Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

Use of a post-asynchronous online discussion assessment to
enhance student critical thinking

Chris Klisc, Tanya McGill, Valerie Hobbs
Murdoch University, Australia

Asynchronous online discussion (AOD) is used in many tertiary education courses, and
assessing it has been shown to enhance critical thinking outcomes. There has, however,
been debate on what should be assessed and how the assessment should be implemented.
The most common form of assessment involves grading the individual discussion
contributions, but it has been suggested that employing a culminating task based on the
AOD may be effective. This preliminary study compared the effect on student critical
thinking of two approaches to AOD assessment: using a post-AOD assessment, and
assessing the discussion contributions themselves. The results, though tentative, showed
that while both assessment approaches resulted in significant improvements in student
critical thinking, there was no difference in the impact on critical thinking skills between
using the post-AOD assessment and assessing the discussion contributions. This result
suggests that the form of assessment used in an AOD may be less important than the fact
that assessment is included. Interviews with students also provided some insight into ways
in which they perceived the discussion environment had contributed to their critical
thinking skills. The findings of this study pave the way for further research in this important
area.

Introduction

Asynchronous online discussion (AOD) continues to be an integral component of many tertiary education
courses, due in no small part to the dramatic growth in distance education and blended courses in recent
years (Beebe, Vonderwell, & Boboc, 2010; Zydney, deNoyelles, & Kyeong-Ju Seo, 2012). Within both
these learning environments AOD has become an important pedagogical communication component,
especially for distance education courses by providing an online learning community for students and
instructors who are unable to meet face-to-face (Ertmer, Sadaf, & Ertmer, 2011; Gao, Zhang, & Franklin,
2013). Additionally, due to the asynchronous text-based feature of AOD, the dialogue thus created in this
environment has the potential to help students develop complex cognitive skills, especially those
associated with critical thinking (Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000; Wu & Hiltz, 2004).

Using assessment with AOD has been shown to enhance critical thinking outcomes (Klisc, McGill, &
Hobbs, 2009; Richardson & Ice, 2010), but there is debate on what should be assessed and how
assessment should be implemented (Arend, 2009). The most common form of assessment has been that of
grading the discussion contributions (Dennen, 2008), but it is unclear whether this form of assessment is
essential for successful learning outcomes (Richardson & Ice, 2010; Schindler & Burkholder, 2014; Wee
& Abrizah, 2011). This paper describes a study comparing the effect on student critical thinking of two
approaches to AOD assessment: using a post-AOD assessment (a piece of work submitted after the
completion of the AOD that builds on the AOD contributions), and assessing the discussion contributions
themselves.

Literature review

The development of student critical thinking skills is an important aim of many tertiary institutions with
the ability to reason, think analytically, and justify conclusions regarded as essential skills for graduates
(Carrington, Chen, Davies, Kaur, & Neville, 2011; Davies, 2011). Many have acknowledged the
importance of these skills by incorporating critical thinking skills into desired outcomes for their
graduates (Mummery & Morton-Allen, 2009; Prasad, 2009). However, concern has been expressed about
the inadequate levels of critical thinking skills possessed by graduates upon leaving university, and the
fact that only minimal improvement in these thinking skills is achieved by students while undertaking
their undergraduate degrees (Carrington et al., 2011).

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

Discussion as a pedagogical strategy for developing critical thinking is best understood from a
constructivist perspective, where it is argued that knowledge is created by individuals interacting and
exchanging information (Rourke & Anderson, 2002). In the act of discussion, articulation and reflection
exercise the critical thinking skills of interpretation, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, supporting
knowledge construction (Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005). At the same time, research shows there is a strong
relationship between the acts of critical thinking and writing (Applebee, 1984; Cohen & Spencer, 1993).
Applebee (1984) states that “it is widely accepted that good writing and careful thinking go hand in hand”
(p. 577) and that one is not possible without the other.

The environment of AOD provides students with opportunities to engage with one another in ways that
can potentially promote critical thinking by combining the act of thinking with discussion via writing
(MacKnight, 2000; Prasad, 2009). The delayed nature of communication in an AOD allows time for
reflection, while its text-based nature enables the combination of thinking and writing necessary for the
facilitation of critical thinking (Greenlaw & DeLoach, 2003; Hara et al., 2000). In an AOD students need
to create their discussion in a written form and read their peers’ postings, exposing them to diverse
viewpoints and requiring them to evaluate material from multiple perspectives. They also need to make
judgements about the material presented and, finally, synthesise and draw inferences before coming to
their own conclusions (Birch & Volkov, 2007; Schellens & Valcke, 2006; Wu & Hiltz, 2004).

Much research has been done on critical thinking in AOD as has been highlighted in recent literature
reviews (Gao et al., 2013; Loncar, Barrett, & Liu, 2014). Research has investigated ways to enhance
critical thinking outcomes by focusing on what instructors can implement, including the introduction of
protocols in AOD (Hew & Cheung, 2011; Zydney et al., 2012), use of supporting materials (Alexander,
Commander, Greenberg, & Ward, 2010; Bai, 2009), AOD design (Darabi, Arrastia, Nelson, Cornille, &
Liang, 2011; Kalelioglu & Gulbahar, 2014; Richardson & Ice, 2010), message labelling (Schellens,
VanKeer, DeWeaver, & Valcke, 2009; Topcu, 2010), and the use of student facilitation (Hew & Cheung,
2008; Xie, Yu, & Bradshaw, 2014). Other studies have focused on how critical thinking can be evaluated
within the AOD using some form of content analysis of discussion transcripts (Beckmann & Weber,
2016; Darabi et al., 2011).

