An important goal in education is to develop and
enhance learners’ abilities to think critically
about their knowledge, their actions, and their
beliefs. Critical thinking is a purposeful and
reflective process in which learners engage in
“actively and skillfully conceptualizing,
applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated
by, observation, experience, reflection,
reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief
and action” (Scriven & Paul, 1987). Critical
thinking has been considered a valuable tool for
teaching and learning since the time of
Socrates. More recently, researchers and
educators (Astleitner, 2002; MacKnight, 2000;
McKendree, Small & Stenning, 2002) have described
the need for critical thinking as important as
ever, particularly in today’s information age.
With access to more and more information,
students’ must be able to analyze that information
systematically to solve unique problems.
Mandernach, Forrest, Babutzke & Manker (2009)
found a strong body of research that shows
critical thinking is enhanced through
instructional strategies that promote active
learning. Bonwell and Eison (1991) define active
learning as “anything that involves students in
doing things and thinking about what they are
doing” (p. 2). Most experts agree that “active
learning,” or essentially learning by doing, is
effective (Smart & Csapo, 2007). Walker (2003),
for example, described how active learning
techniques such as questioning and written
assignments lead to critical thinking. Stevens &
Brenner (2009) also demonstrate that active
learning strategies are essential for critical
thinking through research indicating that student
nurses who used active learning approaches in
their education improved their critical thinking
skills. Through her case studies from four
institutions of higher education Tsui (2002) found
that active learning strategies promoted critical
thinking.
An instructional strategy that promotes active
learning (and thus critical thinking) is the
“four-questions technique” created by Dietz-Uhler
& Lanter (2009). Although the authors recognize
that various forms of active learning promote
deeper thinking, they were unable to find a single
instructional technique that incorporates multiple
forms of active learning. To fill this gap, they
developed the following four questions that
fostered analyzing, reflecting, relating, and
questioning:
1.
“Identify one important concept, research finding,
theory, or idea in psychology that you learned
while completing this activity.” (analyzing)
2.
"Why do you believe that this concept, research
finding, theory, or idea in psychology is
important?” (reflecting)
3.
“Apply what you have learned from this activity to
some aspect of your life.” (relating)
4.
“What question(s) has the activity raised for
you? What are you still wondering about?”
(questioning).
In their study, Deitz-Uhler & Lanter examined the
effect of these four questions on learning as
measured by quiz performance. The 107
participants in an introductory psychology course
participated in a web-based interactive activity
followed by a quiz. The investigators compared
students who completed the four questions before
the quiz with those who did not complete the four
questions before the quiz. Students who responded
to all the questions prior to the quiz did better
on the quiz than those who did not respond to the
questions before the quiz. The authors concluded
that asking students to think about content in a
variety of ways promoted learning and deeper
thinking.
Instructional techniques that promote active
learning and thus critical thinking such as the
four-questions technique are worthwhile in all
learning environments. However, active learning
techniques may be particularly important in the
online environment where opportunities for
interaction may be lacking. Even with Internet
communications such as e-mail and chat rooms,
online courses may have limited learner-to-learner
interaction and instructor-to-learner interaction
that often comes with the face-to-face
communication and immediate feedback in
traditional settings (Arbaugh, 2001; Kim, 2004;
Nguyen & Kira, 2000). In their review of online
instruction research, Tallent-Runnels et al (2006)
state that a key component of online instruction
is providing opportunities for interaction among
learners. However, Garrison & Cleveland-Innes
(2005) noted that simple interaction in online
learning is not adequate to promote deep
learning. Their research findings indicate that
online learning activities should be structured so
that learning occurs in a critical way. They
recommend that online learning techniques
incorporate reflective and collaborative
properties to foster critical thinking in
learners. Tallent-Runnels et al (2006) note that
instructor-developed guiding questions and
student-to-student interaction allow students to
focus on topics and enhance their reasoning.
While Dietz-Uhler & Lanter (2009) used the
four-questions technique to enhance quiz
performance as part of a face-to-face learning
environment, we used the four-questions technique
to promote critical thinking in an online learning
environment. In this study, students participated
in three online discussion forums in response to
case studies on behaviorism, social cognitive
theory, and metacognition. While the online
discussion forums foster student-to-student
interaction, this study focused on whether an
adaptation of the four-questions technique would
also promote interactions with high evidence of
critical thinking. After each one of the three
discussion forums, evidence of critical thinking
was measured by rating students’ comments
according to a validated critical thinking rubric
(The Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology at
Washington State University, 2009; Kelly-Riley,
Anderson, Smith, Weathermon, n.d.). Only before
the second online discussion on social cognitive
theory did students respond to the slightly
altered four-questions technique (see Method
section for exact questions). The hypothesis for
this study was that participants would demonstrate
higher critical thinking skills in the second
online discussion forum with the four-questions
technique that fostered active learning than the
first or third discussion forum without the
four-questions technique.
