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.
Category |
Code
(+) |
Code
(-) |
R(+,-) Relevance |
R(+) Relevant statements |
R(-) Irrelevant statements |
I(+, -) Importance |
I(+) important points or events |
I(-) non-important points or events, trivial |
N(+,-) Novelty, new
information, ideas, solutions |
NP(+) new information related to the problem |
NP(-) repeating what has already been said |
|
NI (+) new ideas to
discuss |
NI (-) false or
trivial clue |
|
NS (+) new solutions
to the problem |
NS (-) accepting the
first solution already offered |
|
NQ (+) accepting new
ideas |
NQ (-) silencing new
ideas |
|
NL (+) the learner by
initiative contributes new things |
NL (-) the learner has
to be “dragged” by the tutor |
O (+,-) Incorporating external
knowledge/experience in order to take on the problem |
OE (+) parting from
personal experiences |
|
|
OC (+) referring to
material from the course |
|
|
OM (+) using relevant
external material |
|
|
OK (+) evidence of
using prior knowledge |
|
|
OP (+) mentioning
problems posed during the course, whether in readings or text |
|
|
OQ (+) accepting
external knowledge |
OQ (-) silence attempts
that try to incorporate external knowledge |
|
|
O (-) staying in
prejudices or assumptions |
A (+,-)
Ambiguity: clarified
or confusing |
AC (+) clarify
ambiguous statements |
AC (-) confuse
statements |
|
A (+) discuss
ambiguities in order to clarify them |
A (-) continue to
ignore ambiguities |
L (+,-)
Linking ideas and
interpretations |
L (+) linking facts, ideas
and concepts |
L (-) repeating
information without making inferences or interpretations |
|
L (+) generating new
data from collected information |
L (-) expressing that
one shares ideas or opinions without contributing new data or supplementing
what has already been said |
J(+,-) Justification |
JP (+) foresees
evidence or examples |
JP(-) formulate irrelevant or non-precise
questions and examples |
|
JS (+) justifies
solutions and judgments |
JS(-) offers judgments and solutions without
explanations or justifications |
|
JS (+) delimits
advantages and disadvantages of situation and solution |
JS(-) offers various solutions without specifying
which is the most adequate |
C(+,-) Critical evaluation |
C(+) critical evaluation of their own
contribution or that of others |
C(-) acceptance without critique or rejection
without reasoning |
|
CT (+) the tutor
promotes critical evaluation |
CT(-) the tutor accepts interactions without
critique |
P(+,-) Practical use |
P(+) relates possible solutions to familiar
situations |
P(-) argues to the void without foundations or
valid arguments |
|
P(+) discusses the practical use of new ideas |
P(-) suggests non-practical solutions |
W(+,-) Broad understanding
(full vision of the context) |
W(+) Broad discussion (problem with a broad perspective;
includes intervention strategies with a theoretical framework) |
W(-) occasional discussion (includes parts or
fragments of the situation, partial suggestions without solid intervention) |
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.
Codes |
Analyzed contribution |
[JP+] |
...is an Ethos
argument, because they are using the senator’s words to make a point. |
[AC+]
[JP+] |
I think that this is a Pathos argument due to the
strong emotion regarding their disagreement with the techniques of American
politicians... |
[JS-]
[L+] |
The student is saying
that because social and academic life cannot be balanced, there are students
who have a 2.4 GPA, wasting thirty thousand dollars per semester. They are
using data... |
[I+] [L+] [NI+] [R+] |
They are using blackmail to make the journalist
change their point of view and not publish that, due to the lack of evidence
there is. They are saying that if it was a mistake, in a way they would lose
their job and it is not in their best interest due to their age and the
situation their mother is in, thus they want to convince her... |
[C+] [NI+] [W-] |
The Pathos argument
that you are presenting regarding the conversation between the teacher and
the student: don’t you think that it could also be considered as Logos,
because you are stating data of what the presidents do? |
[JP+]
[L+] |
This snippet is a Logos example because the teacher
can prove their position of balance based on qualifications and performance
in extracurricular activities... |
[OK+]
[P+] |
The way in which the
student speaks in this snippet shows us a Pathos example with regard to the
feeling they have against the government, but it is also a Logos example
because they can prove it with facts... |
[L+]
[OM+] |
For me it is a Pathos element, given that the
