Investigating the Extent of Critical Thinking in Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Students’ Critical Thinking and Blogging

Zahra Shahsavar*    -  Scopus ID (36651311600) Department of English Language, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran, Islamic Republic of
Sefa Bulut    -  Scopus ID (7003567505) İbn Haldun Üniversitesi, Turkey

(*) Corresponding Author
DOI: 10.21580/vjv11i212520

Identifying critical thinking and learners’ characteristics is very important in an online learning environment. This study investigated the extent of critical thinking between field-dependent and field-independent students’ critical thinking and blogging. It is a quasi-experimental in which a quantitative method was employed on an intact class of the students to develop their CT skills in their argumentative blog posts. Different aspects of CT skills, such as observation, inference, reasoning, assumption, and credibility were explained to the students. The GEFT developed by Witkin et al. (1971) was applied to evaluate the students' field dependency. Moreover, Newman et al. model (1996) was applied to analyze students’ CT in their blog posts.  No significant difference was found in the number of positive and negative CT indicators used by FD and FI students. Therefore, educators who wish to improve the students’ learning may train the students in CT skills by using a pre-planned and systematic procedure without worrying about learners’ cognitive styles, particularly their field dependency.

Keywords: blogging; critical thinking; cognitive style; field dependency

  1. Altun, A., & Cakan, M. (2006). Undergraduate Students’ Academic Achievement, Field Dependent/ Independent Cognitive Styles and Attitude Toward Computers. Educational Technology & Society., 9(1), 289–297.
  2. Bocchi, J., Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2004). Retaining the Online Learner: Profile of Students in an Online MBA Program and Implications for Teaching Them. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.4.245-253
  3. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Education, Inc. http://angol.uni-miskolc.hu/wp-content/media/2016/10/Principles_of_language_learning.pdf
  4. Cakan, M. (2003). Psychometric Data on the Group Embedded Figures Test for Turkish Undergraduate Students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(3), 993–1004. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2003.96.3.993
  5. Chen, L.-H. (2010). Web-Based Learning Programs: Use by Learners with Various Cognitive Styles. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1028–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.008
  6. Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2002). Cognitive Styles and Hypermedia Navigation: Development of A Learning Model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10023
  7. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1
  8. Clark, T., & Paulsen, T. (2016). Analyzing Student Teacher Critical Thinking through Blogs in an Electronic Community of Practice. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(2), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.02075
  9. Dekker, T. J. (2020). Teaching Critical Thinking Through Engagement with Multiplicity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100701
  10. Ennis, R. H., Millman, J., & Tomoko, T, N. (2004). Cornell Critical Thinking Testes Level X & Level Z Manual. Critical Thinking Co. www.Critical Thinking.com.
  11. Evendi, E., Al Kusaeri, A. K., Pardi, M. H. H., Sucipto, L., Bayani, F., & Prayogi, S. (2022). Assessing Students’ Critical Thinking Skills Viewed From Cognitive Style: Study on Implementation of Problem-Based E-learning Model in Mathematics Courses. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(7), 2129. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12161
  12. Farsi, M., Bagheri, M. Sharif, M. & Nematollahi, F. (2014). Relationship between Field Dependent/ Independent Language Proficiency of Female EFL Students. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 6(3), 208–220.
  13. Gooding, J., & Morris, R. (2008). UniversityWeb 2.0: A Vehicle for Transforming education. Information and Communication Technology Education, 4(2), 44–53.
  14. Haunt, S. K., Meyer, K. R., & Lippert, L. R. (2006).Implications of students' cognitive styles for the development of argumentation skills.
  15. Hatcher, D. L. (2006). Stand-Alone Versus Integrated Critical Thinking Courses. The Journal of General Education, 55(3), 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2007.0002
  16. Heesacker, M., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Field Dependence and Attitude Change: Source Credibility Can Alter Persuasion by Affecting Message-Relevant Thinking. Journal of Personality, 51(4), 653–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00872.x
  17. Kafipour, R., & Noordin, N. (2021). Field Dependent vs. Field Independent EFL Learners’ Perceptions of Their Instructors’ Teaching Methods in English Language Classes. Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology, 29(S1). https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.s1.13
  18. Kies, D. (2010). Underlying Assumptions. http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp2/assume.htm
  19. Lai, H., & Wang, C. (2008). Exploring of blog Users’ On-line Experience and Perception of Computers.
  20. Maghsudi, M. (2007). Learning Styles and Learners’ Linguality in Third Language Acquisition. South Asia Language, 17(1), 100-113.
  21. Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Cochrane, C., & Webb, B. (1996). An Experiment in Group Learning Technology: Evaluating Critical Thinking in Face-to-Face and Computer-Supported Seminars. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 4(1), 57–74. https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/an-experiment-in-group-learning-technology-evaluating-critical-th
