

·      L (+,-) linking ideas and interpretations, with a value of 0.74, represents the ability to write in the contributions facts, ideas and third-party opinions, as well as the consequence of expressing the generation of new data, or rather, information that has been collected by the participant. This type of thinking promotes the ability to link previously analyzed ideas, as well as cross-cut content.

·      I (+,-) importance, with a value of 0.72, symbolizes the capability of identifying strong ideas and the significance of a determinate context, which could be: digitalized documents, multimedia resources such as links to webpages, links to movies in servers or databases, videoconferences, audio recordings, slides, etc.

·      C (+,-) critical evaluation, with a value of 0.65, expresses the ability to formulate an evaluative critique considering one’s own reflection as a personal contribution and reach, even, to incorporate the conclusions of third-parties within the presented argument.

·      O (+,-) incorporating external knowledge, with a value of 0.57, that helps visualize the incorporation of experiences of the learner, as well as the reference to academic material such as available resources, evidencing an external or prior knowledge on the subject, or rather, concepts and ideas in accordance to their own stock of knowledge. Within this indicator there is the risk of maintaining a prejudice or draw from assumptions without doing the necessary reflection of a case of subject to be analyzed, a situation that must be faced by the professor/tutor through Socratic questions so that the student himself becomes aware of said posture and rectifies it in the discussion with the debate of ideas in order to achieve significant learning.

·      However, among the indicators that show a low level are: A (+,-) ambiguity, with a value of 0.38, that reveals a lack of depth in the ideas and arguments presented as responses to other contributions. Through the provocation of the debate of ideas and the use of Socratic questions, the ambiguity of ideas, postures and argumentations is achieved. In this regard, learning through practice in diverse discussion forums with designs in stages with the incorporation of Socratic questions raises the level of provocation of debate and the depth of argumentation, which reflects a greater level of clarity and elaboration of ideas, as well as the distancing from ambiguity in their contributions.

 

At an unacceptable level we find N (+,-) novelty, with a value of -0.46, which allows for the understanding of a passive and perhaps fearful attitude of taking the initiative to argue and debate with strength through solid reasoning and with adherence to the Logos, Ethos and Pathos arguments. In this sense, the learner tends to repeat what has already been expressed by others, contributing false or trivial clues and silencing the development of new ideas.

 

In order to counteract the aforementioned, the practice of more discussion forums is recommended, in which the participant has the need to debate more in-depth and to evaluate their responses and counter-responses. Thus, through feedback, the quality of their contributions rises. Therefore, a greater number of discussion forums is convenient in diverse academic courses that promote substantiated participation in said debates, as well as the ability to argue academic concepts and incorporate prior knowledge with newly acquired information.

 

It is possible to develop critical thinking through Socratic questions that contribute to making the learner reflect and learn in order to deepen their argumentations with the corresponding rationale, in accordance to the guidelines noted by the tutor/facilitator of the discussion forum.

 

Furthermore, as with any learning process, managing to increase the critical thinking levels is a matter of practice with significant contributions in discussion forums with the pertinent rational and linking prior or external knowledge with that acquired in the course in question. Incorporating diverse academic resources that enrich the teaching-learning process in virtual environments, for both in-person, online and mixed courses, helps to reach a significant learning in higher education and postgraduate students.

CONCLUSIONS

 

In order to comprehend and unify the criteria regarding the understanding of critical thinking, it is necessary for the reader to consider the analysis and study of the same, as well as the taxonomy of the objectives of the Benjamin Bloom education, and to consider, on the one hand, the development that critical thought has had throughout the course of history, starting with the taxonomy of Socratic questions and its evolution through time on the part of thinkers and academic philosophers who have left their legacy on said discipline.

 

On the other hand, the adjustments registered on Bloom’s taxonomy must be considered since its first publication in 1956 (Chapman, s.f.), in the nineties by Anderson and Krathwohl (López García, 2014), in relation with the learning processes and cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning.

 

The implementation of educational platforms, especially of discussion forums, demands of all tutors/facilitators to consider Bloom’s taxonomy in order to utilize digital environments such as social networks and mobile devices, such as smartphones, tablets, among others.

 

The aforementioned allows an educator to ensure a quality teaching-learning process that strengthens the critical thinking level through activities based on didactic techniques such as collaborative learning in discussion forums, through stages, as have been implemented in this investigation.

 

There are studies that assure that the interactions in discussion forums are more enriching and constant than those conceived in in-person debates (Tella & Adu, 2014). However, it is suggested to consider the categorization of the instrument created by Newman, Webb and Cochrane (1995) in order to focus the interaction question on the responses and counter responses and thus promote the debate of ideas and the rationalization of the arguments presented throughout the discussion forum.

 

In order to manage the implementation of the instrument by Newman, Webb and Cochrane (1995), we recommend to every professor-researcher to design the activity with discussion forums in stages, prior to having formed work groups of three or five members in order to create the conditions of an active interaction. On the other hand, a series of Socratic questions must be formulated and consider the digital resources to be implemented, such as link to some vide, movie or audio that has correlation with the subjects or concepts to teach in the course in question.

 

Among the benefits of putting discussion forums into practice with the taxonomy of Socratic questions, we can mention managing to make passive students participate and integrate into the group in order to obtain a collaborative learning (Strang, 2011). To said benefit, we add the knowledge acquired in pairs, by favoring for students to comment and make clarifications that allow for a greater collaborative learning (Nandi, Hamilton & Harland, 2012). According with the results of Babson’s survey, only 30% of the academic leaders believe that their faculties consider virtual environments to be valid and legitimate; in contrast, they accept that substantiated argumentation and the ability to communicate with a high critical thinking level is required in the management of businesses in the XXI century (Allen & Siman, 2013).

