Promoting Critical Thinking through Asynchronous Weblog

Forum

Zahra Shahsavar & Tan Bee Hoon (tanbh@fbmk.upm.edu.my)

Department of EnglishUniversiti Putra Malaysia

Outline1. Statement of the problem

2. Critical thinking

3. Weblog and critical thinking

4. Research Questions

5. Methodology

6. Critical thinking in different groups

7. Conclusion

Statement of the problem

It is generally agreed that students learn various knowledge and skills in college, but whether they learn to think critically is not certain (Mandernach, 2006).

Critical thinking

Critical thinking is considered as a cognitive process and strategies for making decisions and solving the problems (Alazzi, 2008)

Critical thinking is a well-organised mental activity to evaluate arguments or propositions and make judgments which can lead to the development of ideas and taking action (Connerly, 2006).

Weblog and critical thinking Read properly (Shefler, 2006) Answer critically (Shefler, 2006) Write extensively through successful practice instead of

focusing on theory (Shefler, 2006) Enhance students’ writing skills (Wang & Woo, 2009). Facilitate students’ share of information and collaboration (Lai

and Wang, 2008) Create more in-depth interaction among students (Lai and

Wang, 2008) Allow students to ask questions and challenge each other’s

thinking (Lai and Wang, 2008)

Research Questions

How can different blogging strategies affect students’ critical thinking?

Is there a significant difference between bloggers and non-bloggers’ critical thinking?

MethodologyParticipants: Forty four undergraduate students aged from 22 to 26 (45.9% male and 54.1%

female). Most of them (97%) had personal computers, and 60% of them had home Internet access.

Groups: Four groups of bloggers & one group of non-bloggerProcedure: a) Setting up weblog at Web 2.0 at www.blogger.comb) Online discussion (Topic: Which criterion is more important to you in choosing

a friend, inner beauty or physical appearance?)c) Content analysis instrument: the Newman et al. (1996) critical thinking model Sessions:a) Face-to-face sessions b) Online sessionsStrategies: 1) Blogging within the group without giving feedback to one another’s blog (G1)2) Blogging within the group and giving feedback (G2)3) Blogging within the group and giving feedback, followed by revisions (G3)4) Sharing ideas within the group on the weblog forum before blogging (G4)

Measuring critical thinking

The Newman, Webb, and Cochrane’s (1996) critical thinking model

CT=(x+ - x-)/ (x+ + x-) CT range: from -1 to +1

Category Positive Indicator Negative Indicator

R± Relevance R+ Relevant statements R- Irrelevant statements, diversions

l± Importance I+ Important points/issues I- Unimportant, trivial points/issues

N± Novelty; new info, ideas, solutions NP+ New problem-related informationNI+ New ideas for discussionNS+ New solutions to problemsNQ+ Welcoming new ideasNL+ Learner brings new things in

NP- Repeating what has been saidNI- False or trivial leadsNS- Accepting first offered solutionNQ- Squashing, putting down new ideasNE- Dragged in by tutor

O± Bringing outsideknowledge or experienceto bear on problem

OE+ Drawing on personal experienceOC+ Refer to course materialOM+ Use relevant outside materialOK+ Using previous knowledgeOP+ Course related problems brought in (e.g., students identify problems from lectures and texts)OQ+ Welcoming outside knowledg

OQ- Squashing attempts to bring in outside knowledgeO- Sticking to prejudice or assumptions

A± Ambiguities: clarified or confused AC+ Clear, unambiguous statementsA+ Clear up ambiguities

AC- Confused statementsA- Continue to ignore ambiguities

L± Linking ideas, interpretation

L+ Linking facts, ideas and notionsL+ Generating new data from information collected

L- Repeating information without making inferences or offering an interpretationL- Stating that one shares the ideas or opinions stated, without taking these further or adding any personal comments.

J± Justification JP+ Providing proof or examplesJS+ Justifying solutions or judgmentsJS+ Discussing advantages and disadvantages of solution

JP- Irrelevant or obscuring questions or examplesJS- Offering judgments or solutions without explanations or justificationJS- Offering several solutions without suggesting which is the most appropriate.

C± Critical assessment C+ Critical assessment or evaluation of own or others' contributionsCT+ Tutor prompts for critical evaluation

C- Uncritical acceptance or unreasoned rejectionCT- Tutor uncritically accepts

P± Practical utility(grounding)

P+ Relate possible solutions to familiar situationsP+ Discuss practical utility of new ideas

P- Discuss in a vacuum (treat as ifon Mars)P- Suggest impractical solutions

W± Width of understanding(complete picture)

W+ Widen discussion (problem, within a larger perspective. Intervention strategies within a wider framework.)

