Exploring Students’ Critical Thinking in an Online Learning Environment (Blended Learning)

1. Exploring Students’ Critical Thinking in an Online Learning Environment (Blended Learning) LEELA CHAKRABARTY November 2010

2. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH IN THE NURTURING OF GLOCAL HUMAN CAPITAL

3. CALL(Computer Assisted Language Learning) • The focus of the blend is to provide students with course materials and resources online. • To link lecture themes with tutorial debate through online activities, group work and research tasks that students will complete

4. Rationale of Study • According to Bullen (1998) there is limited empirical study to support the claims made about the potential of computer conferencing to facilitate higher level thinking. • In spite of the perceived potential of computer-mediated communication, the effects on learning and its outcomes have not yet been well investigated.

5. Significance of the study • The purpose of the study is to provide a model that might be used by instructors or students to identify and measure engagement in critical thinking in the context of online discussions.

6. Objectives: • To encourage self awareness in the knowledge construction process via e-forum discussion board. • To investigate the type or level of critical thinking present in the students’ thinking process during discussion in the e-forums.

7. esearch Questions • 1.Can e-forum discussion board be a platform to encourage self awareness in the knowledge construction process? • 2.Are there signs of critical thinking skills and what are the categories of critical thinking skills applied by the students in the discussions?

8. Theoritical Background • Constructivist Learning Settings • (Duffy &Cunningham, 1996)

9. Seven pedagogical goals • Provide exposure in the knowledge construction process • Provide exposure in the appreciation for multiple perspectives • Embed learning in realistic and relevant contexts • Encourage ownership and voice in the learning process • Embed learning in social exposure • Encourage the use of multiple modes of representation • Encourage self awareness in the knowledge construction process

10. Collaborative learning pedagogy • According to Preston (2005), collaborative learning is a social process in which the learners learnt from peers by participating interactively with learning material, observing the solution approach adopted by every peer, ensure each peer is focused towards the task and motivated in highlighting issues and decisions.

11. The potential benefits that can be obtained by the learners learning through collaborative learning are: • Resource sharing and cohesive brainstorming • Monitoring of the problem solution approach by the peers • Interaction is conducive for good performance • Positive effects on the cognitive growth and transmission • and acquisition of skills • Development of interest and sense of belonging

12. continued- • Help the learners in applying problem solving techniques • Sustainable deep learning • Good performance achievement • Develop skills wanted by the industry • Increase the confidence level in giving the solutions and • satisfaction on the process that was experienced

13. Introduction of Critical Thinking • Critical thinking is important in modern education. If educators are interested in teaching critical thinking to their students, they must become informed about the strategy of teaching critical thinking skills, identify areas in one's courses as the proper place to emphasize and teach critical thinking. The purpose of teaching critical thinking in any discipline is to improve the thinking skills of students and thus better prepare them to succeed in the world.

14. Critical thinking cannot be taught by lecturing. • Critical thinking is an active process. • Listening to lectures is a passive activity. • Critical thinking must be learned by actually performing them.

15. Summary of Critical Thinking Models

16. Methodology • The study was conducted in January 2010 semester 2 • (2009/2010) in which the students at the undergraduate level are required to collaborate online in small groups using asynchronous threaded forum.

17. MyGuru Portal • This portal provides course documentation, • online readings, lecture notes and a space for discussion

21. Data Collection • The data for the study were collected over eight weeks -that is reflection done over part of the semester. • The students were given questions to respond to and their responses on the e- Forum recorded. • These observations were accompanied by interview sessions at the end of the semester.

22. Strategies • There were some strategies undertaken. The researcher provided students with questions to discuss. The specifications for the postings to be followed are: • Students must respond to at least one other classmate • Provide ideas or opinions • Minimize grammatical errors • Marks will be deducted for not abiding to any of the specifications.

23. Sampling • A total of 56 students from two CALL classes were used. The anonymity of the participants was ensured and this was done by allocating a code to each participant. They were all between the ages 19-22.

