-154-
2014 CALL Conference
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be
5.
Decis
io
n
ma
k
ing
Applications of newly constructed meaning
A.
Summarisation of agreements, key point in the arguments and/or
synthesis
B.
Projected applications of new knowledge
C.
Metacognitive statements by participants illustrating their understanding
that their knowledge or ways of thinking (cognitive schema) have changed
as a result of the conference interaction
Table 3
This coding scheme proved to be promising due to its conceptual alignment with the
notion of critical thinking as a collaborative activity, and
due to its high inter-rater
reliability index. Inter-rater reliability in the first round was 70.83 per cent. After
negotiating discrepancies and ambiguities, the second round
of coding resulted in an
acceptable percentage of 83.72 inter-rater reliability.
This synthetic coding scheme can not only serve as a suitable analytic tool for
researchers and as a formative assessment tool for educators to measure CCT in
computer conferencing, but also as a learning tool to guide students’ CCT demonstration.
In higher education classes where computer-conferencing is used for critical discussions,
students can evaluate their CCT demonstration against
this coding scheme and make
necessary efforts to participate more collaboratively and critically.
Finally, informed by the findings, which I did not present due to space limitation of this
paper, I present my proposed inductive
hierarchical
yet
cyclical
critical thinking definition
that captures both the process and the product of CCT:
The overt and tacit interaction between two or more individuals which involves
collectively questioning, analysing, synthesising, evaluating and making decisions in
order to build the collective knowledge of the group and the knowledge of the individuals
in the group.
As defined, not all collaborative interactions involve critical thinking. Collaborative
interaction that involves questioning, analysing, synthesising, evaluating and making
decisions is the kind of interaction that comprises different levels of CCT (Gunawardena,
et al., 1997). Such interaction is also constructive (Jenlink & Carr, 1996), since it builds
the collective knowledge of the group as the group discusses issues (critical
thinking at
the group level), and builds onto the already established knowledge of the individual as a
result of tacit and active co-reflection (critical thinking at the individual level).
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: