A content analysis of critical thinking....pdf

Leah E. Wickersham, Texas A&M UniversityCommerce, PO Box 3011, Department of Secondary and Higher Educa-

tion, Commerce, TX 75429. Telephone: (903) 468-3248. E-mail: [email protected]

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 7(2), 2006, pp. 185193 ISSN 1528-3518

Copyright 2006 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL

THINKING SKILLS AS AN INDICATOR OF

QUALITY OF ONLINE DISCUSSION IN

VIRTUAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES

Leah E. Wickersham

Texas A&M UniversityCommerce

Kim E. Dooley

Texas A&M University

Online discussion is a common tool to create learner-learner interaction. Whole class discussions can result in

potentially hundreds of postings with students spending more time creating the illusion of participation as

opposed to critical reflection and deeper learning. The purpose of this study was to determine quality of online

discussion based on critical thinking constructs when learners were placed in smaller learning communities

and not exposed to whole class discussion. The researchers sought to determine if discrepancies among the

groups would exist and if students would receive the full benefit of learner-learner interaction by placing them

in smaller groups.

INTRODUCTION

Online courses are not so dissimilar from

their face-to-face counterparts, with interac-

tive discussion playing an integral role in the

teaching and learning process. Several advan-

tages to the asynchronous approach not

present in the synchronous environment

involve providing all students the ability to

interact and participate in the discussion, to

learn at their own pace, and to have more

time to reflect and respond within the

expanded timeframe.

New challenges, however, have emerged

as a result of moving the discussion from the

traditional to the virtual environment. More

responsibility is placed on the student to self-

engage in this process and the instructor is

faced with the task of analyzing quality of

participation and measuring student learning.

186 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 7, No. 2, 2006

Moores editorial in the American Journal

of Distance Education (1989) identified three

types of interaction in distance education:

learner-content, learner-instructor, and

learner-learner. Interaction between learner

and content implies that construction of

knowledge occurs when the learner interacts

with the course content and changes in ones

understanding occurs when the new knowl-

edge is combined with preexisting knowledge.

Interaction between the learner and instructor

reinforces the learner-content interaction using

engagement and dialog exchange to promote

the learning process with explanation, discus-

sion, examples, and/or application activities.

Interaction between learner and learner is

essential in distance education if participation

in class discussions is to take place. This inter-

action can happen one-on-one or within a

group setting, depending on the design of the

course.

Northrup (2002) studied online learners

preferences for interaction or engagement in

learning. She found four variables that serve an

indicators of interaction: (1) content interac-

tion including the structure, pacing, and use of

various delivery technologies and interactive

strategies; (2) conversation and collaboration

through peer interaction and participation in a

learning community; (3) intrapersonal/meta-

cognitive interaction through self-monitoring

and providing cognitive strategies like note-

taking guides and advanced organizers; and (4)

support through mentoring, tutorials, and

timely correspondence with the instructor.

One way to promote interaction and collab-

oration is through online discussions. How-

ever, determining the quality of discussion and

amount of participation of students in a course

can be cumbersome to measure. For example,

a course with an enrollment of 30 students and

a requirement to read and respond to all post-

ings can be viewed as busy work with very

little meaningful discussion and learning tak-

ing place. It is often confusing and time con-

suming to sift through what could result in

hundreds of postings in an online discussion.

More time and effort is spent on creating an

illusion of participation on the part of the stu-

dent by the number of one to two sentence

postings to many discussion threads rather

than an in-depth, meaningful discussion

among a few, resulting in a failure to achieve

what the instructor had intendedthoughtful

reflection and meaningful discussions.

If a students grades are partially deter-

mined by their participation in online discus-

sions, instructors face another challenge in

determining how to assess the quality of dis-

cussion and if in fact learning is taking place.