journalist is providing their opinion on what they want, from their
perspective, to happen to Bin Laden, since they are putting a feeling of
anger saying that they want to see him dead. |
[CT+] |
Aren’t all arguments refutable? Can we find false arguments that due to the way they
are presented, others could think them to be true? What do you mean by everyone knows it is true? Could you provide an example of these arguments you
consider to be unclear? |
[NP-] |
Reading your arguments, I completely agree
with what you said and I do not think you had any errors when describing each
argument and classifying it. |
[C+] |
Regarding your question on whether false arguments,
due to how they ae presented, could be taken as
true, I agree with you. In some cases, they use the Pathos, feelings, to make
a more credible argument. |
[W+] |
It could also include
a bit of Ethos, due to how it is being said, it could seem like there is a
feeling of sarcasm. |
[NS-] |
You are right, rereading it I think that it can also
be Pathos, thank you for pointing it out to me... |
[CT-] |
That’s right. The teacher, by making a
reflection or comment, can be taken as Ethos, except if they provide figures
of hard facts. |
[CT-] |
Everyone, thank you for your active participation in
this discussion forum. Everyone’s interactions have been high stimulating in
strengthening the application of Logos, Ethos, and Pathos arguments... |
[W+] |
I do not consider that
any one type of argument is better, rather that the student knows how and
when to use them depending on the activity where that is what is important. |
[C+]
[OK+] [W+] |
However,
I do not believe you mentioned that the argument is more substantiated, given
that the politician has the necessary credibility. |
[OE+]
[OK+] |
I think that it is
best for a student to appeal with Logos, Ethos and to finish with some Pathos
in order to create an extremely good argument. |
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
Categories |
Indicators
(+) |
Indicators
(-) |
Formula
|
Ratio
|
R (+,-)
Relevance |
63 |
8 |
R=(63-8)/(63+8) (55)/(71) = |
0.77 |
I (+,-)
Importance |
31 |
5 |
I=(31-5)/(31+5) (26)/(36) = |
0.72 |
N (+,-)
Novelty |
60 |
163 |
N=(60-163)/(60+163) (-103)/(223) = |
-0.46 |
A (+,-)
Ambiguity |
49 |
22 |
A=(49-22)/(49+22) (27)/(71) = |
0.38 |
O (+,-)
Incorporating external
knowledge |
237 |
65 |
O=(237-65)/(237+65) (172)/(302) = |
0.57 |
L (+,-)
Linking ideas and
interpretations |
175 |
26 |
L=(175-26)/(175+26) (149)/(201) = |
0.74 |
J (+,-)
Justification |
428 |
34 |
J=(428-34)/(428+34) (394)/(462) = |
0.85 |
C (+,-) Critical evaluation |
280 |
60 |
C=(280-60)/(280+60) (220)/(340) = |
0.65 |
P (+,-)
Practical utility |
16 |
0 |
P=(16-0)/(16+0) (16)/(16) = |
1 |
W (+,-)
Broad understanding |
41 |
1 |
W=(41-1)/(41+1) (40)/(42) = |
0.95 |
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
[1] PhD in education with emphasis in Educational
Communication and Technology. Independent researcher who performs a
postdoctoral residency in the Autonomous University of Querétaro. Member of
REDIIN and RedCUED and university professor for more
than two decades.
Métricas de artículo
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM
Enlaces refback
- No hay ningún enlace refback.
Apertura vol. 16, núm. 2, octubre de 2024 - marzo de 2025, es una revista científica especializada en innovación educativa en ambientes virtuales que se publica de manera semestral por la Universidad de Guadalajara, a través de la Coordinación de Recursos Informativos del Sistema de Universidad Virtual. Oficinas en Av. La Paz 2453, colonia Arcos Sur, CP 44140, Guadalajara, Jalisco, México. Tel.: 3268-8888, ext. 18775, www.udgvirtual.udg.mx/apertura, apertura@udgvirtual.udg.mx. Editor responsable: Dr. Rafael Morales Gamboa. Número de la Reserva de Derechos al Uso Exclusivo del Título de la versión electrónica: 04-2009-080712102200-203, e-ISSN: 2007-1094; número de la Reserva de Derechos al Uso Exclusivo del Título de la versión impresa: 04-2009-121512273300-102, ISSN: 1665-6180, otorgados por el Instituto Nacional del Derecho de Autor. Número de Licitud de Título: 13449 y número de Licitud de contenido: 11022 de la versión impresa, ambos otorgados por la Comisión Calificadora de Publicaciones y Revistas Ilustradas de la Secretaría de Gobernación. Responsable de la última actualización de este número: Sergio Alberto Mendoza Hernández. Fecha de última actualización: 25 de septiembre de 2024.
Comentarios sobre este artículo
por Isaac Rios (2017-12-26)
por tolja Brown (2018-05-04)
por valentina Nelson (2018-06-07)
por Anthony Maria (2018-07-13)