Critical thinking outcomes in AOD have been shown to be significantly enhanced by the use of
assessment (Klisc et al., 2009). Summative assessment has been claimed both to motivate students to
participate in the online discussion and to take extra care in creating their discussion contributions (Hara
et al., 2000; Palmer & Holt, 2009). Using assessment in an AOD encourages more involvement in the
discussion, which in turn fosters critical thinking in students.

However, despite the recognised importance of assessment in an AOD, it is unclear what form the
assessment should take. More research is required to investigate optimum ways to assess critical thinking
for grading purposes in the AOD environment (Wee & Abrizah, 2011). Grading discussion contributions
is the most common form of assessment (Dennen, 2008) but it is debatable whether assessment of the
postings themselves is essential for successful learning outcomes (Vonderwell, Liang, & Alderman,
2007). While there is strong support for the idea that the act of participating in an AOD aids in the
development of critical thinking, there is debate about where evidence of such critical thinking may be
found (Arend, 2009; Dennen, 2008; Richardson & Ice, 2010). For example, Garrison, Anderson, and
Archer (2001) identified the activities happening in an online discussion as representing the process of
learning rather than any outcome of critical thinking.

Research question and hypotheses

It has been suggested that rather than directly assess individual AOD contributions, a more effective
assessment strategy may be to employ a culminating task based on the AOD (Dennen, 2008; Greenlaw &
DeLoach, 2003). Dennen (2008) claims that getting students to produce a reflection paper about their
AOD experience “serves as a product documenting what the learner has perceived as his or her own
process of learning through the act of discussion” (p. 212). Similarly, Arend (2009) and Richardson and
Ice (2010) assert that students need time to absorb, reflect, and synthesise the material before evidence of
critical thinking can occur. This extra step calling for evaluation and judgement skills may potentially
stimulate student thinking to a further degree than does the act of participating in a discussion alone
(Hazari, 2004; Vonderwell et al., 2007).

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

Akyol and Garrison (2011) explored how the contributions were used by graduate education students to
complete a post-AOD course redesign project assessment. They reported that students believed the final
stage of critical thinking, represented by creating and presenting solutions, could not be attained in the
AOD, but instead but was possible in the course redesign project. This belief was supported by transcript
analysis of the AOD postings which indeed showed little evidence of the final stage of critical thinking
having occurred in the AOD. This seems to suggest that the extra task of a post-AOD activity helped to
fully engage their critical thinking.

The study described in this paper explores the effect of two different forms of assessment in an AOD and
seeks to answer the following research question:

• How do different forms of assessment used in an AOD affect student critical thinking skills?

The first assessment approach considered was an AOD contribution assessment, reported to be the most
commonly used form of AOD assessment AOD (Dennen, 2008). Given that the assessment of AOD
contributions has been shown to improve students critical analysis and reflection (Klisc et al., 2009) it
was hypothesised that:

H1: Students will perceive an improvement in their critical thinking skills after participating in an
online discussion with an AOD contribution assessment.

The second approach considered was that of a post-AOD assessment, which in this study was defined as a
learning activity that incorporates both material researched by the student and material discussed online to
address a topic in essay format that is graded. While there has been little empirical evaluation of the
usefulness of this approach, it has been suggested that the opportunity for student reflection and analysis
of the AOD contributions provided by a post-AOD assessment should stimulate students’ synthesis and
evaluation skills (Clark, 2001; Greenlaw & DeLoach, 2003; Richardson & Ice, 2010). It was therefore
hypothesised that:

H2: Students will perceive an improvement in their critical thinking skills after participating in an
online discussion with a post-AOD assessment.

Based on the arguments in the literature for the benefits of a post-AOD assessment compared with an
AOD contribution assessment (Akyol & Garrison, 2011; Clark, 2001; Greenlaw & DeLoach, 2003;
Richardson & Ice, 2010), it was further hypothesised that:

H3: Critical thinking skills will be more evident in students who complete a post-AOD assessment
than in students who complete an AOD contribution assessment.

Method

The study was conducted in an introductory information technology course at an Australian university,
over one teaching semester. In order to answer the research question, a mixed method research approach
was employed, using an explanatory 2-phase design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). The first phase used
a quasi-experiment to evaluate the effect of the different forms of assessment. The second phase used
interviews to collect qualitative data to substantiate and elaborate on the quantitative data.

Instruments

Table 1 shows the constructs used in addressing the research question and associated hypotheses, together
with the instruments used to collect the information needed to measure these constructs.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

Table 1
Hypotheses with constructs and associated data sources
Hypotheses Constructs Data source
H 1: Students will perceive an improvement in
their critical thinking skills after participating in an
online discussion with an AOD contribution
assessment.

Perceived critical
thinking skills

Pre-AOD and post-
AOD questionnaires

H 2: Students will perceive an improvement in
their critical thinking skills after participating in an
online discussion with a post-AOD assessment.

Perceived critical
thinking skills

Pre-AOD and post-
AOD questionnaires

H 3: Critical thinking skills will be more evident
in students who complete a post-AOD assessment
than in students who complete an AOD
contribution assessment.

Perceived critical
thinking skills and
objective critical
thinking skills

Pre-AOD and post-
AOD questionnaires
and critical thinking
skills test

Pre-AOD and post-AOD questionnaires
The construct perceived critical thinking skills is defined in this study as self-reported level of critical
thinking, and includes skills used for analysis, interpretation, evaluation, synthesis and inductive and
deductive reasoning. Perceived critical thinking skills was measured in both the pre-AOD and post-AOD
questionnaire.

The 17 items used to measure perceived critical thinking skills (see Table 2) were developed based on
Mummery and Morton-Allen (2009) instrument, which they based on the California Critical Thinking
Disposition Inventory (Facione & Facione, 1992). The items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and the responses added to obtain a score for perceived
critical thinking skills, with a possible maximum score of 85; a high score indicating a high perceived
level of critical thinking.

Table 2
Items use to measure perceived critical thinking skills

Items
I use reasons and evidence to try and gain the best possible understanding of a given situation.
I am tolerant of the opinions and ideas of others, especially when they are different from my own
opinions and ideas.
I carefully consider the possible outcomes or consequences of situations, choices, proposals or plans
and to take this into account when making decisions.
I solve problems in an orderly, organised way.
I am confident in my reasoning and judgment to solve problems and reach my goals.
I am curious and eager to learn/understand new things, even when I’m not sure how or why this
learning might be useful.
I do not see problems and situations as black or white, right or wrong.
I recognise that there is often a number of ways to solve a problem or reach a goal.
I understand the need to stand firm in my judgment when there is reason to do so, and to change my
mind when reasons and evidence indicate that I am mistaken.
I understand the idea that we sometimes need to make a decision or judgment even in the absence of
complete knowledge or when there is no clear right or wrong answer.
I am able to work out how true or false the inferences or conclusions are that someone draws from a
particular set of information or data.
I am able to work out what hidden assumptions have been made in a given statement.
I am able to weigh evidence and decide whether generalisations or conclusions based on given data
are warranted / justifiable.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

I am able to distinguish between strong, relevant arguments and arguments that are weak or irrelevant
to a particular question or issue.
I am able to critically evaluate academic writing (e.g., journal articles, books).
I am aware of what is needed to construct good arguments.
I aware of the need to monitor, evaluate and adjust my own thinking processes.

The post-AOD questionnaire also included three additional items. All participants were asked to indicate
their level of agreement with the statement “I feel that the online discussion contributed towards
developing my critical thinking skills” on a 5-point Likert scale, with an option to describe how it had
contributed. All participants were also invited to comment on anything else that they felt was relevant to
the study. Those participants who had completed the post-AOD assessment were also asked if they felt
the assessment had contributed towards developing their critical thinking skills, with the item “I feel that
the process of researching and writing the essay contributed towards developing my critical thinking
skills”.

Critical thinking skills test
The second measure of critical thinking skills was an objective measure: objective critical thinking skills.
The test used was the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) (Facione, Facione, &
Winterhalter, 2010). This test consists of 34 multiple choice type items assessing analysis, evaluation,
inference, and deductive and inductive reasoning. The overall critical thinking skills totals were used to
compare the differences between the groups completing the different types of assessment.

Interviews
Interview questions were designed to elaborate on results obtained from the questionnaire used in the
intervention phases. They focused on participant awareness of critical thinking and AOD related issues
including online discussions, essay writing and critical thinking.

Procedure

This study involved first-year undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory information technology
course on multimedia and the Internet.

Intervention phase
In the intervention phase, participants were randomly allocated to two groups, completing either an AOD
contribution assessment or a post-AOD assessment (an essay based on the discussion topic). Table 3
shows how the study activities and data collection were arranged within the semester.

Table 3
Semester week timeline for the intervention phase
Weeks 1-2 Weeks 4-5 Week 7 Weeks 8-9 Week 9

Group 1 Pre-AOD
questionnaire

Discussion AOD contribution
assessment

Post-AOD
questionnaire

Critical thinking
skills test

Group 2 Pre-AOD
questionnaire

Discussion Post-AOD
assessment

Post-AOD
questionnaire

Critical thinking
skills test

Participants completed the pre-AOD questionnaire either in class or online. Subsequently, all students,
including the participants of the study, were introduced to the concepts of critical thinking, the discussion
topic, and associated assessment information. In preparation for the online discussion, the participants
were firstly randomly allocated to one of six discussion forums, followed by the random allocation of the
remaining students, who were not part of the study. This resulted in each forum having seven members.
The discussion was held over 14 days in weeks 4 and 5, a duration consistent with that used in other
studies (Klisc, 2015; Richardson & Ice, 2010).

Those students participating in the post-AOD essay assessment were strongly encouraged to use
discussed points in their essays, and were required to cite at least three postings from their forum in their
essays. The post-AOD assessment was submitted at the end of week 6, and the marking of all assessments

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

was done in week 7. After online discussion assessments were completed, the post-AOD questionnaire
was made available to participants to complete in week 8. This was followed in week 9 by the CCTST.

Interview phase
In the second phase, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with a subset of the
participants after the teaching period was completed. The interviews employed a flexible format, using a
standard set of questions but allowing participants to volunteer information and pursue spontaneous
tangents during the conversation.

Data analysis

The data was analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Cronbach’s alpha was used as an
indicator of reliability for perceived critical thinking skills, and was calculated for both administrations of
the questionnaire producing coefficients of .747 and .854. Due to the small size of the samples, testing for
normal distribution was conducted both visually, using histograms and stem-and-leaf plots, and
objectively, using the Shapiro-Wilk test. As a result, the samples were found to be suitable for parametric
testing, with paired-samples t tests used to address hypotheses 1 and 2, and a one-tailed independent
samples t test used to address hypothesis 3. For all of these tests the value used for significance was .05.

As the sample size for the intervention phase (21 participants) was at the lower end of the requirements
the analysis techniques used (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006), this made the qualitative
data collection and analysis particularly important in order to understand and further explore the issues
suggested by the quantitative analysis. Qualitative data, collected from the interviews and the post-AOD
questionnaire, were analysed using a categorising coding strategy (Maxwell, 2005). The interview
questions were used as organisational categories, and themes were identified within the comments. Tables
5, 6, and 8 present the results of the thematic analysis.

Results

Participants

Twenty one students participated in the study. The 11 participants who completed the AOD contribution
assessment were two (18.2%) females and nine males (81.8%), with ages ranging from 17 to 41 years,
with an average of 21.5 years. Of the 10 participants who completed the post-AOD assessment, 4 (40.0%)
were female and 6 (60.0%) were male. Their ages ranged from 17 to 32 years, with an average of 20.0
years. There was no significant difference in initial levels of perceived critical thinking between the two
groups (t(19) = 1.216, p = .239). Seven of the 21 participants were subsequently interviewed. Three of
them (1 female and 2 males), had completed the AOD contribution assessment, while the other 4 (2
females and 2 males), had completed the post-AOD essay assessment.

Improvements in critical thinking skills with an AOD contribution assessment

Higher levels of perceived critical thinking skills after the AOD may suggest an improvement in critical
thinking skills for those participants who completed an AOD contribution assessment. The results of the
paired-samples t test, shown in Table 4, indicate that there was a small significant increase in perceived
critical thinking skills, from prior to the AOD (M = 66.55, SD = 5.39) to after the AOD (M = 68.82, SD =
6.35), t(10) = -2.12, p = .030 (one-tailed) for the participants who had their AOD contributions assessed.
Therefore hypothesis 1 was accepted.

Table 4
Comparison of perceived critical thinking skills before and after an AOD contribution assessment

N M SD p
Pre-AOD perceived critical thinking skills 11 66.55 5.39

.030*
Post-AOD perceived critical thinking skills 11 68.82 6.35

Note * p < .05

This perception, that an AOD contribution assessment facilitated critical thinking was reflected in the

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

participants’ responses in the post-AOD questionnaire. When asked whether the AOD contributed
towards developing their critical thinking skills, nine of the participants who had just had an AOD
contributions assessment agreed or strongly agreed that it had. The remaining two participants in this
group stated that they were unsure whether the AOD contributed to their critical thinking. Unfortunately,
neither supplied any elaborating information, nor did they volunteer to be interviewed.

In the data analysis of the qualitative data about how participants believed the AOD had developed their
critical thinking, two themes emerged most consistently; exposure to different perspectives (Table 5), and
argument development (Table 6).

Table 5
Examples of comments associated with the theme of exposure to different perspectives in AOD
contribution assessment

Comments
I have learned I should look at the problems from a different angle.
I detected others’ different standpoints and that not everyone thinks the same depending on their
personal and cultural background.
Gave me a wider view of what more people thought.
Gave insight on what others thought and allowed me to discuss different viewpoints.

Table 6
Examples of comments associated with the theme of argument development in AOD contribution
assessment

Comments
I am applying my argument skills and putting them into practice in the discussion.
I think that it was important for me in developing my own arguments.
Give people more time to rethink, reorganise his/her own thinking.
It provoked me to respond to and analyse a problem and then repeat that process against other
answers.
By analysing someone’s opinion or a source they have quoted we inadvertently make judgements
about the argument and start to question the meaning.
Look at sources and evaluate. Discuss and debate with others.

Of the 9 participants who acknowledged the contribution of the discussion towards their critical thinking,
three were interviewed. The two themes of exposure to different perspectives and argument development
were reinforced by these participants, as shown in the following comments:

Gave me a wider view of what more people thought and reinforced my original view.

The discussion forced me to look at it [the topic] again… makes you go through it again…
see what you did right and what you did wrong, re-evaluate it and see where you slipped
up.

The responses given in the post-AOD questionnaire and the interviews showed that participants felt that
the AOD did help to develop their critical thinking skills by allowing access to different perspectives
which helped in developing their arguments.

Improvements in critical thinking skills with a post-AOD assessment

Higher levels of perceived critical thinking skills after the AOD may suggest an improvement in critical
thinking skills for those participants who had a post-AOD assessment. The results of the paired-sample t
test shown in Table 7 indicate that there was a significant increase in perceived critical thinking skills,
from prior to the AOD (M = 63.70, SD = 5.31) to after the AOD (M = 66.10, SD = 5.71), t(9) = -2.68, p =
.013 (one-tailed), for the participants that completed a post-AOD essay assessment. Hypothesis 2 was

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

therefore supported.

