[PDF] Better teaching methods for Teacher Education: Blackboard PDF 08

In two of the four sections, as part of their coursework, students completed weekly Blackboard discussions on course topics, moderated by the teacher Quantitative

The Effectiveness of Blackboard-Based Blended Teaching in the Development of Academic Achievement, Study Skills and Self-Confidence among Students of

[PDF] Blackboard As An Online Learning Environment: What Do - ERIC

This article identifies teacher education student and staff perceptions of teaching and learning using the online learning management system, Blackboard

[PDF] Blackboard Teaching Assistant Quick Guide Remember

As a TA, your responsibilities in Blackboard will be determined by the faculty member you work with Remember Teaching with Blackboard: www niu edu/

[PDF] What is Blackboard? Blackboard is a Web-based course

to participate in classes delivered online or use online materials and activities to complement face-to-face teaching Blackboard enables instructors to provide

[PDF] USING BLACKBOARD IN ONLINE LEARNING AT SAUDI

And currently The Blackboard platform is one of the most educational systems used globally and specifically in Saudi University helping in Blended learning The

[PDF] Blackboard for Teaching Assistants - Syracuse University - Graduate

The ability to post an announcement is a very useful feature of Blackboard As an Instructor, Teaching Assistant, or Course Builder you can inform your students if

[PDF] Better teaching methods for Teacher Education: Blackboard

In two of the four sections, as part of their coursework, students completed weekly Blackboard discussions on course topics, moderated by the teacher Quantitative

Zsuzsanna Szabo, Ph. D.

Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville

Jonathan Schwartz, Ph. D.

University of Hawaii West O'ahu

ZSUZSANNA SZABO is Assistant Professor in the Educational Leadership Department

at the Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. Her research interests include human cognition, team learning,

classroom assessment, and gender issues in education.

JONATHAN SCHWARTZ is Assistant Professor in the Division of Elementary Education at the University of

Hawaii at West O'ahu. His research interests include inquiry, curriculum and instruction, and human cognition.

For comments and any questions please contact Dr. Szabo at e-mail: zsuzsanna25@gmail.com Key words: critical thinking, online discussions, teaching methods

Abstract

An increasing number of colleges are incorporating online learning experiences into teacher education

programs. As online experiences become a more common instructional tool, research is needed to examine their

impact on student learning. Results from this study show that the use of Blackboard discussion forums as

supplementary instructional tool in a face-to-face course, improved undergraduate preservice teachers abilities to

demonstrate critical thinking skills. Participants in the study were 93 students registered in four sections of an

Educational Psychology course at a Midwestern university. All participants in the study took the Canfield's

Learning Style Inventory as pre-test, to control for learning preferences; and all also responded to the Ennis-Weir

test of Critical Thinking as pre- and post-test. In two of the four sections, as part of their coursework, students

completed weekly Blackboard discussions on course topics, moderated by the teacher. Quantitative analysis from

the critical thinking measure, and the analysis of online postings showed that preservice teachers developed their

ability to analyze, synthesize and evaluate course content, as well as an increase in critical thinking abilities.

Quantitative and qualitative analysis is presented along with implications for education.

Critical thinking and higher thinking levels

Critical thinking is often discussed in relation to skills such as logical reasoning, analyzing arguments,

testing hypotheses, making decisions, estimating likelihoods, and creative thinking (Hallet, 1984; Ruggiero, 1975;

Walters, 1994). Almost half a century ago Ennis (1962) presented a critical thinker as being characterized by her

mastery of analytical operations that enabled her to judge relationships between propositions, evaluate, and defend

beliefs. In defining critical thinking, a distinction has been made between the process and the product of thinking.

Some theorists (Chance, 1986; Nickerson, 1984; Nickerson, Perkins, & Smith, 1985; Sternberg & Kastoor, 1986) in

the process of explaining critical thinking use the model that involves a hierarchy of learning applied to the skills

involved in the classroom teaching to encourage students to "progress" to higher thinking levels.

