Effectiveness of Online Learning in Developing Critical
Thinking Skills
Bhuwan Mohan Dwivedi1*, Dr. Tikam Singh2
1 Research Scholar, Department of Education, Sunrise
University, Alwar, Rajasthan, India
bhuwan.sanjeev@
2 Assistant Professor,
Department of Education, Sunrise University, Alwar, Rajasthan, India
Abstract : The objective of this
study is to ascertain whether or not the use of metacognitive strategies during
online courses might lead to an improvement in the critical thinking skills of
students. The research was conducted utilizing a quasi-experimental, pre- and
post-test approach, and it included the participation of one hundred fifty
children who were enrolled in educational programs in Balrampur, Uttar Pradesh,
India. The Metadig tool was used by one group of participants in order to
execute metacognitive strategies, while the other group focused only on the
utilization of conventional online learning methods. Participants were assigned to one of the two
groups by a random process. For the purpose of evaluating critical thinking
skills, which include both substantive and dialogical features, the Critical
Thinking Questionnaire was used. For the purpose of data analysis, generalized
linear models were used, with pre-test scores being accounted for and
Bonferroni coefficients being utilized to compensate for multiple comparisons. According
to the findings, Metadig users made considerable development on both of the
metrics, with the dialogical component demonstrating the greatest amount of
improvement. According to the findings, the incorporation of metacognitive
practices into online learning has the potential to significantly enhance the
students' capacities for critical thinking, self-regulation, and reasoning.
Keywords: Online Learning,
Critical Thinking Skills, Metacognitive Strategies, Self-Regulated Learning,
Quasi-Experimental Design, Education Technology
INTRODUCTION
"Learning to respect and use your own brains and
instincts; consequently, grappling with hard work" is what Adrienne Rich
means when she states that people should "refrain from letting others do
your thinking, talking, and naming for you." In other words, people should
"face the challenge of hard work." In addition, Carol Wade makes the
observation that individuals who have completed a course in critical thinking
may be exceptionally intelligent and possess an in-depth understanding of
reasoning. However, due to the fact that they fail to accept their own biases,
it is possible that they may merely evolve into experienced debaters rather
than critical thinkers. Elon Musk elaborates by stating that, in contrast to
thinking by analogy, which consists of just imitating the activities of other
people, reasoning from first principles—that is, reducing things to their most
fundamental truths and then reasoning up from there—is more effective [1].
The capacity to think critically is essential because
it enables one to ascertain the truth by interpreting, evaluating, and
analyzing the facts and evidence that are presented to them. People who are
capable of critical thinking do more than just be interested; they also connect
ideas in a logical manner in order to get a more thorough understanding. This
skill has many benefits, including the enhancement of decision-making through
the use of logical advocacy, the resolution of problems through the
consideration of a variety of solutions, the development of creativity through
the identification of patterns and the linking of ideas, the contemplation of
personal beliefs and biases, and the promotion of science and democracy through
the use of evidence-based decision-making [2]. Students need to be able to
think critically because it enables them to make better choices and find
solutions to issues, it makes them more curious, and it pushes them to think
"out of the box," all of which are important for creativity.
It is crucial to have the ability to think critically,
which means to assess claims, study facts, and construct arguments based on
solid reasoning. This ability is necessary for academic accomplishment and for
continuing one's education throughout ones whole life. In light of the growing
popularity of online education [3, 4], it is especially important to have a
solid understanding of how these abilities are developed in digital
environments. The introduction of digital technology has brought about a
revolution in the field of education, leading to the rise of online learning as
the most popular style of instruction. It is essential to have a solid
understanding of how the use of online courses affects students' capacity for
critical thinking and problem solving as more and more institutions adopt this
mode of instruction.
The advent of online education has brought up both new
opportunities and new challenges in terms of fostering critical thinking.