Table 7
Comparison of perceived critical thinking skills before and after a post-AOD assessment
N M SD p

Pre-AOD perceived critical thinking skills 10 63.70 5.31
.013*

Post-AOD perceived critical thinking skills 10 66.10 5.71
Note * p < .05

Again, the belief that the post-AOD assessment facilitated critical thinking was reflected in responses in
the post-AOD questionnaire. Nine of the 10 participants agreed or strongly agreed that the AOD had
helped to their critical thinking, and 1 disagreed, but unfortunately did not give a reason. When asked
about the contribution of the post-AOD essay in developing their critical thinking skills, 7 of the 10
participants agreed or strongly agreed that it had. Two of the remaining 3 participants felt that the post-
AOD essay assessment did not help.

In the analysis of the qualitative data from the post-AOD questionnaire about how participants believed
the AOD and the post-AOD assessment had developed their critical thinking, the theme that emerged
most consistently was that of exposure to different perspectives. Table 8 displays a sample of the
participants’ responses. The emergence of this theme was similar to the findings from participants who
only had their AOD contributions assessed; however, the theme of argument development was evident in
one participant’s comment only:

[I]t [the AOD] encourages critical thinking by forcing us to think in a way which helps us
build our argument or attempt to disapprove an argument that we deem to be wrong.

Table 8
Examples of comments associated with the theme of “exposure to different perspectives” in post-AOD
assessment

Comment
Ideas and points of view which I didn’t get myself.
Showed that other colleagues have different views of points and showed me a new way to view things.
Allowed me to consider others opinions and compare them with my own.

The online discussion assisted in developing my critical thinking skills as it allowed me to see points of
views from different sources and opinions based not completely on my own.
Made me interact with others and take into account the way they think.

When asked to elaborate on how the post-AOD essay assessment helped in developing their critical
thinking skills, the most frequently mentioned theme related to the skills involved in completing an essay.
As the following comments indicate, participants believed the processes of researching, structuring and
writing an essay stimulated their thought and helped to clarify thinking:

[P]urely because the process of reading and writing essays as well as researching for them
develops your thoughts on your own work and others.

Researching and writing the essay allowed me to question my own opinions based on the
topic and provide a much more critical analysis.

Four of the 7 participants who acknowledged both the contribution of the AOD and the post-AOD essay
assessment towards to their critical thinking were interviewed. One commented that she favoured the
AOD over the essay for its impact on her critical thinking:

[A] different way of thinking [be]cause people have different opinions and views on a
certain thing and by having these discussions you think “oh, I didn’t think of it in that kind
of way” and I found that the discussion really helped in that way.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

However, the 2 male participants believed that the post-AOD essay assessment contributed more to their
critical thinking than an AOD:

You are going out and finding info and different ways of putting the info in your essay, and
in the process developing skills of investigation and essay writing.

You start researching and finding out … then you start thinking about it [the topic] and you
start developing ideas to write in an essay. You spend a good few hours writing an essay
and you constantly think about it and you start to develop ideas to write in that essay.

The qualitative data from those participants who had completed the post-AOD assessment, together with
their elaborating comments in the interviews, showed that they believed an AOD and a post-AOD essay
assessment both contributed to developing their critical thinking skills. The AOD helped primarily by
allowing access to different perspectives, while the application of skills involved in essay research and
writing contributed towards their critical thinking. At the same time however, it was acknowledged that
the addition of an AOD helped to produce a better quality essay compared to one produced solely by
one’s own efforts. These comments give support to the finding that there was a perceived improvement in
the critical thinking skills of participants after completing the post-AOD essay assessment.

Comparing the levels in critical thinking skills between students having an AOD
contribution assessment and those having a post-AOD assessment

To compare the impact of the two approaches on critical thinking two measures were used: objective
critical thinking skills and post-AOD perceived critical thinking skills. Both measures were compared
between those who had the AOD contribution assessment and those who had the post-AOD essay
assessment. Higher levels of both objective critical thinking skills and post-AOD perceived critical
thinking skills, for those participants who completed the post-AOD assessment, would suggest that this
form of assessment contributes to greater levels of improvement in critical thinking than having an AOD
contribution assessment. The results of the independent samples t tests used to test hypothesis 3 are
shown in Table 9.

Table 9
Comparison of objective critical thinking skills and post-AOD perceived critical thinking skills for the
two forms of assessment

N M SD p (one-tailed)

Objective critical
thinking skills

AOD contribution
assessment 11 16.36 1.47 .320
Post-AOD assessment 10 15.50 1.01

Post-AOD perceived
critical thinking skills

AOD contribution
assessment 11 68.82 6.35 .160
Post-AOD assessment 10 66.10 5.71

There was no significant difference in objective critical thinking skills between those having an AOD
contribution assessment (M = 16.36, SD = 1.47) and those completing a post-AOD essay assessment (M =
15.50, SD = 1.01; t(19) = .47, p = .320, one-tailed). There was also no significant difference in post-AOD
perceived critical thinking skills between those having an AOD contribution assessment (M = 68.82, SD =
6.35) and those having a post-AOD essay assessment (M = 66.10, SD = 5.71; t(19) = 1.03, p = .160, one-
tailed). Therefore hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Discussion

The findings of this research suggest that the form of assessment used in an AOD may be less important
than the fact that assessment of some kind is included given the positive outcomes that have been found
to be associated with assessing AOD (Dennen, 2008; Klisc et al., 2009; Palmer & Holt, 2009). Significant
improvements in students’ levels of perceived critical thinking occurred for students who had their AOD

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

contributions assessed, as well as for those who had a post-AOD assessment. This result, linking critical
thinking outcomes in an AOD with assessment, is consistent with other studies that have examined
student perceptions of their learning in an AOD that included assessment (Akyol & Garrison, 2011;
Arend, 2009; Birch & Volkov, 2007).

