File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Students’ Critical Thinking Level: Examining Wimba Voice Board and Text Online Discussions

TitleStudents’ Critical Thinking Level: Examining Wimba Voice Board and Text Online Discussions
Authors
Issue Date2014
PublisherSpringer Berlin Heidelberg. The Journal's web site is located at http://link.springer.com/journal/40692
Citation
Journal of Computers in Education, 2014, v. 1 n. 1, p. 35-47 How to Cite?
AbstractAbstract In this study, we examined the use of Wimba Voice Board and a text-based online discussion in supporting students’ critical thinking. Specifically, we addressed the following question, “Is there any significant difference in the level of students’ critical thinking in asynchronous audio compared to text discussions?” Two undergraduate classes participated in the study. Class A (n = 23) was randomly assigned to use the Wimba Voice available at Blackboard, while Class B (n = 18) used a text discussion forum, also at Blackboard. Both classes were asked to discuss on a similar open-ended topic with the same duration of time. We investigated if there was any significant difference in the levels of critical thinking between these two classes using Greenlaw and Deloach’s (2003) taxonomy of critical thinking. Results of a Pearson χ 2 test statistics suggested a significant relationship between the levels of critical thinking and the type of asynchronous online discussion. Students produced more than expected higher critical thinking levels during asynchronous audio discussion. On the other hand, students exhibited more than expected lower critical thinking in asynchronous text discussion.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/211983

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHew, KFT-
dc.contributor.authorPang, BB-
dc.date.accessioned2015-07-21T02:18:46Z-
dc.date.available2015-07-21T02:18:46Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Computers in Education, 2014, v. 1 n. 1, p. 35-47-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/211983-
dc.description.abstractAbstract In this study, we examined the use of Wimba Voice Board and a text-based online discussion in supporting students’ critical thinking. Specifically, we addressed the following question, “Is there any significant difference in the level of students’ critical thinking in asynchronous audio compared to text discussions?” Two undergraduate classes participated in the study. Class A (n = 23) was randomly assigned to use the Wimba Voice available at Blackboard, while Class B (n = 18) used a text discussion forum, also at Blackboard. Both classes were asked to discuss on a similar open-ended topic with the same duration of time. We investigated if there was any significant difference in the levels of critical thinking between these two classes using Greenlaw and Deloach’s (2003) taxonomy of critical thinking. Results of a Pearson χ 2 test statistics suggested a significant relationship between the levels of critical thinking and the type of asynchronous online discussion. Students produced more than expected higher critical thinking levels during asynchronous audio discussion. On the other hand, students exhibited more than expected lower critical thinking in asynchronous text discussion.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSpringer Berlin Heidelberg. The Journal's web site is located at http://link.springer.com/journal/40692-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Computers in Education-
dc.rightsThe final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/[insert DOI]-
dc.titleStudents’ Critical Thinking Level: Examining Wimba Voice Board and Text Online Discussions-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailHew, KFT: kfhew@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityHew, KFT=rp01873-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s40692-014-0004-z-
dc.identifier.hkuros244511-
dc.identifier.volume1-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage35-
dc.identifier.epage47-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats