Technology-enhanced social learning (TSL) to foster critical thinking dispositions and thinking in writing

Figures & data

Table 1. Taxonomy of CT dispositions.

Ennis (1996)	Paul and Elder (2012)	Facione (2020)
Ideal critical thinkers are disposed to Seek and offer clear statements. Seek and offer clear reasons. Try to be well-informed. Use credible sources and observations. Take into account the total situation. Keep in mind the basic concern in the context. Be alert for alternatives. Be open-minded: Seriously consider alternative points of view. Withhold judgment when the evidence and reasons are insufficient. Take a position and change a position when the evidence and reasons are sufficient. Seek as much precision as the situation requires. Try to ‘get it right’ to the extent possible or feasible. Employ their critical thinking abilities.	Intellectual unfairness Intellectual arrogance Intellectual hypocrisy Intellectual conformity Intellectual self-centeredness Intellectual cowardice Intellectual distrust of reason Intellectual disregard for justice Intellectual laziness	Truth-seeking Open-mindedness Inquisitiveness Analyticity Systematicity Confidence in reasoning Maturity of judgment.

Table 2. Paul & Elder’s CT framework.

Elements of thought	Intellectual standards
Purpose Question at issue Information Interpretation and inference Concepts Assumptions Implications and consequences Point of view	Clarity Accuracy Precision Relevance Depth Breadth Logic Significance Fairness

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the TSL model.

Figure 2. Screenshot of a discussion page in Xue Xi Tong platform.

Figure 3. A brief experimental procedure.

Figure 4. Paul & Elder’s Nine CT standards.

Figure 5. Mean scores of TG and CG’s pre-post-CTD results.

Figure 6. ANOVA results through comparing pre-post-CTD scores of CG.

Figure 7. ANOVA results through comparing pre-post-CTD scores of TG.

Figure 8. ANCOVA results through comparing post-CTD scores of CG and TG.

Table 3. Differences in the scores of CTD of CG and TG after the intervention.

Areas	Group	Mean	SD	p
CTD Overall	CG	286.43	29.19	.037
	TG	302.60	31.06
Truth-seeking (TS)	CG	31.10	5.87	.406
	TG	32.40	6.53
Open-mindedness (OM)	CG	40.03	4.33	.003
	TG	44.03	5.24
Inquisitiveness (I)	CG	48.60	5.26	.009
	TG	52.13	4.74
Analyticity (A)	CG	40.53	4.58	.018
	TG	44.43	6.75
Systematicity (S)	CG	36.83	5.04	.005
	TG	41.33	6.83
Confidence in Reasoning (CR)	CG	43.03	5.66	.001
	TG	48.93	7.11
Maturity of judgement (MJ)	CG	43.77	6.95	.485
	TG	44.93	6.91

Figure 9. Mean scores of TG and CG’s pre-post-writing test results.

Figure 10. ANOVA results through comparing pre-post-writing scores of CG.

Figure 11. ANOVA results through comparing pre-post-writing scores of TG.

Figure 12. ANCOVA results through comparing post-CTW scores of CG and TG.

Table 4. Differences in the scores of CTW of CG and TG after the intervention.

Areas	Group	Mean	SD	p	${\eta }^2$
CTW Overall	CG	26.37	3.06	.003	.143
	TG	28.87	3.18
Clarity	CG	3.07	.58	.042	.070
	TG	3.37	.61
Accuracy	CG	3.17	.38	.260	.022
	TG	3.30	.47
Precision	CG	2.50	.57	.079	.053
	TG	2.80	.61
Relevance	CG	3.10	.55	.000*	.274
	TG	3.70	.47
Depth	CG	2.80	.55	.619	.004
	TG	2.90	.61
Breadth	CG	3.03	.49	.004	.137
	TG	3.43	.57
Logic	CG	2.83	.59	.036	.037
	TG	3.03	.49
Significance	CG	2.93	.58	.136	.039
	TG	3.13	.43
Fairness	CG	2.93	.64	.024	.086
	TG	3.20	.41

Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v18i2.2378

 Google Scholar

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2012). Critical thinking tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.

 Google Scholar

Facione, P. A. (2020). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. The California Academic Press LLC.

 Google Scholar