The present study focuses on the use of two different types of scripts as possible ways to structure university students' discourse in asynchronous discussion groups and consequently promote their learning. More specifically, the aim of the study is to determine how requiring students to label their contributions by means of De Bono's Thinking Hats (script 1) and Weinberger's script for the construction of argumentation sequences (script 2) affects the ongoing critical thinking processes reflected in the discussion. The results suggest that both scripts successfully facilitated critical thinking. The results showed that the labeling condition (script 1) surpasses the argumentation script (script 2) with regard to the overall depth of critical thinking in the discussion, and the critical thinking processes during the stages of problem identification and problem integration in particular. Further, it can be argued that students in the labeling condition are engaged in more focused, more critical, and more practically-oriented discussions.
Critical thinking; Problem solving; Learning