The results also suggest several ways in which an AOD can contribute to student development of critical
thinking. Exposure to multiple perspectives in an AOD was most frequently mentioned by students
regardless of the assessment approach. This sharing and exchanging of ideas in an AOD has been cited in
previous research as a major benefit of AOD (Birch & Volkov, 2007; Wu & Hiltz, 2004).

The role of AOD in assisting with argument development was also identified; again, a finding consistent
with previous research. Both Hamann, Pollock, and Wilson (2012) and Meyer (2007) reported that
students found AOD helpful for formulating and evaluating their ideas, with the time delay of an AOD
allowing for reflection on the discussion postings prior to responding. Surprisingly though, in the current
study, it was mostly those students who completed the AOD contribution assessment who mentioned the
role of AOD in argument development. Perhaps the requirement of incorporating AOD contributions into
the post-AOD assessment can alter the way in which the AOD is viewed. It is possible that students
become so preoccupied with finding material for completing the post-AOD assessment that the
opportunity for reflective thought and active engagement, which would help with clarifying their
arguments, eludes them. This preoccupation with fulfilling grading requirements is not uncommon (Peters
& Hewitt, 2010).

Though the results showed significant improvements in the levels of perceived critical thinking after
completing an AOD with assessment, it was found that there was no significant difference in the levels of
critical thinking skills, perceived or objectively measured, between the students completing the different
forms of assessment. So, despite suggestions that a post-AOD assessment may provide the opportunity
for student reflection and analysis of the AOD contributions, (Clark, 2001; Greenlaw & DeLoach, 2003;
Richardson & Ice, 2010), the evidence from the current study seems to suggest that the opportunity was
not capitalised on.

The results of this study raise the possibility that merely having a post-AOD assessment may not be
enough to guarantee that students will take advantage of the opportunity to exercise their thinking skills.
Akyol and Garrison (2011) reported that postgraduate students in their study believed that the AOD alone
was not sufficient to develop high order thinking, and that the subsequent assessment was needed to
demonstrate “the synthesis, evaluation and summary of everything that went on in the class [online
discussion]” (p. 243). However, these students emphasised that it was the design of the course that
directed them to use their synthesising and evaluating skills in completing the post-AOD assessment. The
findings from the current research therefore suggest that when using a post-AOD assessment, especially
with undergraduate students, it is important that instructors emphasise and encourage students to direct
their attention towards using critical thinking skills associated with synthesis and evaluation.

One possible explanation for the lack of difference in critical thinking levels between those completing
the different assessments may be found in how students in this study viewed the AOD. As already
discussed, students who had the AOD contribution assessment believed the AOD contributed to their
critical thinking in two ways: exposure to multiple perspectives and helping with argument development.
However, most of the students completing the post-AOD assessment reported the exposure to multiple
perspectives and did not mention argument development. It is possible that the students doing the post-
AOD assessment saw the AOD mainly as a source of information, whereas the students having their
contributions assessed viewed the AOD not only as a source of information, but also as a place to
evaluate and develop their arguments. No reported research to date has examined the impact that different
assessments have on how students view the AOD, and as this has important implications for teaching, it
should be further investigated. If having a post-AOD assessment alters how students view an AOD,
instructors using this approach may need to explicitly raise student awareness of the potential benefit of
an AOD as a place to share, develop and evaluate their arguments, and not merely as place to gather
material for a post-AOD assessment.

Despite the fact that completing a post-AOD assessment did not lead to higher levels of critical thinking
compared to students having their AOD contributions assessed, there is nevertheless some merit in the

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

use of a post-AOD assessment. The use of a post-AOD assessment may be a practical approach from an
instructor’s perspective. Research indicates that reading and grading AOD postings is very time
consuming (Andresen, 2009; Beebe et al., 2010; Dennen, 2008) and hence difficult to use for assessment
purposes (Klisc, 2015). Therefore, using a post-AOD assessment may be a useful alternative, and ways in
which to do so need investigation.

The study reported here had some limitations. Firstly, the number of participants was relatively small.
The lack of significant difference in critical thinking skills between the two groups could be due to lack of
power because of the small sample size, and a larger sample may be necessary to detect small
improvements in critical thinking. This limitation should be addressed in future research.

Secondly, the small number of participants interviewed may limit the ability to draw conclusions from the
interview findings; however, the purpose of collecting qualitative information via the interviews was to
provide insight and elaboration of the quantitative findings, not to seek trends that could be widely
applied. The current study, however, provides a useful starting point for further research on the efficacy
of post-AOD assessment for undergraduates, as previous studies have focused on postgraduate students
(Akyol & Garrison, 2011), or on how a post-AOD submission influences the quality of the online
discussion (Geer, 2003; MacKinnon, 2004).

While the use of an objective test to measure student critical thinking skills before and after the treatments
would have been preferable, it was not possible to accommodate the appropriate interval between
administrations during the semester. Future research should incorporate the use of pre and post objective
measures of critical thinking.

