How to enhance critical thinking at university
through online skills: information assessment and netiquette
Cómo potenciar el pensamiento crítico
en la universidad a través de competencias en línea: evaluación de la
información y la netiqueta.
Dr. Magalí Denoni Buján. Profesor Ayudante
Doctor. Universidad de Zaragoza. España
Dra. Ana Cebolledo Salinas. Profesora Ayudante
Doctor. Universidad de Zaragoza. España
Received: 2024/07/26 Reviewed 2024/10/29 Accepted: :2024/12/19 Online First: 2024/12/28 Published: 2025/01/07
Cómo citar este artículo:
Denoni Buján, M., & Cebollero Salinas, A.
(2025). Cómo potenciar el pensamiento crítico en la universidad a través de competencias
en línea: evaluación de la información y la netiqueta [How
to enhance critical thinking at university through online skills: information assessment and netiquette]. Pixel-Bit.
Revista De Medios Y Educación, 72, 199–213. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.109002
ABSTRACT
Critical thinking is one of the key skills we
apply in dealing with an increasingly complex society. The advent and spread of
the Internet and artificial intelligence has further increased the need for
human beings, especially young people, to develop critical thinking skills.
University students study, communicate, and entertain themselves using the
Internet in a variety of ways. It would be interesting to ascertain to what
extent evaluating information on the Internet can help young people develop a more
robust critical thinking disposition. Given the lack of studies on this
subject, we aimed to analyse whether behaviours such as
netiquette and discernment of the reliability of online information, both of
which require users to assess information on the Internet, predict critical
thinking disposition, allowing for differences among genders. A total of 415
pre-service teachers aged between 17 and 36 participated. Using multiple linear
regressions, our results show that discerning the veracity of online information,
especially in men, and netiquette, especially in females, predict critical
thinking disposition. We discuss educational implications, especially for future teachers.
RESUMEN
Una
de las competencias clave para desenvolverse en un mundo cada vez más complejo
es el pensamiento crítico. La irrupción de internet y de la inteligencia
artificial ha potenciado aún más la necesidad de desarrollar la disposición al
pensamiento crítico, especialmente entre los jóvenes. Los chicos y las chicas
en la universidad estudian, se comunican y se divierten utilizando internet,
aunque lo hacen de manera diferenciada. En este sentido, sería interesante
conocer en qué medida evaluar la información en internet puede facilitar el
desarrollo de una disposición al pensamiento crítico más estable. Dada la
ausencia de estudios que lo valoren, el objetivo de esta investigación es
analizar si conductas como evaluar la fiabilidad de la información en línea y
la netiqueta, ambas requieren valoración de la información en internet,
predicen la disposición al pensamiento crítico y además, de forma diferenciada
según el sexo. Participaron 415 estudiantes de Magisterio con edades entre 17 y
36 años. A través de regresiones lineales múltiples, los resultados muestran
que la evaluar la veracidad de la información en línea, especialmente en los
chicos, y la netiqueta, especialmente en las chicas, predicen la disposición al
pensamiento crítico. Se analizan las implicaciones educativas, especialmente en
futuros docentes.
KEYWORDS· PALABRAS CLAVES
Netiquette; higher education; Critical Thinking;
digital competence; Gender Differences; Online Information Evaluation
Netiqueta; educación superior; pensamiento crítico; competencia
digital; diferencias de género; evaluación de la información en línea
1. Introduction
1.1 Attitudes toward critical thinking
Our current society is characterised by hypercommunication, immediacy, and the emergence of
post-truth in the social fabric (Gozálvez-Pérez et al., 2022). To navigate such
challenges effectively, citizens need to acquire increasingly complex
competencies. One of these is critical thinking, a construct gaining increasing
relevance and attracting growing research interest. Initially, Ennis (1987) defined
critical thinking as “reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on
deciding what to believe or do.” Along similar lines, Kuhn (1991) stated that
critical thinking consists of reasoned arguments that should help people face
life’s challenges. Following those two authors’ initial contributions, the
theory of critical thinking has become further enriched by incorporating essential
concepts, including the differentiation of opinions on the one hand and
evaluating statements on the basis of proof on the other (Facione,
1990; Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2010). Certain authors explain critical thinking as a
cognition-related ability to analyse, evaluate and infer, while others describe
it as a disposition associated with open-mindedness, truth-seeking, and a
systematic approach that enables users to confront challenges and make
decisions in daily life (Facione et al., 2002;
Halpern & Dunn, 2021; Liu et al., 2024).
