Loading…
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...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Communication disorders quarterly 2007-06, Vol.28 (3), p.135-143 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-5d8fafb5905a846a530a231f408c360b33b4bb748e7c535bd8d5884aa805f8033 |
| container_end_page | 143 |
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 135 |
| container_title | Communication disorders quarterly |
| container_volume | 28 |
| creator | Landis, Melodee Swain, Kristine D. Friehe, Mary J. Coufal, Kathy L. |
| description | 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? |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/15257401070280030301 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85699547</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A173970106</galeid><ericid>EJ787110</ericid><sage_id>10.1177_15257401070280030301</sage_id><sourcerecordid>A173970106</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-5d8fafb5905a846a530a231f408c360b33b4bb748e7c535bd8d5884aa805f8033</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctqwzAQRU1poenjD7IwXXTndGRJkbwMIX0RyCZdm7Esp0oVOZXsQv--Ci4tlFBmITH33GEeSTImMCFEiDvCcy4YEBCQSwAag5wkI8KpzJik4vTwz3l2YM6TixC2ACCiMEpg8YG2x864TTr3pjMKbbp-Ne7tkDEunVsMIUVXpytnjdNXyVmDNujr7_cyeblfrOeP2XL18DSfLTNFCe0yXssGm4oXwFGyKXIKmFPSMJCKTqGitGJVJZjUQnHKq1rWXEqGKIE3Eii9TG6Hunvfvvc6dOXOBKWtRafbPpSST4uCMxHBmz_gtu29i72VOaFCFoywCGUDtEGrS-OatvOoNtppj7Z1ujExPSOCFiKucRr5yRE-Rq13Rh01sMGgfBuC102592aH_rMkUB6OVB47UrSNB5v2Rv1YFs9CCkIgymSQA27071z_lvwCoiuXRQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>213789414</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluating Critical Thinking in Class and Online: Comparison of the Newman Method and the Facione Rubric</title><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Linguistics Collection</source><source>ERIC</source><source>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</source><source>Sage Journals Online</source><source>Education Collection</source><creator>Landis, Melodee ; Swain, Kristine D. ; Friehe, Mary J. ; Coufal, Kathy L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Landis, Melodee ; Swain, Kristine D. ; Friehe, Mary J. ; Coufal, Kathy L.</creatorcontrib><description>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?</description><identifier>ISSN: 1525-7401</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-4837</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/15257401070280030301</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications</publisher><subject>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</subject><ispartof>Communication disorders quarterly, 2007-06, Vol.28 (3), p.135-143</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2007 Sage Publications, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Spring 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-5d8fafb5905a846a530a231f408c360b33b4bb748e7c535bd8d5884aa805f8033</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/213789414?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12842,21369,21373,21385,27915,27916,31260,31261,33602,33603,33868,33869,33902,33903,43724,43871,43887,79125</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ787110$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Landis, Melodee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swain, Kristine D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friehe, Mary J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coufal, Kathy L.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluating Critical Thinking in Class and Online: Comparison of the Newman Method and the Facione Rubric</title><title>Communication disorders quarterly</title><description>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?</description><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Codes</subject><subject>Colleges & universities</subject><subject>Comparative Analysis</subject><subject>Computer Mediated Communication</subject><subject>Content Analysis</subject><subject>Critical Thinking</subject><subject>Discussion (Teaching Technique)</subject><subject>Educational theory</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Evaluation Methods</subject><subject>High School Students</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Neural networks</subject><subject>Online education</subject><subject>R&D</subject><subject>Research & development</subject><subject>Sample size</subject><subject>Scoring Rubrics</subject><subject>Student Behavior</subject><subject>Student Evaluation</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Study and teaching</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Thinking