W- Narrow discussion. (Address bits or fragments of situation. Suggested glib, partial, invention)

Measuring critical thinking

1. The Newman, Webb, and Cochrane’s (1996) critical thinking model

Today’s lesson we have learnt how to insert a flash file to a program, which is great (L+). Now I can include a

flash file in the project that my partner and I have planned for (J+). I was thinking of putting an

advertisement for dental care that I can find on the website to my project, or maybe a movie file on bacteria and cavity. This is definitely good (P+).

CT=(x+ - x-)/ (x+ + x-) CT range: from -1 to +1

Group 1 (Blogging within the group without giving feedback)

1. Demonstrated domineering top 3 traits: Justification (J+), criticalness (C+) and linking ideas & interpretation (L+ )

2. Used relevant statements (R+) and outside knowledge (O+), gave important points (I+) and cleared ambiguity (A+)

3. Applied various reasons to support their ideas

4. Used experience to link significant and relevant statements

Group 2 (Blogging within the group and giving feedback)

1. Demonstrated similar top 3 CT traits as Group 1: Justification (J+), Criticalness (C+), and Linking ideas and interpretation (L+ ).

2. Applied different kinds of comments.

3. Offered their own judgment to explain or justify their fellow groupmates’ posts

Group 3 (Blogging within the group and giving feedback, followed by revisions)

1. Bloggers’ postsUsed considerable ambiguous statements (A-) in their comparisons (3rd top trait).

2. Bloggers’ comments Aimed to clear up ambiguity

3. Bloggers’ reflections Bloggers’ ambiguity was reduced by bringing

outside knowledge (O+), applying critical assessment (C+) and deleting irrelevant statements (R-)

Group 4 (Sharing ideas on the weblog forum before blogging)

1. Demonstrated both positive and negative criticalness top traits:

Novelty (N-), bringing outside knowledge (O+), and Justification (J+).

2. Comments were too short in the Sharing Corner.

3. Limited CT was applied in their postings.

Group 5 (non-bloggers)

1. Demonstrated the highest negative criticalness (41.10%) in the top 3 critical thinking traits:

Novelty (N-), ambiguous statements (A-), criticalness (C-), irrelevant statements (R-), linking ideas and interpretation (L-), importance (I-), justification (J-), and bringing outside knowledge (O-)

2. Used repetition in their statements

Screen capture of a student’s posting in group 3

Data Analysis and results Critical thinking occurrence details for bloggers in G1

CT

categoryR

+

R

-

I

+

I

-

N+

N- O+

O-

A+

A- L+ L- J+

J-

C+

C- Total

Sub

Total10 0 7 4 5 1 10 0 7 3 12 0 2

82 17 1 107

%

Score9.35

0.00

6.54

3.74

4.67

0.93

9.33

0.00

6.54

2.80

11.21

0.00

26.17

1.87

15.89

0.93

100

Importance

4a N.I.

6a 9 8 N.I.

4a N.I.

6a

10 3 N.I.

1 11

2 N.I.

CT 1.00 0.27 0.67 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.86 0.89

Summary of CT in different groupsThe decreasing pattern of CT in different groups based on Newman et al. model

CT Total +

% score

Total –

% score

Group 1bloggers

89.7 10.3

Group 2bloggers

85.3 14.7

Group 3bloggers

75.6 24.4

Group 4bloggers

62.7 37.3

Group 5(Non-bloggers)

58.9 41.1

Findings and Conclusion

Group 1 who blogged with no feedback scored the highest. This has serious implications.

The unanticipated result might have been caused by the exploratory nature of the study with possible flawed procedures and/or measurement.

Further research is needed for drawing more convincing findings.

ReferencesAlazzi, Kh. F. (2008). The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also

contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers.Teachers' perceptions of critical thinking: A study of Jordanian secondary school social studies teachers. The entity from which ERIC acquires the content, including journal, organization, and conference names, or by means of online submission from the author.Social Studies, 99(6), 243-248.

Connerly, D. (2006). Teaching critical thinking skills to fourth grade students identified as gifted and talented. MA dissertation. Graceland University,Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Retrieved September 20, 2009 from www.criticalthinking.org/files/DebConneryElementaryResearch.doc

Lai, H., & Wang, C. (2008). Exploring of blog users’ on-line experience and attitudes toward computers. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 2689-2699). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.  

Mandernach, B. J. (2006). Thinking critically about critical thinking: Integrating online tools to promote critical thinking, Volume 1. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from www.insightjournal.net/Volume1/Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking- Integrating Online

Shefler, L. (2006).Why weblogs? Retrieved January 2, 2008 from file:///F:/Weblog%2011%2012/weblog%20articles/1-86%20articles/Weblogg-ed%20%2083%C2%BB%20Why%20Weblogs.htm

Wang, Q.Y., & Woo, H. L. (2008). Affordances and Innovative Uses of Weblogs for Teaching and Learning. In Kobayashi, R (Ed.), New Educational Technology (pp. 183-199). NY: Nova Science Publishers.