Critical-thinking skills are often referred to as higher order cognitive skills to differentiate them from

simpler (i.e., lower order) thinking skills (Halpern, 1998). Higher order thinking skills are relatively complex and

require judgment, analysis, synthesis, and creativity; they are distinct from the skills that use memory processes as

base and are applied in a rote or mechanical manner. Higher order thinking is reflective thought, sensitive to the

context, and self-monitored. Bloom's revised Taxonomy provides a useful tool to define critical thinking skills

(Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom, Krathwohl, & Masia, 1956). Higher levels of learning imply the use of

critical thinking skills, metacognition, and the ability to analyze, evaluate, and develop new ideas. All these abilities

in student learning are represented in the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy as revised by Anderson, Krathwohl,

Airasian, Cruikshank, Mayer, Pintrich, Raths, & Wittroc k, (2001). Bloom in the original taxonomy (Bloom,

Kratwohl, and Masia,1956) categorized the thinking process in six levels: knowledge, comprehension, application, 368

analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. But later Anderson, Krathwohl, et al. (2001) developed a two dimensional

taxonomy: cognitive processes dimension, and knowledge dimension. The cognitive processes dimension comprises

the six thinking levels which are similar to the original levels of Bloom's taxonomy. One change was that action

verbs were used instead of nouns, to stress the process of thinking and not as much the result of the thinking:

Remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 67-

68). The other dimension "Knowledge dimension" has four levels: factual, conceptual, procedural, and

metacognitive. The two dimensional model offers a grid which is in fact a useful tool to plan teaching objectives and

also to test students' learning at the different levels represented in the taxonomy. Using the revised Bloom's

taxonomy teachers can measure if students' performance implies higher order thinking. When students use critical

thinking they use metacognition, which is an important level on Bloom's taxonomy. Students need not only to

understand the concepts they learn, and not only to be able to apply them (processes at lower levels of Bloom

taxonomy); in order to reach higher levels of thinking (the upper levels in Bloom's taxonomy) it is very important

that students be able to analyze the learned content, to evaluate, compare and contrast the content they learn, and be

able to create new ideas that have application in their practice.

Critical thought implies the use of metacognitive thinking. Metacognition is the process of thinking about

one's own thinking (Matlin, 2006). Through the process of me tacognition, students learn to evaluate their level of

knowledge, reflect on the content they have learned, and become aware of necessary revisions on the respective

content. The process of metacognition, the self-evaluation of own thinking, is part of the critical thinking skills that

students need to employ during the process of learning. Bloom considered the metacognitive process among the

higher level thinking processes in his taxonomy.

According to Piaget (Piaget & Inhelder, 1973), metacognitive abilities are developed in formal operation

stage of cognitive development and are important for the learning process. Through metacognition the student is

able to monitor the learning process, adapt, and make necessary changes. Metacognition makes learners more aware

"when they need to check for errors, why they fail to comprehend, and how they need to redirect their efforts."

(Ertmer & Newby, 1996). This awareness is implied also in critical thinking process. The necessity for higher levels

of thinking brings the need for targeted teaching methods that help students develop critical thinking, and improve

higher order thinking skills.

Critical thinking and teacher education

Instruction for critical thinking is a central component of higher education curricula. The task facing

college-level educators is to ensure that the teaching processes incorporate strategies that better reflect the rich

complexity of critical thought. Teaching for critical thinking must be based on a more inclusive theoretical model of

critical thinking that recognizes the multifunctionality, contextuality, and the emancipatory nature of thinking, and a

sound pedagogical approach (Beyer 1997). Students need not only to understand the concepts they learn, it is very

important that they analyze the learned content, evaluate, compare and contrast, and be able to create new ideas that

have application in their practice. This is important especially in teacher education because classroom teachers need

to be able to reflect on their practice in order to enhance teaching and learning. Reflective practitioners step back

and examine classroom events that unfold. They analyze events and evaluate the success of their teaching and

resulting learning. They then make instructional decisions to alter practice to make improvements. Reflective

practitioners critically examine classroom events and make adjustments in order to maximize the effectiveness of

meeting the needs of individual student learners. This is an essential part of teaching and must be conveyed to all pre

service teachers. .

Elder and Paul (2002) mention that to be skilled in critical thinking, a person needs to be able to take one's

thinking apart systematically, to analyze each part, assess it for quality, and then improve it. This is also important to

create self-directed learners.

Teaching preservice teachers to improve their critical thinking skills helps them become better thinkers and develop

the ability to synthesize and analyze information, identify main ideas, cite evidence in support of a conclusion, and

develop evaluation skills; all skills at higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom, Krathwohl, & Masia, 1956).

369

Biggs (1987, 1998, 1999) described two distinct approaches to learning revolving around distinct groups of

learners: "Deep learning" used by students who are highly engaged and learn for the sake of knowledge acquisition,

they study to learn and are motivated to go beyond the basic requirements. Deep learners use higher order cognitive

skills, and critical thinking. The second approach to learning is called by Biggs "Surface learning" and students

using this approach learn as much as it is necessary for passing, only the necessary to gain a passing grade or

qualification. Surface approach learners are less cognitively engaged than their counterparts who are deep learners.

