1. Improving Critical Thinking in Discussion: Seven Studies
Leonard Shedletsky
University of Southern Maine
Department of Communication & Media Studies

2. SETTING THE STAGE: STUDY 1

3. RESULTS OF STUDY 1 FACE-to-FACE ONLINE AMOUNT OF TALK GREATER
LESS (than f2f)
LEVEL OF CRITICAL THINKING
LOW LEVEL
LOWER (than f2f)
OTHER (chit chat)

4. RESULTS STUDY 1 OTHER TYPE OF REPORT (INDIV. Vs. CONSENSUS)
TRIGGERING
EXPLORATION
INTEGRATION
RESOLUTION
OTHER
TYPE OF REPORT (INDIV. Vs. CONSENSUS)
> TRIG IN CONSENSUS
> EXPLOR. FOR CONSENSUS
NO DIFFERENCE
> OTHER FOR CONSENSUS
TYPE OF ANALYSIS (EX. Vs. ABSTRACT)
> TRIG IN ABSTRACT
> OTHER FOR ABSTRACT

5. RESULTS OF STUDY 1
1. GREATER AMOUNT OF TALK F-2-F BUT MOSTLY CHIT CHAT (LOW LEVEL OF CRITICAL THINKING);
2. ONLINE PRODUCED AN EVEN LOWER LEVEL OF CRITICAL THINKING & LESS TALK THAN F-2-F;

6. STUDY 2
STUDY 2

7. RESULTS OF STUDY 2
Summaries from online students received higher grades from 2 professors blind to the study than summaries for F2F students.

8. STUDY 3
STUDY 3

9. RESULTS of STUDY 3
The TA’s involvement in discussion had little to no effect on student-to-student interaction and only affected the level of EXPLORATION responses for critical thinking.

10. Study 4
Study 4

11. Results of Study 4
Personal Relevance of topics had no effect on student postings or critical thinking. Students’ self reported prediction of how personal relevance would affect their postings was not found in actual behavior observed.

12. Study 5
STUDY 5

13. RESULTS OF STUDY 5 WITH RUBRICS AND GRADING POSTS
WITHOUT RUBRICS AND GRADING POSTS
CRITICAL THINKING
INCREASED
LOWER
INITIAL POSTS
MORE
LESS
EARLIER POSTS
EARLIER
LATER

14. STUDY 6:
Can we improve the quality & quantity of online discussion with rubrics and peer rating?
Since study 5 showed us that rubrics and grading posts increased critical thinking, produced earlier posts and more interaction, we wanted to find out if we could have the students rate one another.

15. STUDY 6: PROCEDURES & RESULTS
SPRING 2008 [NO RUBRICS, NO PEER RATINGS]
FALL 2009 [RUBRICS & PEER RATING]
CRITICAL THINKING
no difference
DAY OF INITIAL RESPONSE
earlier
later
FREQUENCY OF RESPONDING

16. STUDY 7:
Can we improve the quality & quantity of online discussion with rubrics and peer rating?
Study 7 was undertaken to pursue further the question of whether or not peer rating of posts with a rubric plus ing the rating and rationale for rating to the teacher would produce an effect on when posts were made in the week and an effect on the quality of posts (critical thinking).

17. STUDY 7: PROCEDURES
We collected data from another section of the same course, (same teacher) with rubrics and peer ratings and rationale ed to the teacher. In this third section of the course, students were asked to rate 1 to 5 other students’ posts and to once a week to the teacher a copy of one of these posts, their rating and their rationale for the rating (see Appendix 3 at:

18. PROCEDURE
We already had collected data on a section of Introduction to Communication
without rubrics or ratings of posts
and a section of the same course (taught by the same teacher) with rubrics and graded posts

19. PROCEDURE
We wanted to know if rubrics, peer rating and ing the rated post-plus-the rating-plus-the rationale to the teacher would produce an effect on:
(1) when posts were made and on
(2) the quality of posts in the course as a whole;
In effect, we wanted to know if the additional requirement of considering the rationale would improve scores in the class as a whole for critical thinking;
In addition, in study 7, we did not grade the student for level of critical thinking or for day of the week for initial posts and responses;

20. RESULTS
Three groups:
1. No Rubrics/Ratings
2. With Rubrics/Grading
3. /Rationale to Teacher
Overall, students used the lower end of the critical thinking scale for posts under all 3 conditions, though negligibly higher when graded or peer rated compared to no rubrics or oversight.

21. RESULTS: DAY OF INITIAL POST
A.Graded Class
B.Non-Graded/rated
Day of Initial Post
Day 5
A signif. earlier than B
Day 8
A. Graded
C. Peer rating/ rationale/ ed
A signif.
Earlier
than C
C.Peer ratings+rubrics+rationale ed

22. RESULTS: DAY OF INITIAL POST
WHAT STANDS OUT IS THE MUCH LARGER NUMBER OF NON-POSTS IN THE NO RATING CONDITION THAN IN THE GRADED CONDITION
(287 TO 136 NON-POSTS, RESPECTIVELY).

23. RESULTS: INITIAL RESPONSES
Graded Class
Peer rating + rationale+ ed
Day of Initial Response
EARLIER
RESPONSE
sign.diff.
LATER
AGAIN, far fewer non-posts for the graded condition than for the peer rating condition (136 vs. 205 non-posts, respectively).

24. RESULTS: INITIAL RESPONSES
B. No Ratings
C. Peer rating + rationale+ ed
Day of Initial Response
LATER
RESPONSE
sign.diff.
EARLIER
Far fewer non-posts for the peer rating +rationale+ ed to teacher condition than for the no rating condition (205 vs. 287 non-posts, respectively).

25. Results: Overall
For all 3 conditions there is a very low number of responses within the assigned week for discussion:
No rating—5.5%
Graded—48%
Peer rating/rationale/ —19.6%

26. Results: Email with Rationale
67 s were received (105 possible total);
4.2 mean s out of possible 7
14 of 15 students submitted with rationale in the 7-week course;
In short, the number of students who sent s with rating and rationale was poor;
The rationales offered did not clearly display use of the rubrics (roughly 50% made reference to the rubrics);

27. EMAIL WITH RATIONALE Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
# of s

28. Discussion & Conclusions
So—CAN WE IMPROVE THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF ONLINE DISCUSSION WITH RUBBRICS AND PEER RATING?
WE CAN INFLUENCE
WHEN STUDENTS INITIALLY POST
WHEN STUDENTS RESPOND TO OTHER STUDENTS
HOW FREQUENTLY STUDENTS POST
SOME SMALL INCREASE IN CRITICAL THINKING (Exploration)

29. Conclusions
Some form of oversight is necessary, e.g., grading, having students ratings to the teacher
We could answer the title question with a ‘yes’ though the amount of critical thinking affected is low

30. SUGGESTIONS
CHOOSE SOME FORM OF OVERSIGHT WITH EXPLICIT RUBRICS AND A REWARD PROCEDURE;

31. PROBLEM
WE STILL HAVE NOT FOUND A WAY TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE CRITICAL THINKING;

32. THE NEXT STUDY
MAPPING—in study 8, which is underway, we will explore the effect of having students map with visual software, their argument (SeeTim van Gelder)—preliminary data suggest that this may have a strong effect but we will see;

33. MAPPING

34. APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 [STUDY 1, CRITICAL THINKING]
APPENDIX 2 [STUDY 5, RUBRICS]
APPENDIX 3 [STUDY 7, RATING+ ING]
APPENDIX 4 [RUBRICS]

35. REFERENCES
Cases on Online Discussion and Interaction