Abstract
The present study focuses on the use of two different types of scripts as possible ways to structure university students' discourse in asynchronous discussion groups and consequently promote their learning. More specifically, the aim of the study is to determine how requiring students to label their contributions by means of De Bono's Thinking Hats (script 1) and Weinberger's script for the construction of argumentation sequences (script 2) affects the ongoing critical thinking processes reflected in the discussion. The results suggest that both scripts successfully facilitated critical thinking. The results showed that the labeling condition (script 1) surpasses the argumentation script (script 2) with regard to the overall depth of critical thinking in the discussion, and the critical thinking processes during the stages of problem identification and problem integration in particular. Further, it can be argued that students in the labeling condition are engaged in more focused, more critical, and more practically-oriented discussions.
Highlights
Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), and asynchronous discussion groups in particular, is very popular because of the positive effects on different aspects of learning
We will first focus on differences with regard to the overall depth of critical thinking
As to the overall depth of critical thinking, a critical thinking ratio was calculated on the basis of the coded critical thinking indicators
Summary
Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), and asynchronous discussion groups in particular, is very popular because of the positive effects on different aspects of learning. Empirical evidence stresses the importance of engaging students in high-quality interaction as a prerequisite for supporting online learning In this respect, scripts can be regarded as an approach to facilitate true collaborative learning. For instance, stimulate learners to construct specific arguments by providing them prompts on which they have to respond (Baker & Lund, 1997; Dillenbourg, 2002; Kollar, Fischer & Hess, 2003; Weinberger, 2003; Weinberger, Ertl, Fischer & Mandl, 2005) This approach is interesting to specify, sequence, and eventually to allocate different learning activities to learners (Weinberger et al, 2005)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