It can be drawn the idea that deep learning involves critical thinking and in consequence it takes place at higher

levels according to Bloom's taxonomy. In consequence, assessing critical thinking should be part of the teaching

process at college level to ensure deep learning.

Teaching for critical thinking must be based on an inclusive theoretical model of critical thinking that

recognizes the multifunctionality, contextuality, and the emancipatory nature of thinking, and a sound pedagogical

approach (Beyer 1997). Some authors (Bigge & Shermis, 1992; Mayer, 1992; Swan, & Shea, 2005) recommend the use of teaching

methods that require active student involvement where students apply higher order thinking skills in multiple

settings. Technology offers such a tool to accomplish this goal. Technology tools used for instruction such as online

threaded discussions enhance the process of teaching and learning by offering students an opportunity to

communicate thoughts and develop understandings. Derry, Hmelo-Silver, Nagarajan, Chernobilsky, & Beitzel

(2006), demonstrated the effectiveness of use of technology for teaching college courses. They suggest that

technology integrated into the teaching and learning process helps students develop critical thinking skills.

Use of technology to improve students' thinking

Teaching is a process of creating meaningful learning experiences, but teaching should not be limited to

classroom activities. At the present one of the most prominent environments of outside of classroom teaching is the

cyberspace (Coppola and Thomas, 2000). Technology use becomes one of the usual means of teaching at all levels

of education. Since technology and worldwide communication have created a need to be prepared to think and work

smarter, students need mental flexibility, they need to go beyond knowledge and understanding how something is

done, they need to be able to apply their knowledge in multiple and creative settings.

McFarlane (1997) stressed that when the use of technology in education is discussed, the most important

issue for debate should be determining the purpose of technology use. McFarlane writes that there are advantages as

well as limitation in the use of technology, for this reason the most important issue is related to how technology is

used in education: "Computer use alone, without clear objectives and well-designed tasks, is of little intrinsic value."

(McFarlane, 1997, pp. 35). It is important that the use of technology to be purposeful and related to the content of

teaching in order to be effective.

Lei and Zhao (2007) note similar conclusions. They write that the purpose for what technology is used for is more

important than the simple use of technology. These researchers examine how the quantity and quality of technology

use affect student learning outcomes. They suggest that the quantity of technology use alone is not critical to student

learning. "How much" matters when "how" is identified. For example, the simple implementation of technology

(even if it is in large quantity - responding to the question "how much"), in the process of teaching and learning,

does not guarantee the achievement of higher thinking skills. Heavy use of technology does not improve student

performance; if the purpose and modality of technology use, does not have as purpose to improve the learning

process. Instead, the importance of technology use in education responds to the question "how" technology is used;

specifically, what are the goals for what technology is used in education. Moreover, the authors remark, "when the

quality of technology use is not ensured, more time on computers may cause more harm than benefit." (Lei and

Zhao, 2007, pp. 286).

Similarly, Koehler, Mishra, and Yahya (2007) state that the use of technology must be purposeful in order

to serve higher levels of learning through improved pedagogies. They write that, "effective technology integration

for teaching subject matter requires knowledge not just of content, technology and pedagogy, but also of their

relationship to each other (pp. 746)." They present the use of technology in teaching as being part of the model of

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). This model includes four components: Technology (T),

that encompasses standard technologies used in educational setting; Pedagogy (P), includes the process and practice

370

or methods of teaching and learning; Content (C), or the subject matter that is to be learned/taught; and Knowledge

(K), the information base acquired by the student. Koehler, Mishra, and Yahya (2007) stress that the TPCK model

includes also the relationship between the components: content, pedagogy, and technology. The use of technology

must be purposeful in order to serve higher levels of learning through improved pedagogies. The purposeful use of

technology will improve learning. This idea is similar to the one stressed by Lei and Zhao (2007), concerning the

importance of the way how technology is used in education. According to TPCK model the use of technology to deliver the content to be taught is a pedagogical method that, if used properly can improve the teaching and learning process.

The use of technology should increase deep learning. As it was previously mentioned, in a deep approach to

learning, the material is embraced and digested in the search for meaning. Surface learning employs the least amount

of effort toward realizing the minimum required outcomes. Surface learners are motivated to complete the task

rather than assimilate the learning (Biggs, 1999). Using technology that requires higher levels of thinking would

help students develop a deep learning.