Skills</subject><issn>1525-7401</issn><issn>1538-4837</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><sourceid>7T9</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>CJNVE</sourceid><sourceid>CPGLG</sourceid><sourceid>M0P</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctqwzAQRU1poenjD7IwXXTndGRJkbwMIX0RyCZdm7Esp0oVOZXsQv--Ci4tlFBmITH33GEeSTImMCFEiDvCcy4YEBCQSwAag5wkI8KpzJik4vTwz3l2YM6TixC2ACCiMEpg8YG2x864TTr3pjMKbbp-Ne7tkDEunVsMIUVXpytnjdNXyVmDNujr7_cyeblfrOeP2XL18DSfLTNFCe0yXssGm4oXwFGyKXIKmFPSMJCKTqGitGJVJZjUQnHKq1rWXEqGKIE3Eii9TG6Hunvfvvc6dOXOBKWtRafbPpSST4uCMxHBmz_gtu29i72VOaFCFoywCGUDtEGrS-OatvOoNtppj7Z1ujExPSOCFiKucRr5yRE-Rq13Rh01sMGgfBuC102592aH_rMkUB6OVB47UrSNB5v2Rv1YFs9CCkIgymSQA27071z_lvwCoiuXRQ</recordid><startdate>200706</startdate><enddate>200706</enddate><creator>Landis, Melodee</creator><creator>Swain, Kristine D.</creator><creator>Friehe, Mary J.</creator><creator>Coufal, Kathy L.</creator><general>Sage Publications</general><general>PRO-ED, Inc</general><general>Sage Publications, Inc</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CPGLG</scope><scope>CRLPW</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200706</creationdate><title>Evaluating Critical Thinking in Class and Online</title><author>Landis, Melodee ; Swain, Kristine D. ; Friehe, Mary J. ; Coufal, Kathy L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-5d8fafb5905a846a530a231f408c360b33b4bb748e7c535bd8d5884aa805f8033</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Codes</topic><topic>Colleges & universities</topic><topic>Comparative Analysis</topic><topic>Computer Mediated Communication</topic><topic>Content Analysis</topic><topic>Critical Thinking</topic><topic>Discussion (Teaching Technique)</topic><topic>Educational theory</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Evaluation Methods</topic><topic>High School Students</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Neural networks</topic><topic>Online education</topic><topic>R&D</topic><topic>Research & development</topic><topic>Sample size</topic><topic>Scoring Rubrics</topic><topic>Student Behavior</topic><topic>Student Evaluation</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Study and teaching</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Thinking Skills</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Landis, Melodee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swain, Kristine D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friehe, Mary J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coufal, Kathy L.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Communication disorders quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Landis, Melodee</au><au>Swain, Kristine D.</au><au>Friehe, Mary J.</au><au>Coufal, Kathy L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ787110</ericid><atitle>Evaluating Critical Thinking in Class and Online: Comparison of the Newman Method and the Facione Rubric</atitle><jtitle>Communication disorders quarterly</jtitle><date>2007-06</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>135</spage><epage>143</epage><pages>135-143</pages><issn>1525-7401</issn><eissn>1538-4837</eissn><abstract>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?</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>Sage Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/15257401070280030301</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1525-7401 |
| ispartof | Communication disorders quarterly, 2007-06, Vol.28 (3), p.135-143 |
| issn | 1525-7401 1538-4837 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85699547 |
| source | Social Science Premium Collection; Linguistics Collection; ERIC; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA); Sage Journals Online; Education Collection |
| 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 |
| title | Evaluating Critical Thinking in Class and Online: Comparison of the Newman Method and the Facione Rubric |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T06%3A19%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluating%20Critical%20Thinking%20in%20Class%20and%20Online:%20Comparison%20of%20the%20Newman%20Method%20and%20the%20Facione%20Rubric&rft.jtitle=Communication%20disorders%20quarterly&rft.au=Landis,%20Melodee&rft.date=2007-06&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=135&rft.epage=143&rft.pages=135-143&rft.issn=1525-7401&rft.eissn=1538-4837&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/15257401070280030301&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA173970106%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-5d8fafb5905a846a530a231f408c360b33b4bb748e7c535bd8d5884aa805f8033%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=213789414&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A173970106&rft_ericid=EJ787110&rft_sage_id=10.1177_15257401070280030301&rfr_iscdi=true |