Students have the ability to go through the content at their own pace, which
may result in more in-depth reflection. This is because many classes do not
have a time limit attached to assignments. The accessibility of a broad variety
of digital resources, which may include materials that are interactive, has the
potential to significantly improve the quality of the educational experience
[5]. It is possible that the development of critical thinking skills might be
hindered by a number of hurdles, such as a lack of face-to-face interaction,
delayed feedback, and unequal access to technology.
OBJECTIVES
1. To
investigate how students' critical thinking abilities are affected by online
learning interventions that use metacognitive techniques.
2. To
assess how students who utilize the Metadig tool and those who don't develop in
the substantive and dialogical aspects of critical thinking.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The objective of this study is to determine whether or
not the use of metacognitive strategies by students throughout their online
learning experiences leads to an improvement in their critical thinking skills.
The use of a design that is analogous to an experiment will be used in order to
attain this goal. The participants will be randomly assigned to either an
experimental group, which will actively engage with online learning
interventions designed to create metacognitive methods, or a control group,
which will follow regular online learning practices without special
metacognitive scaffolding. Both groups will be tested on their ability to
actively participate in the online learning interventions. During the duration
of the research project, both groups will continue to participate in the same
activities. Through the use of a pre-test/post-test methodology, we will
evaluate the critical thinking ability of the participants both before and
after the intervention. The evaluation of advances that are associated with the
techniques of online learning will be made possible as a result of this.
Participants
All of the participants will be students who are
currently enrolled in top public and private schools located in the Balrampur
region of Uttar Pradesh, India. In order to ensure that there is a diverse
range of students from different educational institutions and levels of study,
we will randomly invite 150 students to participate. With this sample size,
which is enough for statistical analysis, it is possible to interpret the
results in a meaningful way. It is expected that all ethical concerns,
including informed consent, will be adhered to, and participation will be
entirely voluntary. At random, two groups will be chosen from among the
participants, and they are as follows:
Experimental group: Seventy-five students will
participate in the metacognitive strategies-focused online learning
interventions.
Control group: 75 pupils who will be provided with the
usual online course material but will not be offered any further metacognitive
assistance.
Instruments and Materials
The Critical Thinking Questionnaire [6] will be
administered to the students as part of the research project in order to
evaluate their aptitude for critical thinking. There are two distinct
components that are measured by the thirty questions that comprise this survey:
When it comes to critical thinking skills, higher
scores indicate more capabilities on a 4-point Likert scale, which the
participants will use to respond. It is planned to deliver a pilot exam to a
select number of students in order to determine whether or not the time,
clarity, and face validity of the test are adequate.
Procedure
An intervention was carried out with children enrolling in famous public and private schools in the city of Balrampur, which is located in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India. Tutors reached out to students via phone calls, emails, and alerts sent out through virtual classrooms in order to provide them with information on the objectives of the study as well as the resources that are accessible to them in order to strengthen their critical thinking abilities [7]. The first training session, which lasted for two hours, took place during the first week. The students improved their ability to self-regulate their learning and gained knowledge about metacognitive strategies. In the course of the research project, we demonstrated how to make use of the Metadig tool, which is a component that is included but not required. In order to collect information, it was required that a total of one hundred fifty students complete out the Critical Thinking Questionnaire. Each of the participants was divided into two groups:
· Experimental group: Students who used the Metadig tool.
· Control group: Students who did not use the tool.
Participants who were unable to attend the live
sessions were provided with the chance to see recordings of those sessions
within a week of their scheduled attendance. The gathering of data for the
pre-test was the first step in the intervention [8]. During weeks five and ten,
students in the control group were reminded to use the tool. On the other hand,
students in the experimental group used the tool on their own for the
subsequent fifteen weeks. It was recommended to them that they make use of the
self-assessment elements of the program in order to assist them in studying for
their tests [9]. Immediately after the conclusion of the intervention, a follow-up
training session of two hours was completed. Following the completion of the
tool, students were given the opportunity to submit a post-test survey and
report on their experience with the tool. It is possible for participants who
were unable to attend the live event to access the recorded version of the
survey and complete it whenever it is convenient for them during a period of
seven days.
