An experiment in group learning technology: evaluating critical thinking in face-to-face and computer-supported seminars

Can learning quality be maintained in the face of increasing class size by the use of Computer Supported Co-operative Learning (CSCL) technologies? In particular, can Computer-Mediated Communication promote critical thinking in addition to surface information transfer? We compared face-to-face seminars with asynchronous computer conferencing in the same Information Management class. From Garrison's theory of critical thinking and Henri's critical reasoning skills, we developed two ways of evaluating critical thinking: a student questionnaire and a content analysis technique. We found evidence for critical thinking in both situations, with some subtle differences in learning style. This paper provides an overview of this work.

A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning

This paper gives a detailed account of the content analysis method developed at Queen's University Belfast to measure critical thinking during group learning, as used in our controlled comparisons between learning in face-to-face and computer conference seminars. From Garrison's 5 stages of critical thinking, and Henri's cognitive skills needed in CMC, we have developed two research instruments: a student questionnaire and this content analysis method. The content analysis relies on identifying, within transcripts, examples of indicators of obviously critical and obviously uncritical thinking, from which several critical thinking ratios can be calculated.

The relationship between counterfactual thinking and emotional reactions to event outcomes: Does one account fit all?

By enabling a comparison between what is and what might have been, counterfactual thoughts amplify our emotional responses to bad outcomes. Well-known demonstrations such as the action effect (the tendency to attribute most regret to a character whose actions brought about a bad outcome) and the temporal order effect (the tendency to undo the last in a series of events leading up to a bad outcome) are often explained in this way. An important difference between these effects is that outcomes are due to decisions in the action effect, whereas in the temporal order effect outcomes are achieved by chance. In Experiment 1, we showed that imposing time pressure leads to a significant reduction in the action but not in the temporal order effect. In Experiment 2, we found that asking participants to evaluate the protagonists (

Interpersonal Aspects of Thinking Skills in an Intercultural Language Learning Context

Asking and answering certain types of questions are thought to develop thinking skills in all types of classrooms. Previous research has demonstrated that asking higher order questions and answering with elaborated responses are associated with high achievement in first, second, and foreign language contexts. Typically more attention is paid to question frequency or achievements inferred from individual performances than to the dialogues in which asking and answering occurs. This paper argues for a focus on the construction of responses in interaction as an alternative to the investigation of questions, effects of training or individual measurements of performance. Drawing on interactional data from an adult English as a Second Language classroom, it is argued that constructing an answer to a critical question appears to be a highly collaborative and evaluative affair. The thinking skills literature suggests that responding to higher order questions is an individual higher cognitive function, however it is argued in this paper that in attempting to construct evaluative answers language learners are involved not only in a cognitive task, which may or may not be helpful to language learning, but also in a complex social task in which perspectives need to be negotiated, stances taken and identities navigated. It is suggested that higher order thinking cannot be separated from the social and cultural knowledge through which it is brought into being. It is argued that any implementation of thinking skills in an English language teaching context ought to consider interpersonal and social aspects, particularly in intercultural settings.

From a ‘borderless world’ to a ‘world of borders’: ‘bringing history back in’

The first part of the paper explores some of the reasons why contemporary border studies understate the full significance of state borders and their global primacy. It is argued that this failing is rooted in a much wider lack of historical reflexivity-a reluctance to acknowledge the historical positioning (the 'where and when') of contemporary border studies themselves. This reluctance encourages a form of pseudohistory, or 'epochal thinking', which disfigures perspective on the present. Among the consequences are (a) exaggerated claims of the novelty of contemporary border change, propped up by poorly substantiated benchmarks in the past; (b) an incapacity to recognise the 'past in the present' as in the various historical deposits of state formation processes; and (c) a failure to recognise the distinctiveness of contemporary state borders and how they differ from other borders in their complexity and globality. The second part of the paper argues for a recalibration of border studies aimed at balancing their spatial emphases with a much greater, and more critical, historical sensitivity. It insists that 'boundedness', and state boundedness in particular, is a variable that must be understood historically. This is illustrated by arguing that a better analysis of contemporary border change means rethinking the crude periodisation which distinguishes the age of empire from the age of nation-states and, in turn, from some putative contemporary era 'beyond nation-states' and their borders.