Sivin-Kachala and Bialo (1993) presented the effect of use of technology in education in a synthesis based

on 86 research reviews. They show that the use of technology in teaching demonstrated a significant positive effect

on achievement; has positive effects on student attitudes toward learning and on student self-concept. But along with

effects on students, technology has influence on teachers as well. Teachers develop more student-centered teaching

when using technology, and the student-to-student and student-to-teacher interaction shows an increase when

technology is used in education. The authors mention that "it is not the technology that makes the difference but

rather how teachers adapt and apply technology that makes the difference" (pp. 389).

The most important issue in the use of technology in education is concerned with the purpose technology is

used. Technology should be used in teacher education for at least two reasons: to improve content knowledge and to

improve skills related to the use of technology. Teacher education should provide skills that are compatible with the

teacher career in the age of technology. Also teacher education by using integrated technology as teaching methods

should help preservice teachers develop higher order thinking skills (Hmelo-Silver, 2006; Ukpokodu, 2000).

In the learning process as mentioned by Garrison and Anderson (2003) a community of inquiry integrates

cognitive, social, and teaching elements that are not limited to social exchanges and are more than low-level

cognitive interaction. Several researchers (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 2000; Meyer 2003; Pawan et al. 2003)

show that a community of inquiry is the integration of cognitive, social, and teaching presence. Garrison and

Cleveland-Innes, (2005) talk about the fact that the "quantity of interaction does not reflect the quality of discourse"

(pp. 135). On a similar line of thought Roybler (2002) found that voluntary and required message posting that were

pertinent to the purpose of the discussion created higher student engagement. Roblyer and Wiencke (2003) show

that consistent interaction in courses that use technolo gy is associated with higher achievement and student satisfaction.

Schumm, Webb, Turek, Jones, and Ballard (2006) in a study that compared face-to-face and online courses

evaluating the level of critical thinking, found that the use of online discussions increased students' critical thinking

skills. They also stated that students had more complex questions, and increased contact in online format.

The purpose of the present study was to examine if pedagogical methods used in teaching preservice

teachers that imply the use of technology have as result the improvement of critical thinking. Based on the above

mentioned research literature, two hypothesis were tested: (1) the use of Blackboard discussion forums as

supplementary instructional tool in a face-to-face course will improve undergraduate preservice teachers' critical

thinking skills; and (2) an increase in preservice teachers' critical thinking and deep learning will be demonstrated

through the level of postings to the Blackboard discussion forums.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 93 undergraduate students (82% were preservice teachers) in four sections of an Edu

cational Psychology course at a Midwestern university (two in the Spring of 2006 and two in Spring 2007, see

Table 1.). The sections were identical with respect to length, objectives, requirements, assignments, examinations,

371

and grading criteria. All four sections used the same text book, the syllabus for each section followed the same

calendar of topics, and the content of study was the same for each week. Sections were taught by two different

teachers, but with equal teaching experience. Two sections were considered the "traditional" groups (21 students in

2006 and respective 22 in 2007; with 67% respective 77% female students). Traditional teaching methods were

lectures, in-class discussions, homework assignments, and in-class comprehensive test as final examination. The

other two sections (27 students in 2006 and respective 23 in 2007; with 74% respective 65% female students) were

considered the "technology" group. Table 1. Participants in the study by gender and type of teaching method

Semester/

teaching method Females Males Total participants

2006/ traditional 14 7 21

2006/ technology 20 7 27

2007/ traditional 17 5 22

2007/ technology 15 8 23

Total 66 27 93

As part of their coursework, students in the "technology" group participated in both, in-class and online

activities. The in-class activities were the same as for the traditional group: small group in-class discussions,

homework assignments, and in-class comprehensive test as final examination. For the online activities students were

required to post minimum 6 times per semester (half number of topics studied) reflections on the topics studied

across the semester using the Blackboard discussion board, and respond to other students' postings. The Discussion

Board postings were moderated by the teacher. Students were presented with Grading Rubrics for each assignment

as well as for Blackboard postings (see Appendix 1). The purpose of online discussion board postings was to

provide students with opportunities for discussions and reflections on the content. The guidelines that students

received through the rubric encouraged that their reflections posted on the discussion board were proof of higher

order thinking. The teacher moderated the discussion board postings more in the first couple of weeks into the

semester, so that students were encouraged to use higher order thinking in their reflections and responses to other

postings. Later in the semester the teacher only responded to eventual questions or made clarifications.

Students in the "traditional" group, using the same textbook and syllabus, participated in the same in-class

activities, had the same homework assignments and final ex amination, and followed the same curriculum across the

semester, less the assigned Blackboard discussion board postings. However to compensate the difference students in

the "traditional" group were asked for homework assignment to complete short reflections on the topics studied.