24. Data Analysis • The grading rubric indicates that students were expected to demonstrate four aspects of critical thinking in their posts. • These aspects are based on Newman, Webb & Cochrane (1995) and Henri (1992) Clulow & Brace-Govan (2001) models • Students are expected to write postings that reflect a superior level of insight, originality, analysis and critical thinking.

25. The application of the model involved reading transcripts, marking passages representing a unit of meaning and coding each passage. • The approach taken is to code each unit of meaning according to the appropriate critical thinking process directly. • In some cases, more than one critical thinking process appeared within a given posting, and the posting was coded as demonstrating the process that appeared most important in that context. Therefore, only one code was used for each unit of meaning.

26. The codes are : • ‘C’ for “Clarification”, • ‘A’ for “Assessment”, • ‘I’ for “Inference” and • ‘S’ for “Strategies”.

27. -adapted from Perkins, C., & Murphy, E. (2006) for the identification of the students’ critical thinking engagements in their postings. • CLARIFICATION :All aspects of stating, clarifying, describing or defining the issue being discussed. • ASSESSMENT :Evaluating some aspect of the debate; making judgments on a situation, proposing evidence for an argument or for links with other issues. • INFERENCE :Showing connections among ideas; drawing appropriate conclusions by deduction or induction, generalizing, explaining and hypothesizing. • STRATEGIES :Proposing, discussing, or evaluating possible actions.

28. Once a passage is coded, the researcher calculates a critical thinking ratio as: • CT = (x+ – x–)÷(x+ + x–) • CT= Critical Thinking; Where ‘x+’ is the count of statements contributing to critical thinking for the coding category and x– is the count of statements detracting from critical thinking for the category. • (Positive numbers approaching 1 indicate the highest levels of critical thinking.)

29. For example; Student F’s calculation = (x+ – x–)÷(x+ + x–) • = (7-1) ÷(7+1) • = 6/8 • = 0.75 • (positive value very close to 1) • This indicates that student F has shown very high levels of critical thinking. • Overall critical thinking ratio can be calculated by counting all the positive and negative postings in the forum and then apply the above formula.

30. Student A’s Critical Thinking Value = (x+ – x–)÷(x+ + x–) • = (5-3) ÷ (5+3) • = (2) ÷ (8) • = 0.25 ( Positive Value) • Another student who has got more negative coding would show the following calculation: • = (x+ – x–)÷(x+ + x–) • = (2-5) ÷ (2+5) • = (-3) ÷ (7) • = -0.42 (Negative Value)

31. Findings • The researcher has adapted and used the Newman,Webb &Cochrane (1995)model. The model had five elements; clarification, in depth clarification, inference, judgment/assessment and strategy formation. • (I have combined the in depth clarification with the clarification and made into one. Thus, I have four elements to work on.)

32. 86.4 % used clarification • 9% actually made inferences • 2.1% made assessments • 2.5% were involved in developing strategies

33. Numerical summary of 4 participants’ engagement in critical thinking as a sample:

34. As is evidenced by the results in the table 4, the group as a whole tended to engage more in clarification and less in the three other processes. • Comparisons between participants show individual differences and preferences for engagement in particular processes related to critical thinking.

35. Knowing this, the instructor may decide to revise the course to encourage a broader range of processes, or provide feedback to students who appear to be uncomfortable with or unable to engage in a particular critical thinking process. • It could be used to focus on developing teaching strategies or to encourage specific types of critical thinking processes. If, for example, the goal is for the students to engage in inference more often, and clarification less often, the model can help direct engagement in one or the other.

36. Discussion and Conclusion • This study was limited to coding by only one rater therefore no tests of reliability were conducted. Although there are some indications in the literature that inter-rater reliability is acceptable in rating online discussion transcripts (MacKinnon, 2003), further work would be useful in confirming or contradicting this. • Future studies might make use of the model with other raters, in different courses, in other contexts and with more participants.

37. The results show that there are other factors that directly contribute to the critical thinking of individual and the group. • The factors could be the role of tutor in the online discussion, the dynamics of discussion in the forum, etc. • As educators, we must continue to focus on how we can help each learner feel comfortable.

38. Leela Chakrabarty leela@fbk.upsi.edu.my University Pendidikan Sultan Idris