But what tools are available to determine qual-

ity in online discussions and whether higher-

order thinking skills are being developed?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Virtual learning communities promote learn-

ing when instruction, social interaction, and

technology activities are present (Tu & Corry,

2002). Research has shown that online discus-

sion helps students understand course objec-

tives, provides real world applications, and

promotes interaction (Edelstein & Edwards,

2003; Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Simonson, Smal-

dino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2003). It is assumed

that the facilitator or course instructor will

consider how much time (or number of post-

ings) a student needs to participate, but deter-

mining how the discussions contribute to the

achievement of the course objectives, how

well the student is performing in the course,

and how much learning is happening as a result

of the discussion is another story. Edelstein

and Edwards (2003) created an assessment

rubric for student participation in threaded dis-

cussions based on five constructs: (1) prompt-

ness and initiative, demonstrating self-

motivation and consistent engagement in the

course content; (2) attention to detail in the

delivery of the post (such as grammar and

spelling); (3) relevance of the post in relation

to the course topic and objectives; (4) how well

opinions and ideas are expressed within the

post; and (5) contribution to the learning com-

munity. Although this rubric is useful in deter-

A Content Analysis of Critical Thinking Skills 187

mining participation beyond just counting

postings, it does not provide an indication of

the depth of understanding of the content in

terms of metacognition, problem solving, and

critical thinking.

Several researchers have used various mod-

els to measure intellectual development and

critical thinking within online discussions

(Marra, 2002; Marra, Moore, & Klimczak,

2004; Newman, Webb, & Cochrane, 1996;

Visser, Visser, & Schlosser, 2003). Marra

(2002) suggests that as complex understand-

ings develop, learners are able to see knowl-

edge as being defined and shaped by the

context in which it must be applied (p. 16).

Marra provides a rubric for determining if con-

cepts discussed using online conversation tools

are descriptive of the content domain, if they

are embedded and interconnected, and if links

are descriptive and efficient (2002). She posits

that effective online learning environment

should scaffold and support complex intellec-

tual development.

The model used by Newman et al. was

based on Garrisons five stages of critical

thinking (1992) and Henris cognitive skills

needed in computer mediated communication

(1992). Newman et al. (1996) cite Mason

(1992) regarding how instructors rely on

counting messages and logons to determine

participation in threaded discussions with little

thought of what constitutes good work or the

quality of student learning. These authors sup-

port the use of collaborative learning, critical

thinking, and deep understanding of course

material based on content analysis of the writ-

ten narrative of the online discussion as

another assessment tool.

If we believe that deep learning is promoted

by active engagement and that cognitive skills

are developed in a social context (Lipman,

1991; Resnick, Levine, & Teasley, 1991; Tu &

Corry, 2002), then threaded discussions within

a virtual learning community could promote

deep learning. Right? But, how do we measure

deep learning or critical thinking within virtual

communities? Henri (1992) suggests five

dimensions: (1) participative; (2) social;

(3) interactive; (4) cognitive; and (5) metacog-

nitive. For the purposes of this study, the

researchers chose to focus on the cognitive

dimensions only because they were interested

in measuring learning, not only participation

(self-direction) and social functions within a

virtual learning community.

Garrison (1992) provided a five-stage model

to measure critical thinking skills: (1) problem

identification; (2) problem definition; (3) prob-

lem exploration; (4) problem evaluation/appli-

cability; and (5) problem integration. Newman,

Webb, and Cochrane (1996) eloquently com-

bined these two models with Masons (1992)

suggestions based on the educational value

exhibited within online discussion: Do the

learners build on previous messages? Do they

draw on their own experience? Do they refer to

course materials? Do they refer to relevant

material outside the course? Do they initiate

new ideas? The resulting model codes provide

indicators of critical and uncritical thinking in

10 areas: (1) relevance; (2) importance; (3) nov-

elty; (4) outside knowledge or experience being

brought to bear on the problem; (5) ambiguities

clarified or confused; (6) linking ideas; (7) jus-

tification; (8) critical assessment; (9) practical

utility (grounding); and (10) width of under-

standing. This model served as the theoretical

framework for this study. Previous studies have

used the content analysis method to measure

critical thinking in face-to-face and computer-

supported group learning for whole class

instruction, but they have not examined the

impact of smaller learning communities within

a course. Would there be differences in deep

learning or critical thinking if students are only

exposed to their own learning team rather than

the breadth of discussion and perspectives from

the entire class?

PURPOSE AND RESEARCH

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine if

the critical thinking skills model posed by

Newman et al. (1996) could be used to indicate


quality of online discussion when the learners

are placed in smaller learning communities

and not exposed to whole-class discussion.

Would there be discrepancies among the

groups? Would one team have a great amount

of critical thinking within their discussion

while one team only scratched the surface?

