Evaluating Critical Thinking in Class and Online: Comparison of the Newman Method and the Facione Rubric

Many schools across the nation are working to include online learning as a fundamental part of the collection of teaching strategies. In 2000, approximately 98% of the public schools in the United States were connected to the Internet (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001) and were working...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Communication disorders quarterly 2007-06, Vol.28 (3), p.135-143
Main Authors: Landis, Melodee, Swain, Kristine D., Friehe, Mary J., Coufal, Kathy L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Behavior
Codes
Colleges & universities
Comparative Analysis
Computer Mediated Communication
Content Analysis
Critical Thinking
Discussion (Teaching Technique)
Educational theory
Evaluation
Evaluation Methods
High School Students
Methods
Neural networks
Online education
R&D
Research & development
Sample size
Scoring Rubrics
Student Behavior
Student Evaluation
Studies
Study and teaching
Teaching Methods
Thinking Skills
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Many schools across the nation are working to include online learning as a fundamental part of the collection of teaching strategies. In 2000, approximately 98% of the public schools in the United States were connected to the Internet (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001) and were working to expand their students' communication options from the classroom to a variety of online discourse opportunities with peers, community members, and content experts (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Wegerif, 1998). This action-research pilot study was designed to answer three questions: Which of two methods, the Newman or the Facione, most reliably assesses students' critical thinking during in-class and online discussion? How do the methods compare in consistency of use? How do the methods compare in ease of use?
ISSN:1525-7401
1538-4837
DOI:10.1177/15257401070280030301