Method
Participants
The participants were 24 students enrolled in two
online sections of a graduate educational
psychology course about learning and learners in a
university in the southern
United States. There were 28 students enrolled in
Section 1 and 30 students enrolled in Section 2.
However, only eight students from Section 1 and 16
students from Section 2 chose to participate in
this study. The investigators combined the data
from all students in the two sections into a
single dataset.
Of the 24 participants 19 were females and 3 were
males. Two participants did not identify their
gender. The participants ranged from 25 to 49
years of age with a median age of 35 and a mean
age of 33.1 (SD = 6.45). All participants
of the study were enrolled in graduate education
degree-seeking programs. Twenty-one participants
were enrolled in Master’s degree programs, one was
enrolled in a Specialist’s degree program, and two
were enrolled in doctoral programs. Thirteen
students were enrolled as full-time students and
11 as part-time students. Although many of the
participants had taken online courses prior to
this course, it was the first online course for
five participants. The mean number of online
courses completed prior to this course was 3.38 (SD
= 3.1).
Table 1. Participant Demographics (N =
24)
|
|
Mean |
Range |
SD |
|
Age |
33.08 |
25-49 |
6.45 |
|
Number of previous online courses |
3.39 |
0-10 |
3.09 |
Materials
Case Studies.
To facilitate the online discussions, the
researchers selected three case studies from
Case Studies: Applying Educational Psychology
(Ormrod & McGuire, 2007). Each described an
educational scenario in which a specific learning
theory or theories and instructional principles
were applied. The researchers chose one case
study that focused on behaviorism, a second that
related to social cognitivism, and a third that
illustrated metacognition and learning. An
example of the instructions that describes the
case studies and the discussion forums can be
found in Appendix A.
Four-questions Technique.
Students were asked to complete the four-questions
technique prior to the second discussion forum.
The technique was based on the four-questions
technique described by Dietz-Uhler & Lanter (2009)
and was designed to promote critical thinking. The
questions encouraged participants to: 1) analyze
what was learned from the case study (Identify
and describe one important concept, research
finding, or idea about social cognitive theory
that you have learned.); 2) reflect on the
concepts and theories addressed in the case study
(Why do you believe that social cognitive
theory is important?); 3) relate the concepts
in the case study to one’s life, work, and/or
studies (Apply what you have learned about
social cognitive theory to some aspect of your
life); and 4) generate questions that arose
from reading the case study (What questions has
the reading raised for you? What are you still
wondering about?).
Critical Thinking Scale.
The researchers measured critical thinking in the
online discussions with the Washington State
University Critical and Integrative Thinking Scale
(WSUCITS) (Center for Teaching, Learning &
Technology at
Washington State University, 2006). The
Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology at
Washington State University (n.d.) documents use
in measuring critical thinking across a variety of
disciplines and applicability as a rubric for a
variety of instructional methods. The scale uses
a 6-point Likert scale in which the researcher
rates students on seven skills. The skills are a)
identify and summarize an issue, b) identify and
consider contextual influences, c) develop one’s
own perspective, d) present supporting evidence,
e) integrate other perspectives, f) identify
conclusions, g) communicate effectively. The
students are scored and rated either 1-2 (emerging
in that element/skill); 3-4 (developing that
skills); or 5-6 (mastering that skills).
A modified version of the WSUCITS was used as the
rubric for grading participants during the
discussion forums. The rubric used the seven
dimensions from the WSUCITS. The instructor added
three criteria to the rubric that were considered
important for facilitating quality online
discussions. They were 1) respects others’
viewpoints, 2) responds in a timely manner, and 3)
incorporates personal experiences. The rubric is
in the Appendix B.
Procedure
Participants took part in online discussion forums
related to three different case studies on
behaviorism, social cognitivism, and metacognition.
One discussion forum was during the second week,
another at the midpoint of the semester, and the
third in the next to the last week of the course.
Participants were randomly assigned to groups
of 5 or 6 and were not always with the same group
for each discussion forum. They had five days to
participate in each discussion forum.
As part of their class requirements participants
completed the four questions described earlier
prior to reading the case study on social
cognitivism that introduced the second discussion
forum. Participants did not complete the four
questions prior to the first (behaviorism) and
third discussion (metacognition) forums.
Results
The design of this study was a repeated measures
design. A second investigator rated the
discussion forums using the WSUCITS and the
inter-rater reliability was 0.795.
The hypothesis was that participants would
demonstrate higher critical thinking scores when
they completed the four-questions than when they
did not complete the four-questions.