Would students not receive the full benefit of

learner-to-learner interaction if placed in a

smaller group, or would they have greater inti-

macy and deeper conversations as a result of

being in a smaller group?

METHODS

For this study, the primary source of data was

narrative. Therefore, acceptable qualitative

research standards drove the methods (Lincoln

& Guba, 1985). There were 30 respondents

within 6 virtual learning communities (5 learn-

ers in each community). Each learner was

given a number based on the order they

responded, 1-5A for virtual team A; 1-5B for

virtual team B, and so forth. Research proce-

dures included a review of all 11 discussion

forums for the semester, which resulted in a

substantial amount of data. It was determined

that all of the discussion topics had consis-

tency in length and quality of postings; there-

fore, one discussion forum was selected for

content analysis. The topic of this discussion

was the strengths and challenges of learner-

centered instruction. The graduate students

enrolled in this course read a chapter from their

text and additional research articles on learner-

centered instruction prior to engaging in the

discussion. The instructions were that each

learner was required to submit an original

posting and reply to at least one other virtual

team member. The instructor made it clear that

the basis for grading was quality, not quantity

of posting, but the learners were not given the

framework for analysis.

The critical thinking skills model (Newman

et al., 1996) was used as the basis for analysis.

The researchers created a color-coding system

with highlighters to identify the 10 major cate-

gories within the model. The researchers used

a read aloud protocol with consensus-build-

ing measures. An audit trail was kept to verify

the data sources for each of the critical think-

ing categories by color and number for each

respondent within a virtual team. In order for

transferability to occur, the researchers chose

exemplary discussions for each of the ten indi-

cators to provide thick description (Geertz,

1973).

FINDINGS

The findings are presented with exemplary dis-

cussion examples for each critical-thinking

category across all the virtual learning commu-

nities. An audit trail with respondent codes

serves as a trustworthiness measure of the

presence of critical thinking across the 10 cat-

egories within the theoretical model.

For relevance, the researchers were looking

for relevant or irrelevant statements and/or

diversions from the topic. An example of a rel-

evant statement found in virtual community A

is:

Learner centered instruction refers to

actively involving students in the planning,

implementation, and self-evaluation pro-

cess of their education. Students who are

involved in their own learning relate better

to the material and process information

according to their own learning type. An

increase in desire to learn and problem

solving skills are the product. (4A)

The second model code is importance. The

researchers were looking for important point/

issues or whether the learners used unimpor-

tant, trivial points/issues for this category. One

respondent noted:

Instruction will require teachers to prepare

in advance, acquire the needed resources,

and effectively monitor and provide feed-

back to the students. Also, the classroom

can become noisy and perhaps somewhat

disorderly during certain times of the day

since many different activities could be

occurring at the same time. (5B)


The third category is novelty or new infor-

mation, ideas, or solutions. This category

includes putting forth within the discussion

new problem-related information, new ideas

for discussion, new solutions to problems, wel-

coming new ideas, and bringing new items in

the discussion. On the contrary, if a respondent

repeats what has been said, provides false or

trivial leads, accepts the first solution offered,

or has to be dragged into the discussion by the

instructor, this would be a negative indicator of

novelty. A good example is 1F, who com-

mented, There are teachers and professors

who cling to teacher-oriented approaches

(such as lecture) because of fear. The fear is

also generated by pressure, failure, and lazi-

ness.

The next category is bringing outside

knowledge or experience to bear on the prob-

lem. A positive indicator would be drawing on

personal experience, referring to course mate-

rials, using relevant outside material or previ-

ous knowledge, and incorporating course-

related problems brought in from lectures,

texts, and other materials. If learners rely only

on their preconceived notions and assump-

tions, then this is a negative indicator. To illus-

trate, 3B discussed his experiences abroad:

I have spent time in several foreign coun-

tries and I have lived abroad for two years.

In most places that I have traveled I made a

conscious effort to learn the language of the

people and culture whom I am visiting. I do

this for two reasons. First, I LOVE to learn.

Secondly, the native people of the country

that I am visiting always seem to appreciate

my effort and this results in a very friendly

rapport for my time in the country. But

from this I learned that discovery learning,

or learning in a personal context has been

more effective to me picking up the lan-

guage as opposed to reading a book to

studying vocabulary flash cards.