  22. Nilforooshan, N, & Afghari, A. (2007). The Effect of Field Dependence-Independence as A Source of Variation in EFL Learners’ Writing Performance. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 1(2), 103–118. http://www.ijls.net/pages/volume/vol1no2.html
  23. Oh, E., & Lim, D. (2005). Cross Relationships between Cognitive Styles and Learner Variables in Online Learning Environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(1), 53–66. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1081668.pdf
  24. Onyekuru, B. U. (2015). Field Dependence-Field Independence Cognitive Style, Gender, Career Choice and Academic Achievement of Secondary School Students in Emohua local Government Area of Rivers State. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(10), 76–85. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1081668.pdf
  25. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). TheTthinker’s Guide to The Art of Socratic Questioning: Based on Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools. CA. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. https://www.criticalthinking.org/store/products/the-thinkers-guide-to-socratic-questioning/231
  26. Pena, C., & Almaguer, I. (2012). The Use of Online Discussions to Foster Critical Thinking in A Teacher Education Program. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(1), 25–32. https://go.gale.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&hitCount=10&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA282067842&docType=Report&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZONE-Exclude-FT&prodId=AO
  27. Pieschl, S., & Sivyer, D. (2021). Secondary Students’ Epistemic Thinking and Year As Predictors of Critical Source Evaluation of Internet Blogs. Computers & Education, 160, 104038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104038
  28. Richardson, W. (2004). Metablognition. Weblogg-Ed. http://www.weblog-ed.com/2004/04/27
  29. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological Issues in The Content Analysis of Computer Conference Transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(1), 8–22. https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00197319
  30. Shahsavar, Z., & Tan, B. H. (2011). Does Cognitive Style Affect Bloggers’ Attitude in An Online Learning Environment? GEMA Online TM Journal of Language Studies, 11(1), 159–171. http://journalarticle.ukm.my/996/
  31. Shahsavar, Z., & Kourepaz, H. (2020). Postgraduate Students’ Difficulties in Writing Their Theses Literature Review. Cogent Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
  32. Sharma, P., & Tietjen, P. (2016). Examining Patterns of Participation and Meaning Making in Student Blogs: A Case Study in Higher Education. American Journal of Distance Education, 30(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2016.1119605
  33. Tahira, M., Haider, G. (2019). The Role of Critical Thinking in Academic Writing: An Investigation of EFL Students’ Perceptions and Writing Experiences. International Online Journal of Primary Education, 8(1), 1–30. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1243509.pdf
  34. Teng, M. F., Wang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Assessing Self-Regulatory Writing Strategies and Their Predictive Effects on Young EFL Learners’ Writing Performance. Assessing Writing, 51, 100573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100573
  35. Town, D. A. (2003). Cognitive Style and Learning Strategies. http://www.monografias.com/trabajos16/learning-styles/learning-styles.shtml
  36. Verawati, N. N. S. P., Hikmawati, H., & Prayogi, S. (2020). The Effectiveness of Inquiry Learning Models Intervened by Reflective Processes to Promote Critical Thinking Ability in Terms of Cognitive Style. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(16), 212. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i16.14687
  37. Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., & Zhao, J. (2009). Investigating Critical Thinking and Knowledge Construction in An Interactive Learning Environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820701706320
  38. Witkin, H., & Goodenough, D. (1981). Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. International Universities Press, Inc.
  39. Witkin, H., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E. & Krap, S. A. (1971). A Manual for the Group Embedded Figure Test. Cinsulting Psycholinguists Press.
  40. Wittrock, M. C. (2010). Learning as a Generative Process. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433554
  41. Yamini, M., & Rahnama, M. (2008). Relation between Field Dependence/Independence, Ambiguity Tolerance/Intolerance and Reading Comprehension in Global and Local Items. Humanities and Social Sciences., 2(2), 63–72.
  42. Yang, Y.-T. C., Newby, T. J., & Bill, R. L. (2005). Using Socratic Questioning to Promote Critical Thinking Skills Through Asynchronous Discussion Forums in Distance Learning Environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_4
  43. Zeng, X., & Harris, S. T. (2005). Blogging in An Online Health Information Technology Class. Perspective in Health Information Management, 2(6). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2047310/pdf/phim0002-0006.pdf
  44. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological Perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040004807

Open Access Copyright (c) 2022 Zahra Shahsavar, Sefa Bulut
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Vision: Journal of Language and Foreign Language Learning is indexed by

    

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

View My Stats

Publisher
English Education Department,
Faculty of Education and Teacher Training,
Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang
Jl. Prof Hamka Ngaliyan Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia

apps