January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...

Pearson r between the two ratings was calculated and found to be 0.83, which was regarded satisfactory considering
the complexity of the data.
Results
According to EBQ scores, nine participants were found to be reflective thinkers (i.e., stage 3 of epistemological
development), and 11 of them relativist thinkers (i.e., stage 2 of epistemological development). None of the
participants was found to be at stage 1 of epistemological development. Those who scored at stage 3 were classified
as “High Epistemological Beliefs” and those who scored at stage 2 were classified as “Low Epistemological
Beliefs”. Participants were then randomly assigned to ten dyads, seven of which were High/Low dyads, two were
Low/Low dyads, and one was High/High.
Individual thinking
Participants’ individual transcripts were downloaded and analyzed using a diagrammatic technique. The
diagrammatic technique was used to visualize the flow of participants’ reasoning as it appeared in the transcripts.
Four types of diagrams, namely, Type A, B, C, and D shown in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 emerged from this analysis.
Diagram type A thinking (shown in Fig. 1) shows low-level thinking depicting failure to think about the problem
systematically. Instead, several points of view are expressed in a disconnected way without any consistent flow of
logic. Of the 20 participants, three of them fell into this category, namely, P116, P96, and P111. P116 scored high on
the EBQ and the others low.
Figure 1. Diagram type A thinking
Diagram type B thinking (shown in Fig. 2) shows thinking that is reasoned within a stated point of view supported by
a number of reasons. The flow of logic is well-organized and systematic. There is breadth in thinking but not depth,
as the arguments presented are not elaborated adequately. Also, the thinking appears to be monological. Succinctly,
monological thinking is thinking that hardly ever considers major alternative points of view, or hardly ever responds
to objections framed by opposing views (Paul, 1995). The majority of the participants fell into this category, i.e.,
P107, P103, P113, P104, P114, P108, P115, P109, P110, P95, P106, and P112. Of these participants, six scored high
on the EBQ and six low.
Diagram type C thinking (shown in Fig. 3) shows depth and breadth in thinking. However, as it was the case with
diagram type B thinking, the thinking appears to be monological as different points of view or opposing arguments
are not examined. Three participants exhibited thinking in this category (P100, P102, and P99). P102 scored high on
the EBQ, and the others low.
7