Conclusion

The results of this study, though tentative, have shown how different assessment approaches used in
conjunction with AOD may be used to enhance critical thinking outcomes. The findings confirm earlier
work on the use of assessment to facilitate student critical thinking that claims that without some form of
assessment students will not participate in an AOD, and that assessment is necessary to motivate students
to take extra care in creating their discussion contributions (Dennen, 2008; Klisc et al., 2009; Vonderwell
et al., 2007).

The results also suggest that having a post-AOD assessment may be just as effective in improving levels
of student critical thinking as the more commonly used assessment of AOD contributions. Given the
concern expressed about the time-consuming nature of grading AOD contributions (Andresen, 2009;
Beebe et al., 2010; Dennen, 2008), the use of a post-AOD assessment seems a sensible and practical
assessment approach from an educator’s perspective. In the current study, an essay was used as the post-
AOD assessment, however such an assessment may take various forms: Akyol and Garrison (2011)
reported that the use of a redesign project was highly successful in facilitating high order thinking.
Regardless of the form of a post-AOD assessment, it ought to be a culminating task that draws on the
AOD discussion and requires students to evaluate and synthesise the material presented in the AOD
(Richardson & Ice, 2010).

Although online discussion can assist students to develop their critical thinking skills, the results of this
study suggest that having a post-AOD assessment is not enough to guarantee students will use the
accompanying AOD to extend critical thinking skills. This reinforces the idea that undergraduate students
need guidance and instruction to achieve learning outcomes (Alexander et al., 2010; Bai, 2009; Gilbert &
Dabbagh, 2005). To enhance argument development in an AOD explicit instruction in logical reasoning
and deduction, testing premises and questioning other participants may be required, in order for students
to utilise the discussion material to create quality post-AOD work.

References

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended

community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233-250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2009.01029.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

Alexander, M. E., Commander, N., Greenberg, D., & Ward, T. (2010). Using the four-questions
technique to enhance critical thinking in online discussions. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 6(2), 409-415. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/alexander_0610.htm

Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and
limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 149-257. Retrieved from
http://www.ifets.info/issues.php?id=42

Applebee, A. N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 557-596.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543054004577

Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The Journal of Educators
Online, 6(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2009.1.1

Bai, H. (2009). Facilitating students’ critical thinking in online discussion: An instructor’s experience.
Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 156-164. http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v8/n2

Beckmann, J., & Weber, P. (2016). Cognitive presence in virtual collaborative learning: Assessing and
improving critical thinking in online discussion forums. Interactive Technology and Smart Education,
13(1), 52-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-12-2015-0034

Beebe, R., Vonderwell, S., & Boboc, M. (2010). Emerging patterns in transferring assessment practices
from f2f to online environments. The Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 8(1), 1-12. Retrieved from
http://www.ejel.org/volume8/issue1

Birch, D., & Volkov, M. (2007). Assessment of online reflections: Engaging english second language
(esl) students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 291-306.
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1254

Carrington, M., Chen, R., Davies, M., Kaur, J., & Neville, B. (2011). The effectiveness of a single
intervention of computer-aided argument mapping in a marketing and a financial accounting subject.
Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 387-403.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.559197

Clark, J. (2001). Stimulating collaboration and discussion in online learning environments. The Internet
and Higher Education, 4(2), 119-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00054-9

Cohen, A. J., & Spencer, J. (1993). Using writing across the curriculum in economics: Is taking the
plunge worth it? Journal of Economic Education, 24(3), 219-230.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.1993.10844794

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Darabi, A., Arrastia, M., Nelson, D., Cornille, T., & Liang, X. (2011). Cognitive presence in
asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 27(3), 216-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00392.x

Davies, W. M. (2011). Introduction to the special issue on critical thinking in higher education. Higher
Education Research & Development, 30(3), 255-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.562145

Dennen, V. P. (2008). Looking for evidence of learning: Assessment and analysis methods for online
discourse. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 205-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.010

Ertmer, P. A., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online courses: The role
of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 157-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9047-6

Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (1992). The California critical thinking disposition inventory (cctdi):
Test administration manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Winterhalter, K. (2010). The California critical thinking skills test
manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Gao, F., Zhang, T., & Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments:
Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3),
469-483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01330.x

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer
conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071

Geer, R. (2003). Initial communicating styles and their impact on further interactions in computer
conferences. In G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S. Barker & J. Baron (Eds.), Interact integrate
impact: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society of Computers in
Lelearning in Tertiary Education (pp. 194-202). Adelaide.

http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/alexander_0610.htm
http://www.ifets.info/issues.php?id=42
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543054004577
https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2009.1.1
http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v8/n2
https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-12-2015-0034
http://www.ejel.org/volume8/issue1
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1254
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.559197
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00054-9
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.1993.10844794
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00392.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.562145
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.010
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9047-6
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01330.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A
case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2005.00434.x

Greenlaw, S. A., & DeLoach, S. B. (2003). Teaching critical thinking with electronic discussion. Journal
of Economic Education, 34(1), 36-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480309595199

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Hamann, K., Pollock, P. H., & Wilson, B. M. (2012). Assessing student perceptions of the benefits of
discussions in small-group, large-class, and online learning contexts. College Teaching, 60(2), 65-75.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2011.633407

Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied
educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003764722829

Hazari, S. (2004). Strategy for assessment of online course discussions. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 15(4), 349-355. Retrieved from http://jise.org/Volume15/15-4/Contents-15-4.html