DATA ANALYSIS
Reliability: For the whole 150-student sample and for each
dimension, Cronbach's alpha was computed to ensure the questionnaire's internal
consistency.
Variable Preparation: For every dimension, two variables were generated:
pre-test and post-test. Items 2 and 22 on the dialogical dimension, which are
inverted, were recoded.
Normality Testing: To establish the proper analysis, Shapiro-Wilk tests
were conducted to each dimension:
·
Gaussian distributions using GLM are
examples of normal distributions.
·
GLM with Gamma distribution is an example
of a non-normal distribution.
Model Design: To adjust for differences at baseline, we used
pre-test scores as covariates, with experimental and control groups serving as
independent variables, and post-test scores as dependent factors [10].
Effect Size and Significance: The formula for
determining R2 was used to calculate the proportion of variance that was
explained. The Bonferroni correction was used in order to handle multiple
comparisons efficiently. The marginal means plots were used to demonstrate the
group effect, which was unrelated to the outcomes of the pre-test. A
comprehensive investigation of the impact of the Metadig tool on the
substantive and dialogical aspects of critical thinking was carried out with
the help of these approaches. It was decided that a sample size of 150 students
was enough for statistical analysis [11], which is in keeping with the
parameters that were already established for previous study.
Table 1. Features and
fundamental abilities related to the Critical Thinking Questionnaire
|
Dimension |
Basic
Skill |
Item |
|
Sustantive |
Reading |
1,
11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 28, 30 |
|
Writting |
4,
9, 10, 23, 26, 29 |
|
|
Oral
Expression |
3,
8, 14, 27 |
|
|
Dialogic |
Reading |
2*,
7, 12, 22*, |
|
Writting |
5,
6 |
|
|
Oral
Expression |
15,
20 |
Substantive
Dimension
Table
2. Estimates
of the Substantive Dimension Parameters (n = 150)
|
Names |
Effect |
Estimate |
SE |
95% Confidence Interval |
z |
p |
|
(Intercept) |
(Intercept) |
3.165 |
0.049 |
3.069 – 3.261 |
64.59 |
<.001 |
|
UsoApp1 |
1 – 0 |
0.194 |
0.079 |
0.039 – 0.349 |
2.45 |
0.014 |
|
SustantivaPre |
SustantivaPre |
0.155 |
0.085 |
0.009 – 0.301 |
1.82 |
0.069 |
Table
3. Using
UsoApp for Substantive Dimension in Post Hoc Comparisons
(n = 150)
|
Comparison |
Difference |
SE |
z |
Pbonferroni |
|
UsoApp 0 – 1 |
-0.194 |
0.079 |
-2.45 |
0.014 |
In light of the fact that
the Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the substantive dimension did not adhere to
a normal distribution (p = 0.010), we decided to make use of the Generalized
Linear Model with a Gamma distribution. Following the inclusion of factors that
were statistically significant (group and pretest) [12], the regression model
was able to explain for 23.2% of the cumulative variance. The predicted mean
score of a student was 3.17 when they did not habitually use the Metadig tool,
but it increased to 3.36 when they did use it, which is a 0.19 point gain [13].
When post hoc comparisons were performed, it was determined that there was a
difference that was statistically significant (p = 0.014).
