Critical Thinking in Asynchronous Online Discussions: A Systematic Review | La pensée critique dans les discussions asynchrones en ligne : examen systématique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhancing critical thinking is a common goal of higher education. Designing and facilitating learning environments in which critical thinking may develop is a key responsibility for instructors. In this paper, we seek to inform future research and practice by investigating instructional strategies that could be used to promote critical and reflective thinking in asynchronous online discussions. Our literature review was qualitative and systematic, and focused specifically on strategies that were effective in fully-online higher education contexts. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize the findings and conclusions from the various studies into recurrent themes and sub-themes. The results of the analysis indicated that practitioners should employ a multi-step approach to facilitating critical thinking and reflection in asynchronous online discussions. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.Améliorer la pensée critique est un objectif courant de l’éducation supérieure. Concevoir et faciliter des environnements d’apprentissage dans lesquels la pensée critique peut se développer est une responsabilité importante pour les instructeurs. Dans cet article, nous cherchons à renseigner les études et les pratiques futures en examinant les stratégies didactiques qui pourraient être utilisées pour promouvoir une pensée critique et réfléchie dans les discussions asynchrones en ligne. Notre examen des publications a été qualitatif et systématique. Il a été particulièrement axé sur les stratégies qui étaient efficaces dans les contextes d’éducation supérieure entièrement en ligne. L’analyse thématique a servi à synthétiser les résultats et les conclusions des différentes études en thèmes et thèmes sous-jacents récurrents. Les résultats de l’analyse indiquent que les intervenants devraient se servir d’une approche en plusieurs étapes pour promouvoir la pensée critique et réfléchie dans les discussions asynchrones en ligne. Une discussion de ce que cela implique pour les recherches et la mise en pratique est incluse.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".