Students in the "traditional" group were provided with the same grading rubrics as the students in the "technology"

group. In the Spring of 2006 two sections of the same Educational Psychology course were randomly assigned,

one to the "traditional" teaching style and the other one to the "technology" teaching style described above. In

Spring 2007 teacher's used teaching style was switched, so the teacher who taught in the Spring 2006 using

traditional methods now used in addition the technology as represented through the Blackboard discussion board

postings, and vice versa, the one who taught the "technology" section in Spring 2006, now was using traditional

methods (no Blackboard discussion board postings).

All participants in the study took the Canfield's Learning Style Inventory (Canfield, 1992) first week in the

semester to control for any learning environment predispositions among the students. Students also took the Ennis-

Weir Test of Critical Thinking (Ennis & Weir, 1985) during first and last week in the semester (as pre- and post-

test), with the purpose to observe any changes in their critical thinking in the process of learning over the respective

semesters.

In addition, only the students in the technology group were also asked to complete an "End of semester

feedback" form (see Appendix 2) concerning their course experience, and the one related to using Blackboard

reflection posted on the Discussion board. 372

For this study purposes students were assigned a code. This code was created from a first three digit

number representing the group (section of class and semester), followed by a two digit number representing an order

number for each student, and next a three digit number representing the topic order across the semester and the

number of postings per topic. The pre- and post-test Ennis-Weir Tests of Critical Thinking (EWCT) were double blind scored to

condition and time of assessment (inter rater r =.79), then analyzed to observe changes in critical thinking between

students in the four sections. There were two raters, the first, one of the teachers who taught the students involved in

this research; and the second rater was a faculty teaching the same content but from another university, and was not

involved in teaching the students in this research. This was chosen intentionally to control for rater bias.

Blackboard discussion postings were analyzed using a rubric (see Appendix 3) that was developed based on

Bloom's modified taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001) measuring for factual, conceptual, procedural, and

metacognitive levels of postings. Postings at the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy corresponding to higher levels

of thinking, deep level of learning and use of critical thinking. All Blackboard discussion postings on the class

forums (appropriate topics from the syllabus) were scored separate by two raters (inter-rater reliability r =.82) using

the above mentioned rubric. Quantitative analysis was performed comparing changes in Blackboard discussion

posting levels for individuals across the semester.

Measures

Canfield's Learning Style Inventory (CLSI) determines which learning environments and which types of

instructors are best for particular students (Canfield, 1992). Participants taking CLSI respond to a 30 questions

inventory by ranking each response to questions on a scale of 1 to 4. The CLSI is designed to determine which

learning environments - and which instructors -are best for particular students. Scores were calculated for

Conditions (i.e., teamwork, independent study, competition, classroom discipline, organized coursework, a close

relationship with the instructor, or detailed information on assignments and requirements), Content , Mode (i.e.,

through listening, reading, interpreting illustrations or graphs, or through hands-on experience), and Expected

Performance (how well does the student expect to perform in the class?) related to general course taking

experiences. Ennis-Weir tests of Critical Thinking (EWCT) was developed (Ennis& Weir, 1985) to help evaluate a

person's critical thinking ability of writing a critical argument to a specific situation. Participants are required to

respond in writing to an eight paragraph fictitious letter written by a "concerned citizen" to a journal editor in

regards to night parking on streets. The writer of the letter presents 8 specific reasons. Respondents need to present

their logical and critical reasoning for each of the eight points (showing their reasoning in agreement or

disagreement, and logical thinking about the arguments from the fictitious letter), and lastly give a general comment.

Scoring is done using the specially designed scoring rubric provided with the test manual. Scores can be obtained for

each of the 8 points and total scores.

Results

The principal purpose of this study was to assess if the use of Blackboard discussion forums as

supplementary instructional tool in a face-to-face course will improve undergraduate preservice teachers' critical

thinking skills; and if an increase in preservice teachers' critical thinking and deep learning will be demonstrated

through the level of postings to the Blackboard discussion forums across the length of a semester course.

Results from the comparison across groups and semesters shows that there were no statistically significant

differences in the learning styles as measured by Canfield's Learning Style Inventory between students in all groups

(t = 1.67, df = 91, p = .098; Cohen's d= .068).