Dialogical
Dimension
Table
4. Estimates
of Dialogic Dimension Parameters (n = 150)
|
Names |
Effect |
Estimate |
SE |
95% Confidence Interval |
z |
p |
|
(Intercept) |
(Intercept) |
2.910 |
0.044 |
2.825 – 2.995 |
66.14 |
<.001 |
|
UsoApp1 |
1 – 0 |
0.274 |
0.071 |
0.135 – 0.413 |
3.86 |
<.001 |
|
DialógicaPre |
DialógicaPre |
0.286 |
0.078 |
0.133 – 0.439 |
3.67 |
<.001 |
Table
5. UsoApp
for Dialogic Dimension: Post Hoc Comparisons
(n = 150)
|
Comparison |
Difference |
SE |
z |
Pbonferroni |
|
UsoApp 0 – 1 |
-0.274 |
0.071 |
-3.86 |
<.001 |
Given the results of the
Shapiro-Wilk test (p = 0.035), it was determined that the dialogical dimension
did not adhere to a normal distribution. A Generalized Linear Model (GLM) with
a Gamma distribution was used by the people doing the investigation. The
results of the model indicated that both the group and the pretest were
significant predictors (p < 0.001), accounting for 37.1% of the variance in
the experiment. There was a difference of 0.27 points between the average score
of students who did not use Metadig, which was 2.91 points, and the average
score of students who used it regularly, which was 3.18 points [14]. A
statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was observed between the
groups after analyzing the data.
RESULTS
Table 6. Findings for
dimensions
|
Dimension |
R² |
Mean G-0 |
Mean G-1 |
Difference |
|
Substantive |
0.232 |
3.17 |
3.36 |
0.194 |
|
Dialogic |
0.371 |
2.92 |
3.18 |
0.274 |
Table 7. Findings about the
many aspects of critical thinking used to control learning when reading texts
|
Dimension |
Basic Skill |
n |
R² |
Pbonferroni |
Mean G0 |
Mean G1 |
|
Substantive |
Reading |
150 |
0.078 |
<0.001 |
3.07 |
3.27 |
|
Substantive |
Writing |
150 |
0.059 |
0.003 |
3.17 |
3.34 |
|
Substantive |
Oral Expression |
150 |
0.108 |
<0.001 |
3.05 |
3.27 |
|
Dialogic |
Reading |
150 |
0.122 |
<0.001 |
2.82 |
3.13 |
|
Dialogic |
Writing |
150 |
0.141 |
<0.001 |
3.04 |
3.32 |
|
Dialogic |
Oral Expression |
150 |
0.100 |
0.003 |
2.94 |
3.17 |
When comparing the two dimensions, we find that the dialogical one has improved by 0.27 points, while the substantive one has only improved by 0.19 points. Metadig resulted in enhancements to all three foundational abilities: reading, writing, and expressive speech.
These findings are summarized in Tables 6 and 7 (n = 150) [15-17].
· R²= 0.232, mean difference= 0.19, in terms of the substantive dimension.
· The diagnostic dimension has a R² value of 0.371 and a mean difference of 0.27.
A satisfactory result was defined as a score of 3 or above on a 4-point Likert scale. Confirming the efficacy of metacognitive tactics in boosting critical thinking, 75% of students not using Metadig reached this level and 100% of students utilizing the tool surpassed it [18].
CONCLUSION
Specifically, the findings indicate that the use of metacognitive strategies in conjunction with online learning has the potential to significantly enhance the critical thinking skills of students. On tests of substantive and dialogical critical thinking, users of Metadig did better than those who remained committed to the tried-and-true methods of online learning. The greatest significant improvement was shown in the dialogical component, which demonstrates how metacognitive processes are beneficial for activities such as critical thinking, viewing things from the perspectives of other people, and reasoning in relation to what other people have stated. Taking all of these findings into consideration, it is clear that well-planned online learning interventions have great potential for assisting students in the development of critical thinking skills, self-regulation, and autonomy while they are in the classroom.
References
1.
Al-Mubaid, Hisham. (2014). A New Method
for Promoting Critical Thinking in Online Education. International Journal of
Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC). 7. 34. 10.3991/ijac.v7i4.4048.
2.
AlOtaibi NG, Alshowkan A, Kamel N,
El-Ashry AM, AlSaleh NS, Abd Elhay ES. Assessing perceptions about critical
thinking, motivation learning strategies in online psychiatric and mental
health nursing education among Egyptian and Saudi undergraduate nursing
students. BMC Nurs. 2023 Apr 10;22(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12912-023-01264-2.