Another respondent provided these

insights:

Im faced with students that without con-

stant direction they would be totally lost

and find it hard to keep up. I try to build the

self-confidence and esteem of my students

at an early age and sometimes when faced

with students that dominate the lessons

their egos could be affected. I feel that the

best of both worlds, traditional and a

learner-centered environment is the best

way to go. (5A)

The fifth category is ambiguitieswhether

the respondent had clear and unambiguous

statements or confused statements. Only four

responses (2A, 3D, 3F, 5F), were ambiguous

within this topic. A negative indicator of ambi-

guity is:

I think that the learner needs to define what

causes learning to happen. When they

understand what learning is being sought

then they will find all the different methods

of learning. Therefore, this is why we need

to help students recognize these abilities.

(2A)

The next model code is linking ideas, imply-

ing that the learner links facts, ideas and

notions and generates new data from informa-

tion collected. If the learner repeats informa-

tion without making inferences or interpreta-

tion or states that he or she shares the idea or

opinion without taking these further, it is a neg-

ative indicator. After a statement made by 1D

in an area of importance, the respondent linked

by adding:

There is so much more information readily

available to students through the Internet.

The teacher is no longer the source of

knowledge. Students can acquire informa-

tion and act on that information them-

selves. This acquisition of information is a

strength of leaner-centered instruction. By

using the Internet, or other technologies,

students learn to think critically about what

information isis it opinion, fact, etc.

The next category is justification. A respon-

dent who uses critical thinking within a post

should provide proof or examples to justify his

or her solutions or judgments. This includes

discussing advantages and disadvantages of

solutions posed. If the learner uses irrelevant

or obscure questions or examples or offers


judgments without explanations, this is a nega-

tive indicator of justification. In discussing

strengths about learner-centered instruction,

2C justified by stating:

In a learner centered classroom the teacher

is working along side the students in seek-

ing information that the student wants and

needs to learn. This promotes a positive

student teacher relationship where the stu-

dent can feel unthreatened and able to

approach the teacher for information. This

aspect of the learner centered environment

can put a lot of strain on a teacher because

there may be several students and one

teacher. The teacher is left trying to meet

the demands of many students, and the stu-

dents may feel that their needs are not

being met.

The eighth category to determine quality of

critical thinking is critical assessment. When a

learner poses an idea, do they critically assess

or evaluate their idea or the ideas of others or

do they simply accept what is being said or

unreasonably reject without additional input?

To illustrate this point, one respondent in vir-

tual team F disagreed with another team mem-

bers post.

I disagree with the statement, giving up

control of the classroom, as some opposi-

tion may think. With society and technol-

ogy on the rise, this allows students more

control and independency of their educa-

tion. Teachers are implementers and can

enhance and even add to previous knowl-

edge. I use this statement for older students

that have already learned the basics. (3F)

The next category is practical utility

(grounding). If the respondent relates possible

solutions to familiar situations and discusses

practical utility of new ideas, then it is a posi-

tive indicator. If he or she discusses ideas in a

vacuum or suggests impractical solutions, then

it is negative. Because most respondents were

teachers and educators, many included practi-

cal examples, as indicated in Table 1; how-

ever, the following is an example of practical

utility:

This other edge of the sword though is their

current ill-preparedness to adapt to the

learner-centered approach. This past spring

semester I moved from a pure lecture

approach to a lecture with PP[T] slides (and

handouts) and study guides to work. My

goal was to engage my students more in

their own learning. I placed a grade compo-

nent (10% of the final grade) on attendance

and study guide completion. I did in fact

see the grades improve over those of past

semesters. However, after the second test,

when asked by what turned out to be a

mediocre student why the test was so hard,

I pointed out that several in other classes

had received great grades. She responded

Oh I know one of them but she studies all

the time. That statement alone points out,

at least at the higher education level, one of

the greatest challengesthat of providing

new tools to the student who is ill prepared

or undisciplined to use the tools. (4D)

The last model code is width of understand-

ing. Learners who widen the discussion within

a broader perspective or provides intervention

strategies within a wider framework get the big

picture. If they narrow the discussion or

address only fragments of a situation, they are

not contributing width of understanding.