Results from the Ennis-Weir test of critical thinking show that there was a statistically significant increase

in critical thinking skills as presented by students in the technology groups, but not for the students who were in the

traditional teaching groups (Table 2). 373
Table 2. Descriptive statistics by groups for results on Ennis-Weir Tests of Critical thinking

At pre-test time on Ennis-Weir Tests of Critical Thinking there were no statistically significant differences

in critical thinking between participants in the traditional and the technology group (F 3, 89 = .390; p=.76). This

means that all groups were comparable, and students' abilities for critical thinking were comparable at the beginning

of each semester as well as across groups and semesters. At post-test there were statistically significant differences

in critical thinking abilities between technology and traditional groups (F 3, 89 = 37.46; p=.0001). Table 3. ANOVA at pre-test and post-test for groups involved in the study

Sum of

squares df MS F Sig.

Pre-test Between groups

Within groups

Total 24.98

1897.94

1922.93 3

92 8.38

21.33 .39 .760

Post-test Between groups

Within groups

Total 1960.21

1552.06

3512.28 3

92 653.40

17.44 37.47 .001

The effect size was large in both semesters: Spring 2006 Cohen's d= .71; Spring 2007 Cohen's d = .75.

Statistically significant change in critical thinking from pre to post-test was found only for participants in the

technology groups (t=15.04, df=49, p=.001).

The analysis of Balckboard postings (using the scoring rubric in Appendix 3), over the time of a semester

show an increase in student performance level and use of higher order thinking (revised Bloom's taxonomy;

Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). Across the semester students' online postings showed statistically significant

increases in levels of application, analysis, evaluation, and creation, for conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive

levels (results in Table 4 below). Table 4. Quantitative results from Blackboard discussion postings

Sum of

squares df MS F Sig.

Factual Between groups

Within groups

Total 147.48

844.74 992.22 11

311

322 13.41

2.72 4.94 .001

Conceptual Between groups

Within groups

Total 187.39 879.77

1067.16 11

311

322 14.04

2.83 6.02 .001

Procedural Between groups

Within groups

Total 425.17

1053.09

1478.27 11

311

322 38.65

3.39 11.41 .001

Metacognitive Between groups

Within groups

Total 240.69

963.96 1204.66 11

311

322 21.88

3.1 7.06 .001

Semester/ group Number of subjects Mean SD

Spring 2006 - technology 27 18.59 3.33

Spring 2006 - traditional 21 10.19 4.95

Spring 2007 - technology 23 21.35 2.62

Spring 2007 - traditional 22 11.64 5.45

374

Discussions

The results from Canfield Learning Style Inventory imply that students at the beginning of the semesters

were homogeneous in what concerns learning and teaching style preferences; suggesting that students' preferences

for specific learning environments possibly did not affect their levels of critical thinking. These results are very

important because they show that students in all four groups in study were equal in what concerns preference of

learning in a course.

Results from the Ennis-Weir critical thinking test show that only students in the "technology" groups

presented an increase in critical thinking skills across the semesters in the study. Considering that the content to be

learned, the textbook, and the syllabus calendar was the same for all groups this implies that the teaching methods

used for the technology group (Blackboard discussions posting) helped students increase their critical thinking

abilities. Given that each of the two technology groups was taught by a different teacher, the results are more robust

and support the hypothesis that the difference in critical thinking among students is due to the reflections posted to

the Blackboard discussion forum.

Blackboard discussions required students to post reflections on specific topics and to respond to other

reflections. Their reflections implied mastery of the topic, proof of ability to apply to content to real life situations,

analysis and comparison of different theories learned, and development of new ideas (creativity). All these are also

demonstrations of deep level of learning and use of critical thinking. Students from the "traditional" group were

asked to show their reflection on the topics in study through the homework assignments. But they did not have the

opportunity to read each other's reflections as the "technology" group students had (due to the Blackboard open

postings). We suspect that the differentiated results come from the opportunity for discussion involved in

Blackboard discussion board postings.

The above results support our first hypothesis that the use of Blackboard discussion forums as

supplementary instructional tool in a face-to-face course will improve undergraduate preservice teachers' critical

thinking skills. Our results support also the literature mentioned by Elder and Paul (2002) and demonstrations from

Derry, Hmelo-Silver, Nagarajan, Chernobilsky, & Beitzel (2006), concerning the effectiveness of use of technology

for teaching college courses.

In what concerns our second hypothesis that an increase in preservice teachers' critical thinking and deep

learning will be demonstrated through the level of pos tings to the Blackboard discussion forums a qualitative

analysis of postings was conducted. From qualitative analysis point of view across the semester Blackboard

discussion board postings were better developed and presenting higher levels of thinking, also the number of

postings categorized at higher levels of Bloom taxonomy increased overall across the length of the semester, as

shown above in the quantitative analysis of the same postings (using Bloom's revised taxonomy as scoring rubric).