PMID: 37038179; PMCID: PMC10084656.
3.
Anwar YAS, Muti'ah M. Exploration of
critical thinking and self-regulated learning in online learning during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2022 Sep;50(5):502-509. doi: 10.1002/bmb.21655.
Epub 2022 Jul 20. PMID: 35856705; PMCID: PMC9349432.
4.
T. González-Cacho and A. Abbas,
"Impact of Interactivity and Active Collaborative Learning on Students’
Critical Thinking in Higher Education," in IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de
Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 254-261, Aug. 2022, doi:
10.1109/RITA.2022.3191286.
5.
Kertiyani, N. M. I., & Sarjana, K.
(2022). The critical thinking skill of mathematics education students during
pandemic: A Review. Jurnal Pijar Mipa, 17(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.29303/jpm.v17i2.3425
6.
Santiuste, V., Ayala, C., Barrigüete, C.,
García, E., González, J., Rossignoli, J. et al. (2001). El
pensamiento crítico en la práctica educativa. Madrid: Fugaz Ediciones.
7.
Akamatsu, D., Nakaya, M., & Koizumi,
R. (2019). Effects of metacognitive strategies on the self-regulated learning
process: The mediating effects of self-efficacy. Behavioral
Sciences, 9(12), 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9120128
8.
Akcaoglu, M.O., Mor, E., & Kulekci, E.
(2023). The mediating role of metacognitive awareness in the relationship
between critical thinking and self-regulation. Thinking skills and
creativity, 47(101187). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101187
9.
Baranovskaya, T., Shaforostova, V.,
Balykhina, T., & Lapteva, E. (2018). Critical thinking in self-regulated
learning. In Luis Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, I. Candel
Torres. Conference Proceedings. Edulearn 18. 10th International Conference
on Education and New Learning Technology, pag. 7373-7381.https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2018.2492
10.
Broadbent, J, Panadero, E., &
Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2020). Effects of mobile‑app learning
diaries vs online training on specific self‑regulated learning
components. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68,
2351-2372.
11.
Bull, S., & Kay, J. (2010). Open
Learner Models. In: Nkambou R., Bourdeau J., Mizoguchi R. (Eds.), Advances
in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Studies in Computational
Intelligence (308). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14363-2_15
12.
Bunci, M.G. (2019). Las dimensiones
sustantivas y dialógicas del pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de bachillerato
y universitarios. Cátedra, 2(1), 60-75. https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v2i1.1215
13.
Cerezo, R., Bernardo, A., Esteban, M.,
Sánchez, M., & Tuero, E. (2015). Programas para la promoción de la
autorregulación en educación superior: un estudio de la satisfacción
diferencial entre metodología presencial y virtual. European Journal of Education
and Psychology, 8(1), 30-36. https://doi.org/10.30552/ejep.v8i1.144
14.
Chang, C.Y., Panjaburee, P., Lin, H.C.,
Lai, C.L., & Hwang, G.H. (2022). Effects of online strategies on students’
learning performance, self-efficacy, self-regulation and critical thinking in
university online courses. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 70(1), 185-204.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10071-y
15.
Chou, C.Y., & Zou, N.B. (2020). An
analysis of internal and external feedback in self-regulated learning
activities mediated by self-regulated learning tools and open learner
models. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1),
1-27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00233-y
16.
Cleary, T.J. (2006). The development and
validation of the self-regulation strategy inventory–self-report. Journal
of school psychology, 44(4), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.05.002
17.
Dobber, M., Zwart, R., Tanis, M., &
van Oers, B. (2017). Literature review: The role of the teacher in
inquiry-based education. Educational Research Review, 22, 194-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.002
18.
Dunn, K.E., Rakes, G.C., & Rakes, T.A.
(2014). Influence of academic self-regulation, critical thinking, and age on
online graduate students’ academic help-seeking. Distance
Education, 35(1), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.891426