 

Considering the aforementioned, it is the job of the teacher and responsibility of the educational institutions to look for constant improvements in their academic courses that raise the level of critical thinking and learning through tools such as discussion forums. Thus, it is possible to develop and increase the types of critical thinking through the taxonomy of Socratic questions and the incorporation of digital learning resources that contribute to the reinforcement of the digital skills of the learner, which could be implemented in their future work environment. A true significant learning allows for the training of competent professionals in the face of the demands of current society.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

 

Abbagnano, Nicola y Visalberghi, Aldo. (2014). Historia de la pedagogía. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Ala-Mutka, Kristi. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding. JRC European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Recuperado de http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC67075_TN.pdf

Allen, I. Elaine & Seaman, Jeff. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group. Recuperado de http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf

Balaji, M. S. & Chakrabarti, Diganta. (2010). Student interactions in online discussion forum: Empirical research from "media richness theory" perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, vol. 9, núm. 1, pp. 1-22. Recuperado de http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v9/n1/student-interactions-in-online-discussion-forum-empirical-research-from-media-richness-theory-perspective

Bassham, Gregory; Irwin, William; Nardone, Henry; Wallace, James M. (2008). Critical thinking. A student’s introduction (3ra ed.). EUA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Behar-Horenstein, Linda S. & Niu, Lian. (2011). Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, vol. 8, núm. 2, pp. 25-41. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v8i2.3554

Bloom’s and ICT tools. Educational Origami. (s.f.). Recuperado de http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+and+ICT+tools

Boghossian, Peter. (2006). Behaviorism, Constructivism and Socratic pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 38, núm. 6, pp. 713-722. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00226.x

Brouwer, Peter. (1997). Hold on a minute: What happened to critical thinking in the information age? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 25, núm. 2, pp. 189-197. Recuperado de https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234714055_Hold_on_a_Minute_Here_What_Happened_to_Critical_Thinking_in_the_Information_Age

Chapman, Alan. (s.f.). Benjamin bloom's taxonomy of learning domains –cognitive, affective, psychomotor domains– design and evaluation toolkit for training and learning. Recuperado de http://www.businessballs.com/bloomstaxonomyoflearningdomains.htm

Christopher, Mary M.; Thomas, Julie A.; Tallent-Runnels, Mary K. (2004). Raising the bar: Encouraging high level thinking in online discussion forums. Roeper Review, vol. 26, núm. 3, p. 166. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554262

Defining critical thinking. (s.f.). Recuperado de http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Enseñanza socrática. Fundación del pensamiento crítico. (s.f.). Recuperado de http://www.eduteka.org/pdfdir/PreguntasSocraticas.pdf

Goldin, Andrea P.; Pezzatti, Laura; Battro, Antonio; Sigman, Mariano. (2011). From ancient Greece to modern education: Universality and lack of generalization of the Socratic dialogue. Mind, Brain, And Education, vol. 5, núm. 4, pp. 180-185. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01126.x

Gose, Michael. (2009). When Socratic dialogue is flagging: Questions and strategies for engaging students. College Teaching, vol. 57, núm 1, pp. 45-50. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.57.1.45-50

López García, Juan Carlos. (2014). La taxonomía de Bloom y sus dos actualizaciones. Recuperado de http://www.eduteka.org/TaxonomiaBloomCuadro.php3

Mason, Roger B. (2011). Student engagement with, and participation in, an e-Forum. Educational Technology & Society, vol. 14, núm. 2, pp. 258-268. Recuperado de http://www.ifets.info/journals/14_2/22.pdf

McCrae, Niall. (2011). Nurturing critical thinking and academic freedom in the 21st Century University. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 23, núm. 1, pp. 128-134. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ938588.pdf

Nandi, Dip; Hamilton, Margaret; Harland, James. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, vol. 33, núm. 1, pp. 5-30. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667957

Newman, D. Robert; Webb, Brian; Cochrane, Clive. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, vol. 3 núm. 2 pp. 56-77 Recuperado de http://umsl.edu/~wilmarthp/mrpc-web-resources/CA-analysis-method-to-measure-thinking-in-f2f.pdf

Ormrod, Jeanne. (2003). Educational Psychology. Developing learners. (4ta ed.). EUA: Pearson Education.

Our concept and definition of critical thinking. (s.f.). Recuperado de http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-and-definition-of-critical-thinking/411

Redford, Robert. (Productor y Director). (2007). Leones por corderos. (Película). EUA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer y United Artists.

Schellens, Tammy, Van Keer, Hilde, De Wever, Bram & Valcke, Martin (2009). Tagging thinking types in asynchronous discussion groups: Effects on critical thinking. Interactive Learning Environments. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, vol. 17, núm. 1, pp. 77-94. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820701651757  

Sternberg, Robert & Williams, Wendy. (2002). Educational Psychology. EUA: Pearson Education.

Strang, Kenneth David. (2011). How can discussion forum questions be effective in online MBA courses? Campus-Wide Information Systems, vol. 28, núm. 2, pp. 80-92. doi:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650741111117789

Tella, Adeyinka & Adu, Emmanuel Olusola. (2014). An assessment of the undergraduates’ participation in the online discussion forum. Mediterranean Journal of Social Science, vol. 5, núm. 7, pp. 333-345. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n7p333

The Role of Questions in Teaching, Thinking and Learning. (s.f.). Recuperado de http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-role-of-questions-in-teaching-thinking-and-learning/524

Vaughn, Lewis. (2008). The power of critical thinking. Effective reasoning about ordinary and extraordinary claims. Londres: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Yukselturk, Erman. (2010). An investigation of factors affecting student participation level in an online discussion forum. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology -TOJET, vol. 9, núm. 2, pp. 24-32. Recuperado de http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ897999

 

Received: 24/04/2016

Published: 03/06/2016