To test the hypothesis the researchers conducted
one-way repeated-measures ANOVA with the dependent
variable being the critical thinking scores. The
means and standard deviations for the critical
thinking scores are presented in Table 2. The
results of the ANOVA indicated a significant
effect, Wilk’s Λ = 0.56, F (3,23) = 8.13, p
< 0.002, partial η2 = 0.44. Results
showed that there was a significant difference
between the critical thinking scores of the three
discussion groups with a moderate effect size.
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for
Critical Thinking Scores in Discussion Forums (N =
24)
|
Discussion Forums |
Mean Scores |
Standard Deviation |
|
Forum #1 |
4.76 |
0.62 |
|
Forum #2 |
5.31 |
0.93 |
|
Forum #3 |
4.81 |
0.23 |
Follow-up polynomial contrasts indicated a
significant quadratic effect F(3,23) =
17.03, p = .00,
partial η2 = .44. The linear
effect was insignificant F(3,23) = .10,
p = .75, partial η2
= .01. By comparing the mean scores
it is clear that the critical thinking scores did
not increase or decrease in a linear fashion
across the three discussion forums over time. The
mean critical thinking score from the second
discussion forum was higher than the mean scores
from the first and third discussion forums.
Pairwise comparisons were computed among the
critical thinking scores (CTscores) of the three
discussion forums. The results are presented in
Table 3. There were significant differences
between the critical thinking scores of first
(CTscore1) and second discussion forums
(CTscore2), p = .002 and the second and
third (CTscore3) discussion forums, p =
.003. The difference between the critical
thinking scores of the first and third discussion
forum was not significant, p = .747.
These results indicate that the four-questions
technique enhanced critical thinking in the online
discussion forum in this study. The moderate
effect size suggests that the result is moderately
robust.
Table 3. Paired Samples Test
|
|
Paired Differences |
|
|
|
|
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
T |
Df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
Pair 1 CTscore1 – CTscore2
Pair 2 CTscore2 – CTscore3
Pair 3 CTscore1 – CTscore3 |
.5522
.4875
-.0565 |
.7669
.6905
.8289 |
-3.453
3.459
-.327 |
22*
23
22* |
.002
.002
.747 |
The researchers were interested in seeing if there
was a relationship between critical thinking
demonstrated in online discussions and previous
online experience and if there was a relationship
between critical thinking demonstrated in online
discussions and participant age. Correlation
coefficients were computed between the discussion
forum scores, participant age and number of
previous online courses. Based on the results
there does not appear to be a relationship between
critical thinking scores and previous online
courses completed nor a relationship between
critical thinking scores and participant age in
this study.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to test the
hypothesis that participants would demonstrate
higher critical thinking scores in an online
discussion with the four-questions technique
compared to online discussion without the
four-questions technique. Results suggest that
the four-questions technique is effective in
enhancing critical thinking in online discussions.
The researchers were also interested to see if
students who had more experience in online
discussions might have better critical thinking
scores. The results suggest that the prior
experience did not influence critical thinking
scores. Additionally, the researchers were
interested to see if participant age would play a
role in critical thinking scores. The results
indicate that age may not make a difference.
Because these were not significant factors, the
four-questions technique, as used in this study,
appears to be effective regardless of whether
learners are novice online learners or experienced
online learners and equally effective regardless
of learner age. Of course, this sample was small
and did not incorporate random assignment of
participants to different conditions.
Dietz-Uhler & Lanter (2009) used the
four-questions technique to enhance learning as
measured by quiz performance. In this research,
the same technique was used to enhance critical
thinking in online discussions. Dietz-Uhler &
Lanter used their technique with undergraduate
psychology students in a traditional class setting
while participants in this study were graduate
educational psychology students in an online
learning environment. The data from this
research, although limited, support the conclusion
of Dietz-Uhler & Lanter (2009) that the
four-questions technique may be applied to
different learning situations.
Future researchers might investigate the use of
the four-questions technique in facilitating
critical thinking in online discussions with a
larger sample size and/or use a design in which
participants are randomly assigned to different
conditions. An additional line of research might
focus on analyzing the content of discussions
online to identify indicators of critical thinking
and its elements. These research designs might
allow a more thorough investigation of the role of
specific elements of critical thinking and enable
instructors to provide focused facilitation of
certain elements. Additionally, future
researchers may wish to gather qualitative data
from participants about their satisfaction with
this teaching technique and their perceptions of
how it impacted their critical thinking.
Conclusion
A goal of education is to develop and enhance
critical thinking. Previous research indicates
that instructional techniques that promote active
learning can enhance critical thinking. The
four-questions technique offers an instructional
technique that effectively promotes critical
thinking in online discussions.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Audrey Ambrosino for her
assistance in analyzing data and Dexter Alexander
and Marsha Alexander Puckett for their feedback on
this paper,