Results from this research support what Biggs (1987, 1998, 1999), Koehler, Mishra, and Yahya (2007), and other

authors (Bigge & Shermis, 1992; Mayer, 1992; Swan, & Shea, 2005) present concerning the use of technology as a

teaching method as purposeful in order to serve higher levels of learning through improved pedagogies. Use of

technology in face-to-face courses as a supplementary method of teaching showed the same results as Schumm,

Webb, Turek, Jones, and Ballard (2006) found that the use of online discussions increased students' critical thinking

skills. Blackboard discussions also helped students had more complex questions, and increased contact in online

format across the semester as compared to only face-to-face teaching methods.

For example postings for topics at the beginning of the semester were mostly repeating the content and

asking questions at the level of understanding.

Emily (names are changed for all examples for confidentiality purposes), is an example of a student who

demonstrated increased ability to think critically over the course of the semester. Early postings by Emily showed

thinking at lower levels of Bloom taxonomy such as factual-remembering, understanding and applying. Emily's

writings consistently recalled facts about theories and theorists:

"According to the text, critical periods are time spans that are optimal for the development of certain

capacities of the brain. Critical periods coupled with optimal environments further cognitive development. Since it is

possible for children to develop at different times, how is a teacher supposed to create optimal environments for all

students?" 375
Later Emily makes attempts to analyze and relate the topic in study with previously studied topics:

"[...] According to the textbook some factors influence self-efficacy: previous experiences, observing

others, teacher's comments, environmental and physiological aspects. From what we learned previously I think

students with high motivation probably have also high self-efficacy. I also would relate self-efficacy with the way a

person makes causal attributions. [...] Therefore, as future teachers, one of our goals should be to help increase

self-efficacy in our students. I think I would be able to come up with some methods I could apply in classroom

setting" In later stages of the class, Emily showed more of a tendency to reflect on her own thinking. She

demonstrated evidence of analysis, evaluation and, in one instance, creation. Below is Emily's last posting:

"Motivation is such a key component to learning. It is the drive behind children that makes them

want to learn. Without a reason to want to learn, why should they? It doesn't always have to be a treat. In

fact my biggest motivation as a high school student was my desire to grow up go to college and become a

teacher. It is all about what makes the child value education. The hard part is that it [motivation] is

different for each student. That is our job as teachers, we need to motivate and reach as many of our

students as possible. But first of all I think we must get to know our students, and know what they value,

and what motivates them." Analysis of the excerpt shows how Emily started to make connections to previous experience by relating the concept of motivation to her desires as a high school student. She goes on to evaluate

motivation and identify her role in the process. In her later postings, it was not uncommon for Emily to

project forward and evaluate how student motivation would impact her teaching.

Students' reflections across the semester developed from simple report on the content learned and proof of

understanding of the information, towards proof of reflective and critical thinking, application, and analysis of the

content. They also show evaluation of the theoretical concepts:

"I think Piaget's theory makes more sense than the Classical behaviorist theory. In the end we are thinking

beings, we might be able to learn something from reflex but we also think about what we learn." Michael is another student who makes explicit connections in his postings between the course content and home life. "This is a subject that is very close to home for me right now. My son is completely unmotivated. I have tried punishment, encouragement, giving money but nothing works. He refuses to do his home work

and would have straight A's if not for home work. I liked the different approaches that we talked about,

especially letting him come up with his own ideas. I am going to try this approach with him and see if

letting him have ownership of what happens can help him. I hope something will work soon for him. Thank

you all for the ideas."

The student demonstrates that he is able to apply and test just as in a mini-research in a real life,

the theory learned in the course. There is demonstration of analysis and evaluation. Later to the following

topic Michael shows again critical thinking, metacognitive abilities and creative thinking: "It seems that Operant Conditioning and Motivation do fit hand in hand, however, I feel that

there is a difference. A student who does not study for an exam and does well, may not be inclined to study

for the next test...But with motivation (to learn), it's definition is the "student's tendency to find academic

activities meaningful and worthwhile and to try and get the intended learning benefits from

them"...Operant conditioning is voluntary and the behavior precedes the stimulus, with Motivation students

are presented with a challenge and it's at that point they decide whether or not it's something they are

interested in and if they want to learn the information." Analysis of statements from the "End of semester feedback" (only from participants in the technology

group) show that participants report better learning and feelings of enhanced performance due to team discussions,

and enjoyed the weekly Blackboard discussion postings since they could share more information, reflections, and

questions outside the classroom.