We focused our present study on critical thinking
disposition, an aspect certain authors have regarded as essential in the
overall construct (Poondej & Lerdpornkulrat,
2015). Researchers have associated critical thinking disposition with several
variables, including academic level, scientific creativity (Fernández-Vilanova
& Solaz-Portolés, 2022; Frisby, 1991), resilience
(Cieza & Palomino, 2020), academic performance (Ren et al., 2020), and
flexible, fluid thinking (Liu et al., 2024). A further research team found that
reflective learning and participation in high-impact activities is directly and
positively associated with critical thinking disposition (Álvarez-Huerta et
al., 2023). Other studies have investigated the influence of age group, noting
that critical thinking disposition steadily increases during childhood and
adolescence (Frisby, 1991). Casas & Ceñal (2005)
found that from the age of thirteen on, adolescents’ modes of thinking start to
become more abstract; whenever they are searching for solutions, they
increasingly display a capacity for criticism and discussion.
However, no study has found evidence that men and
women might have different patterns in their critical thinking disposition (Cieza
& Palomino, 2020; Fernández-Vilanova & Solaz-Portolés,
2022; Kawashima & Shiomi, 2007). However, a reduced number of studies have
focused on dimensions including confidence in reasoning and formulating
judgments, finding that men seem to have a slight advantage in these aspects (Escurra & Delgado, 2018).
Several research teams have investigated the
possibility of teaching critical thinking (Afshar & Rahimi, 2014; Gormley,
2017; Halpern, 2013). In higher education, there is a reigning consensus that
students’ critical thinking ability and critical thinking disposition are key
competencies that should be reinforced in the course of their university
training (Davies & Barnett, 2015); other authors have highlighted the need
to improve pre-service teacher training in this area (Lithoxoidou
& Papadopoulou, 2024). Given that the Internet has become an essential
component of university students’ academic and social life, it has become crucial
for them to approach Internet content with a disposition toward critical
thinking. “Critical thinking disposition” has thus become one of the most
formidable current academic challenges (Santisteban et al., 2020).
1.2 Competencies in evaluating aspects of netiquette
and the discernment of reliability of online information.
Two of the competencies established by the European
Union in its DigComp framework are 1) information and
data literacy and 2) communication and collaboration (Vuorikari
et al., 2022). The same EU document foresaw the development of these
competencies in pre-service teachers so that they might later apply them in the
classroom (Cisneros Barahona
et al., 2023).
The first of the two competencies, “information and
data literacy,” involves navigating and searching the Internet, filtering data,
and evaluating the reliability of digital information. Moreover, it involves
the capability to store, organise, and retrieve information (Ministerio de Educación y
Formación Profesional, 2022). The characteristics of our
current information and communication society imply that individuals are continually
confronted with a vast quantity of information (Kelly et al., 2019; Zenali et al., 2019) and with ongoing technological
innovations. The increasing influence of artificial intelligence implies that
information can be more easily manipulated and falsified; this, in turn, considerably
influences Internet users’ attitudes and positions (Gil-Fernández &
Calderón-Garrido, 2021). Thus, evaluating the reliability of online information
has become an essential tool (Bronstein et al., 2019; Cuesta & Espitia,
2020; Jiménez Rojo, 2020). Various authors have pointed out the need for
university students to acquire it (Cabero-Almenara
et al., 2023; Silva Quiroz et al., 2023); therefore, it
has particular relevance for future teachers.
Another subcompetency in the
area of digital communication and collaboration is netiquette, a habitual
online behaviour that also requires the user to judge and evaluate online
information. Netiquette is the set of civilised norms and behaviours that allow
an individual to use the Internet appropriately (Shea, 1994). This implies that
people treat one another respectfully on social media, showing regard for each
user’s privacy and endeavouring to create a positive online atmosphere (Flores,
2010). This requires them to evaluate the form, the content, and the
reliability of transmitted information in order to ensure that users respect
one another (Cebollero-Salinas et al., 2022a). As a subcompetency,
netiquette brings several benefits, including the mitigation of antisocial
behaviour (Ang, 2015), bullying, and cyberbullying (Kumazaki
et al., 2011). Further studies on the relationship between netiquette and
online risks, such as Internet abuse, have concluded that netiquette acts as a
protective factor, especially for females (Yudes-Gómez et al., 2018;
Cebollero-Salinas et al., 2021). Sex can be a differentiating factor, as women
achieve higher netiquette scores than men (Cebollero-Salinas et al., 2021 &
2022a). Studies on netiquette have focused on describing guidelines that
guarantee satisfactory communication (Brusco, 2011; Hammond & Moseley,
2018), for instance, in student-teacher online interactions (Arouri & Hamaidi, 2017; Linek & Ostermaier-Grabow,
2018). To date, no study has analysed to what extent netiquette might be a
factor that predicts critical thinking disposition.