Respondent 2E, in discussing variables to con-

sider in learner-centered instruction, added:

Since it hasnt ever worked the way we

thought it would, perhaps we need a differ-

ent approach. Starting at the top level, the

teacher, and go down from there. Im won-

dering if the student is much of a variable at

all here. I guess thats why the learner is in

the center of the learner-centered environ-

ment. Hmm.

For the 10 categories within the critical

thinking skills indicators audit trail codes were

kept for each team (A-F) with five respondents

in each team. Table 1 provides a visual snap-

shot of the presence of the critical thinking cat-

egories within each group.

The researchers noticed some postings fully

integrating most or all of the components of

the critical thinking model. This integration

cannot be expected in every post, but does

highlight the cognitive complexity of individu-


als within each team. The following is an

example of integration of all components

within the critical thinking model:

Learner-centered instruction places the

focus or control of learning on individual

students. The teacher's role changes to

facilitator and often are considered a co-

learner. The student becomes an active par-

ticipant in exploratory learning.

There are many strengths of learner-cen-

tered instruction. Students are active partic-

ipants and take more responsibility in their

learning as they explore and discover dif-

ferent topics. Learner-centered instruction

allows for opportunities for student interac-

tion and collaboration. This interaction can

occur with the teacher, other students, and

even other people not enrolled in the class.

Motivation can also increase as the student

is allowed selection of topics and strate-

gies. However, the strongest advantage of

learner-centered instruction I see is the

development of lifelong learners. Students

are not only gaining subject matter knowl-

edge, they also gain problem-solving skills

and collaboration skills.

There are also a few challenges of

learner-centered instruction. As stated in

the text, a single approach to all instruction

will not work. The first challenge involves

the need to change the philosophy or atti-

tude of experienced teachers, administra-

tors and some of the parents. Approaches

used in previous years need to be modified

to incorporate new technologies and meth-

ods of learning. Instruction will require

teachers to prepare in advance, acquire the

needed resources, and effectively monitor

and provide feedback to the students. Also,

the classroom can become noisy and per-

haps somewhat disorderly during certain

times of the day since many different activ-

ities could be occurring at the same time.

As you can see there are many things to

consider when evaluating the use learner-

centered instruction in the schools. I feel

that if this method promotes lifelong learn-

ers then it is definitely worth pursuing.

(5B)

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Based on the exemplary discussion examples

provided for each indicator in the critical

thinking skills model, a summary of findings

along with implications will be provided in

relation to the purpose and research questions

posed in this study. The researchers sought to

determine if the critical thinking skills model

(Newmann et al., 1996) could be used to indi-

cate quality of discussion in an online forum

when learners were placed in smaller learning

communities as opposed to exposure to whole

class discussions.

Analysis of the discussions determined that

all individuals within each learning commu-

nity did engage in relevant discussion and

TABLE 1Audit Trail Codes of Critical Thinking Skill Indicators by Respondent Within Virtual Learning Communities

Categories

Respondents by Team

A B C D E F

Relevance 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Importance 1, 3, 4, 5 2, 3, 5 1, 2, 4 2, 4 2, 5 1, 3

Novelty 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 4, 3, 5 1, 3, 4, 5, 2 1, 3, 2, 4, 5

Outside knowledge 3, 4, 1, 5 1, 3, 4, 5 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2, 4, 1, 5 1, 3

Ambiguities 2 3 3, 5

Linking 1, 3, 2, 5 3, 1, 5, 4 1, 3, 4, 2, 5 1, 2, 4, 3, 5 1, 2, 4, 5, 3 1, 2, 3, 4

Justification 3, 4, 2, 5 1, 2, 3, 5 1, 3, 2, 4, 5 1, 3, 4, 2, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Critical assessment 1, 4, 5 2, 3, 1, 5 1, 2, 4 2, 4, 1 3, 2, 4, 5 1, 3, 4

Practical utility 5 3, 1, 5, 4, 2 1, 3 4, 2 1, 2, 5 1, 3, 4

Width of

understanding

1, 4, 2, 5 3, 5, 1, 2 2, 4 1, 2, 3, 4 2, 1 1, 4, 3


brought in new/novel ideas to their commu-

nity. The majority of the respondents by team

did manage to incorporate several of the cate-

gories, but not all learners fully integrated the

10 components of the critical thinking skills

model within their discussion. However, each

virtual learning community had at least one

person whose discussions did fully integrate 9-

10 of the categories. Critical assessment, pro-

viding practical utility, important statements,

and demonstrating width of understanding

were the four components within the model

where a few communities had only two-three

respondents that integrated these categories.

