Evaluating the quality of learning in Computer Supported Co-operative Learning

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.

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 (in)visible scar. Representation of the body in blogs by women with breast cancer

In this paper we analyze the representation of the body in blogs by women with breast cancer. Taking into account both texts and images, we study the representation of the body on the basis of the body problems proposed by Frank (1995): control, body-relatedness, other-relatedness and desire. In the blogs studied we find a desiring and dyadic body, which is understood as part of a network of affection and care. The diagnosis of cancer can generate both dissociation, when the body is experienced as a threat, and association, a wish to be connected to it. In relation to control, a clear will of predictability is observed but traces of assumption of contingency also appear.

Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals

This paper explores the nature of public acceptance of wind farms by investigating the discourses of support and objection to a proposed offshore scheme. It reviews research into opposition to wind farms, noting previous criticisms that this has tended to provide descriptive rather than explanatory insights and as a result, has not effectively informed the policy debate. One explanation is that much of this research has been conceived within an unreflective positivist research frame, which is inadequate in dealing with the subjectivity and value-basis of public acceptance of wind farm development. The paper then takes a case study of an offshore wind farm proposal in Northern Ireland and applies Q-Methodology to identify the dominant discourse of support and objection. It is argued that this provides new insights into the nature of wind farm conflicts, points to a number or recommendations for policy functions of an example of how this methodology can act as a potential bridge between positivist and post-positivist approaches to policy analysis.

Cool Rationalities and Hot Air: A Rhetorical Approach to Understanding Debates on Renewable Energy.

A key obstacle to the wide-scale development of renewable energy is that public acceptability of wind energy cannot be taken for granted when wind energy moves from abstract support to local implementation. Drawing on a case study of opposition to the siting of a proposed off-shore wind farm in Northern Ireland, we offer a rhetorical analysis of a series of representative documents drawn from government, media, pro- and anti-wind energy sources, which identifies and interprets a number of discourses of objection and support. The analysis indicates that the key issue in terms of the transition to a renewable energy economy has little to do with the technology itself. Understanding the different nuances of pro- and anti-wind energy discourses highlights the importance of thinking about new ways of looking at these conflicts. These include adopting a “conflict resolution” approach and “upstreaming” public involvement in the decision-making process and also the counter-productive strategy of assuming that objection is based on ignorance (which can be solved by information) or NIMBY thinking (which can be solved by moral arguments about overcoming “free riders”).