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions:
A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1111-1124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.002

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2011). Higher-level knowledge construction in asynchronous online
discussions: An analysis of group size, duration of online discussion, and student facilitation
techniques. Instructional Science, 39(3), 303-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9129-2

Kalelioglu, F., & Gulbahar, Y. (2014). The effect of instructional techniques on critical thinking and
critical thinking dispositions in online discussion. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 248-258.
Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/issues.php?id=62

Klisc, C. (2015). Enhancing student learning outcomes in asynchronous online discussion. (Doctoral
dissertation). Murdoch University, Perth Western Australia. Retrieved from
http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/26222/

Klisc, C., McGill, T., & Hobbs, V. (2009). The effect of assessment on the outcomes of asynchronous
online discussion as perceived by instructors. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5),
666-682. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1114

Loncar, M., Barrett, N. E., & Liu, G.-Z. (2014). Towards the refinement of forum and asynchronous
online discussion in educational contexts worldwide: Trends and investigative approaches within a
dominant research paradigm. Computers & Education, 73(4), 93-110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.007

MacKinnon, G. R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication and science teacher training: Two
constructivist examples. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 101-114. Retrieved
from http://learntechlib.org/p/14637

MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. EDUCAUSE Quarterly,
23(4), 38-41. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2000/12/educause-quarterly-magazine-
volume-23-number-4-2000

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.

Meyer, K. A. (2007). Student perceptions of face-to-face and online discussions: The advantage goes to ...
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(4), 53-69.Retrieved from
https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/journal-issues/

Mummery, J., & Morton-Allen, E. (2009). The development of critical thinkers: Do our efforts coincide
with students’ beliefs? The student experience: Proceedings of the 32nd Higher Education Research
and Development Society of Australasia Annual Conference (pp. 306-313). Darwin.

Palmer, S., & Holt, D. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00294.x

Peters, V. L., & Hewitt, J. (2010). An investigation of student practices in asynchronous computer
conferencing courses. Computers & Education, 54(4), 951-961.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.030

Prasad, D. (2009). Empirical study of teaching presence and critical thinking in asynchronous discussion
forums. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(11), 3-26.
http://itdl.org/Journal/Nov_09/index.htm

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480309595199
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2011.633407
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003764722829
http://jise.org/Volume15/15-4/Contents-15-4.html
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.002
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9129-2
http://www.ifets.info/issues.php?id=62
http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/26222/
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1114
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.007
http://learntechlib.org/p/14637
http://er.educause.edu/articles/2000/12/educause-quarterly-magazine-volume-23-number-4-2000
http://er.educause.edu/articles/2000/12/educause-quarterly-magazine-volume-23-number-4-2000
https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/journal-issues/
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00294.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.030
http://itdl.org/Journal/Nov_09/index.htm

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2017, 33(5).

Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students' level of critical thinking across instructional
strategies in online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 52-59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009

Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive
Media in Education, 52(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.5334/2002-1

Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through
asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46(4), 349-370.
https://doi.org/:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010

Schellens, T., VanKeer, H., DeWeaver, B., & Valcke, M. (2009). Tagging thinking types in asynchronous
discussion groups: Effects on critical thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 7(1), 77-94.
https://doi.org/0.1080/10494820701651757

Schindler, L. A., & Burkholder, G. J. (2014). Instructional design and facilitation approaches that
promote critical thinking in asynchronous online discussions: A review of the literature. Higher
Learning Research Communications, 4(4), 11-29. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v4i4.222

Topcu, A. (2010). Relationship of metacognitive monitoring with interaction in an asynchronous online
discussion forum. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(4), 395-402.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01449291003692649

Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online
learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309-328.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782485

Wee, M., & Abrizah, A. (2011). An analysis of an assessment model for participation in online forums.
Computer Science and Information Systems, 8(1), 121-140. https://doi.org/10.2298/csis100113036c

Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139-152. Retrieved from
https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/journal-issues/

Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous
discussions in college-level online classes. The Internet and Higher Education, 20(0), 10-19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003

Zydney, J. M., deNoyelles, A., & Kyeong-Ju Seo, K. (2012). Creating a community of inquiry in online
environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous
discussions. Computers & Education, 58(1), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.009

Corresponding author: Chris Klisc, klisc@westnet.com.au

Please cite as: Klisc, C., McGill, T., & Hobbs, V. (2017). Use of a post-asynchronous online discussion
assessment to enhance student critical thinking. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
33(5), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3030

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009
https://doi.org/10.5334/2002-1
https://doi.org/:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010
https://doi.org/0.1080/10494820701651757
https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v4i4.222
https://doi.org/10.1080/01449291003692649
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782485
https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/journal-issues/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.009
mailto:klisc@westnet.com.au
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3030

Student critical thinking was measured in two ways. Perceptions of critical thinking were collected both prior to the AOD, and after the AOD and associated assessments were completed, and an objective measurement of critical thinking was obtained afte...
Instruments
Table 1 shows the constructs used in addressing the research question and associated hypotheses, together with the instruments used to collect the information needed to measure these constructs.
Procedure
Data analysis
Participants
Improvements in critical thinking skills with an AOD contribution assessment
Improvements in critical thinking skills with a post-AOD assessment
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Please cite as: Klisc, C., McGill, T., & Hobbs, V. (2017). Use of a post-asynchronous online discussion assessment to enhance student critical thinking. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3030