"I have found in the beginning of the semester very difficult to write reflections on the topic of the week; by

around midterm I felt more comfortable and now when I think back I really enjoyed the Blackboard discussions and

I think I learned more through reflecting on the topics than by only reading the book and in class small groups

discussion." Also they reported that the out of class discussion opportunity helped them understand and share the learned content, as well as think about applications to real life educational situations.

"If I were to modify anything to this course I would want to have weekly reflections as requirement, not

only a minimum of six. I think that even if they were a big effort in the beginning, we learned from each other and

376

had a place to continue our discussions after class, especially when we had more ideas of how to apply a concept."

[...] "I liked that we could share ideas, and help each other come up with a better understanding of the content"

Some participants reported that before taking the course they had limited knowledge about "Blackboard,"

and at the completion of their performance they learned not only what a discussion board is for, but they really

enjoyed online discussions and planned on using the method in their future teaching.

"This was my first semester to use Blackboard and I was really afraid that I will not be successful. But I

felt comfortable sharing with everyone. I think we helped each other and by the end of semester I am glad that we

used the Blackboard." [...] "Using Bla ckboard helped me develop new skills and I think I will be more inclined to use technology in my future teaching."

The results of this study support Elder and Paul (2002), as well as results from Krentler and Willis-Flurry

(2005) that the use of technology and online discussions increase student learning and critical thinking abilities. In

the current study the results show that the use of Blackboard postings in form of weekly reflections and comments

was the factor that improved students' critical thinking skills.

Despite the positive results from this study there are several limitations. Even if study sections were

randomly assigned to the teaching methods used in the course, the entire research study took place in sections of the

same course. Future research is needed to evaluate changes in critical thinking in other content areas, in other

courses where teaching methods that involve online discussions are used along with face-to-face traditional teaching

methods. Another limitation of this study was the small sample size (only four sections of the same course). For this

reason the present research has a limited generalizability; only to Educational Psychology courses taught for

undergraduate preservice teacher education students.quotesdbs_dbs14.pdfusesText_20

[PDF] [PDF] Better teaching methods for Teacher Education: Blackboard

[PDF] The Effectiveness of Blackboard-Based Blended Teaching in - ERIC

[PDF] Blackboard As An Online Learning Environment: What Do - ERIC

[PDF] Blackboard Teaching Assistant Quick Guide Remember

[PDF] What is Blackboard? Blackboard is a Web-based course

[PDF] USING BLACKBOARD IN ONLINE LEARNING AT SAUDI

[PDF] Blackboard for Teaching Assistants - Syracuse University - Graduate

[PDF] Better teaching methods for Teacher Education: Blackboard

Zsuzsanna Szabo, Ph. D.

Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville

Jonathan Schwartz, Ph. D.

University of Hawaii West O'ahu

Abstract

Critical thinking and higher thinking levels

68). The other dimension "Knowledge dimension" has four levels: factual, conceptual, procedural, and

Critical thinking and teacher education

Use of technology to improve students' thinking

Zhao, 2007, pp. 286).

Methods

Participants

2006 and respective 22 in 2007; with 67% respective 77% female students). Traditional teaching methods were

Semester/

2006/ traditional 14 7 21

2006/ technology 20 7 27

2007/ traditional 17 5 22

2007/ technology 15 8 23

Total 66 27 93

Measures

Results

Sum of

Pre-test Between groups

Within groups

Total 24.98

1897.94

1922.93 3

92 8.38

21.33 .39 .760

Post-test Between groups

Within groups

Total 1960.21

1552.06

3512.28 3

92 653.40

17.44 37.47 .001

Sum of

Factual Between groups

Within groups

Total 147.48

844.74

992.22 11

322 13.41

2.72 4.94 .001

Conceptual Between groups

Within groups

Total 187.39 879.77

1067.16 11

322 14.04

2.83 6.02 .001

Procedural Between groups

Within groups

Total 425.17

1053.09

1478.27 11

322 38.65

3.39 11.41 .001

Metacognitive Between groups

Within groups

Total 240.69

963.96

1204.66 11

322 21.88

3.1 7.06 .001

Semester/ group Number of subjects Mean SD

Spring 2006 - technology 27 18.59 3.33

Spring 2006 - traditional 21 10.19 4.95

Spring 2007 - technology 23 21.35 2.62

Spring 2007 - traditional 22 11.64 5.45

Discussions

Blackboard discussion board postings.