O n f e r e n c e

Ontological Challenges and Solutions 
The challenge at the ontological level was with conceptualising and defining the social 
reality under examination, being CCT. The challenge stemmed from the fact that most of 
the previously proposed definitions of critical thinking address critical thinking as a 
solitary activity. None of these definitions have conceptualised critical thinking, either 
explicitly or implicitly, as a collaborative activity. 

---

-150- 
2014 CALL Conference 
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be 
For instance, Geertsen (2003, p. 8) has addressed the individual nature of reflective 
thinking by addressing the “aha! experience” as a result of reflective thinking that 
“comes during moments of solitude when one is not pressing to find answer due to the 
uncertain and elusive nature of ill-
structured problems”. 
Therefore, to achieve the aim of this study, I needed to reconceptualise and redefine 
critical thinking in a way that would correspond with the kind of critical thinking that 
occurs in a social group (i.e. CCT). The social aspect of cognition is highlighted by a 
number of scholars (e.g. Vygotsky, 1978; Yukawa, 2006), who have opposed isolationist 
views of thinking, and have maintained that transformation towards a critical thinking 
view as socially distributed and outwardly directed is necessary (Thayer-Bacon, 2000). 
Furthermore, there has been a few attempts to define CCT. These definitions, 
summarised in Table 1, became the initial groundwork in this study for the 
conceptualisation of CCT and the investigation of whether and how CCT is demonstrated 
on ADFs. 
Definitions of CCT
 
CCT definitions 
Product
-
or
ie
nted
 
Purposeful, collective judgment produced by a task-oriented small group of four 
to six members that combines interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference 
with the relevant considerations on which that judgment is based regarding the 
specific task at hand (Schamber & Mahoney, 2006).