5 face-to-face seminars were tape recorded and transcribed. These were from 3
groups (A, B and C) and covered 3 subjects (office automation, privacy and the
information industry). The same groups also took part in discussions on the
computer conferencing system. Each was given a topic for discussion within the
seminar group, and in addition there was a general topic open to all students.
These discussions were automatically captured on disk by the system. Since the
CC discussions were much shorter, all the discussions on all subjects for each
group were analysed together. So we had:
Transcribed seminars
| Transcribed seminars | Group A | Group B | Group C | All students |
| f2f seminars | Privacy Office Automation | Privacy
Information Industry | Office Automation | -- |
| Computer conferences | All subjects | All subjects | All subjects | All subjects |
Each
transcript was analysed by marking each statement that obviously indicated deep
(+) or surface (-) learning approaches, according to the indicators explained
in our IPCT-J paper. (Newman et al 1995) From these we calculated ratios of the
depth of processing. This is called the depth of critical thinking (CT) ratio
in this paper. It ranges from -1 (all surface statements, no deep) to +1 (all
deep statements, no surface). It is calculated as:
depth of CT ratio = (x+ - x-)/(x+ + x-)
where x is one of the indicators, like justification, linking ideas or
relevance, x+ is the count of positive statements and x- is the count of
negative statements in a transcript. First look at the overall depth of CT ratio, calculated from the total +ve and -ve counts.
-
Overall comparison between seminars and computer conferences
-
Effects on indicators of critical thinking
-
Effects of participation
-
Relating our findings to Garrison's theory of critical thinking