Adult learners bring in their prior experiences

and knowledge into the classroom and engage

in a discussion regarding issues relevant to

their situation. The implication exists that

learners with more experience impact the

learner-learner interaction within that virtual

learning community.

The researchers found that several new/

novel ideas within each group were conver-

gent; however, divergent novel ideas were also

discovered among communities that drove the

conversations. Even with the introduction of

divergent ideas, the discussions remained rele-

vant to the topic. Further research is needed to

determine convergent and divergent themes

that emerge within the virtual learning com-

munities via a cross case analysis. Would there

be specific patterns of reflection and metacog-

nition unique to individuals in the groups that

could shape the quality of the discussions?

Findings indicate that all groups engaged in

critical thinking within their virtual learning

communities and a high amount of interaction

occurred within each community; however,

further research is needed to determine if the

same level of critical thinking and interaction

would occur if students were exposed to and

expected to interact in a whole class discus-

sion. Would students seek a few individuals

within the class and engage in a meaningful

discussion? Would they self select a smaller

community and continue throughout the

semester in the discussion forums with the

same individuals similar to the virtual learning

communities?

The critical thinking skills model provided

an excellent framework for content analysis of

discussion threads within the virtual learning

communities. As mentioned previously further

research is needed to assess quality of online

discussions. Although descriptive, these mod-

els are time consuming and instructors and

researchers in the field of educational technol-

ogy need to continue to explore the utilization

of rubrics for assessment of critical thinking in

online discussions. The use of smaller virtual

learning communities for this study has been

shown to have equivalent critical thinking

capacity across teams. This will enable the

instructor to design online learning with the

assurance that deeper learning and critical

thinking will occur without students having to

read and reply to whole class discussions.

REFERENCES

Edelstein, S., & Edwards, J. (2003). If you build it,

they will come: Building learning communities

through threaded discussions. Online Journal of

Distance Learning Administration, 51.

Retrieved November 9, 2004, from http://

www.westga.edu?~distance/ojdla/spring51/

edelstein51.html

Garrison, D. R. (1992). Critical thinking and self-

directed learning in adult education: An analysis

of responsibility and control issues. Adult Edu-

cation Quarterly, 42(3), 136-148.

Geertz, C. (Ed.). (1973). Thick description: Toward

an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpre-

tation of cultures (pp. 5-30). New York: Basic

Books

Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and con-

tent analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative

learning through computer conferencing (pp.

117-136). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic

inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cam-

bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Marra, R. M. (2002). The ideal online learning envi-

ronment for supporting epistemic development:

Putting the puzzle together. Quarterly Review of

Distance Education, 3(1), 15-31.


Marra, R. M., Moore, J. L., & Klimczak, A. K.

(2004). Content analysis of online discussion

forums: A comparative analysis of protocols.

ETR&D, 52(2), 23-40.

Mason, R. (1992). Evaluation methodologies for

computer conferencing applications. In A. R.

Kay (Ed.), Collaborative learning through com-

puter conferencing (pp. 105-116). Berlin, Ger-

many: Springer-Verlag.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of

interaction. The American Journal of Distance

Education, 3(2), 1-6.

Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1996).

A content analysis method to measure critical

thinking in face-to-face and computer supported

group learning. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from

http://www.qub.ac.uk/agt/papers/methods/

contpap.html

Northrup, P. T. (2002). Online learners preferences

for interaction. Quarterly Review of Distance

Education, 3(2), 219-226.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning

communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies

for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Resnick, L., Levine, J., & Teasley, S. (1991). Per-

spectives on socially shared cognition. Washing-

ton, DC: American Psychological Association.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., &

Zvacek, S. (2003). Teaching and learning at a

distance: Foundations of distance education

(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Pren-

tice Hall.

Tu, C., & Corry, M. (2002). eLearning communi-

ties. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,

3(2), 207-218.

Visser, L., Visser, Y. L., & Schlosser, C. (2003).

Critical thinking in distance education and tradi-

tional education. Quarterly Review of Distance

Education, 4(4), 401-407.

Documents

A content analysis of critical thinking....pdf