Studies on the relationship between critical thinking
and information/data literacy are scarce; moreover, these two variables have
not been analysed from the perspective of netiquette. In their systematic
review on the subject of critical thinking and social networks in the field of
education, Escribano-Muñoz et al. (2024) found that most studies applied a
qualitative methodology and focused on didactic uses of social networks to
encourage critical thinking, as well as on strategies for the critical
evaluation of content published on social media, such as memes (Camas et al.,
2018). A reduced number
of studies applied a theoretical approach (Riser et al.,
2020). Adopting an
evolutionary perspective, Pérez-García &
López-Martínez (2024) found that adolescents apply
critical thinking to discern risky online fake news content more frequently as they
grow older. However, no study has investigated such variability in association
with the factor of sex or gender.
In sum, the Internet has clearly become an essential
part of university students’ academic and social life. In this context, netiquette
and literacy in assessing the reliability of online information are key skills
for dealing with increasingly frequent phenomena such as privacy protection and
online disinformation (Arcila Rodríguez
et al., 2022; Escribano-Muñoz
et al., 2024). It has thus become increasingly necessary to launch new lines of
research on these subjects, particularly in population groups of adolescents
and young adults (Figuera-Avellán, 2022; Fonseca,
2020). Until now, research articles have mainly tended to analyse concrete didactic
projects focusing on the use of social networks to encourage critical thinking;
however, there is still a lack of studies on the extent to which certain
habitual behaviours applied in evaluating online information (such as
netiquette and literacy regarding the reliability of such information) can
further the development of a more robust critical thinking disposition. Thus,
our study aimed to examine the predictive capacity of those two variables
(netiquette and information literacy) for university students’ critical
thinking disposition, expecting that the insight thereby gained would open concrete
possibilities for future educational projects, particularly with pre-service
teachers. We chose to analyse differences according to sex, given that females
and males have different motivations for using the Internet and social media (Twenge &
Martin, 2020).
Our work hypotheses were the following:
1) Netiquette and data/information literacy (regarding
the reliability of online information) are predictors of critical thinking
disposition.
2) Differences between the sexes will be notable,
given that netiquette has a greater predictive capacity in women for other
online behaviours. (We did not anticipate the weight according to sex of the
other variable, i.e., data/information literacy regarding reliability, as no
studies on that particular aspect had been conducted.)
2. Methodology
2.1 Sample
Participants were 415 students from the Faculty of Education
of the University of (anonymised) (Spain), ages 17 to 36 (M=19.98 and
SD=4.183), of which 299 participants were female (72.2%), and 116 were male
(27.8%). The sample was incidental by accessibility.
That substantial difference in proportions of the
sexes corresponds to the usual proportion by sex of students enrolled in
education studies.
2.2 Tools
We applied the
Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (CTDS) by Sosu,
2013, adapted to Spanish by Bravo et al., 2020. It consists of 11 items
that measure Critical Openness (e.g., “I usually try to think about the bigger
picture during a discussion”) and Reflective Scepticism (e.g., “I often
re-evaluate my experiences so that I can learn from them”), two components of
critical thinking disposition. Each item was scored on a Likert-type
5-point scale (1 = Totally agree; 5 = Totally disagree). In the present sample,
the internal consistency of scores on this scale (Cronbach's α) was .86.
Specifically for this study, we designed the Evaluation of Reliability of Online
Information Competency Scale (“Escala Competencia
evaluación de la fiabilidad
de la información en línea,” abbreviated as e-CEI). It consisted of a
questionnaire that evaluated Internet users' knowledge, skills, and attitudes to
evaluate the reliability of information they search for, receive, or share
online. To develop this questionnaire, we based ourselves on a series of
criteria indicating digital competency in teachers (Ministerio
de Educación y Formación Profesional,
2022) and on the main strategies enumerated by the Spanish National
Cybersecurity Institute (INCIBE) for the verification of information. The e-CEI
questionnaire consists of eight items featuring six response options ranging
from 1= never to 6=always (e.g., “Before forwarding a video or comment I have
viewed, I stop to check its veracity”). Confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA)
yielded a one-factor solution and optimum data fit: (CFI)=.994; (TLI)=.992;
RMSEA=.101); AVE= .567. This scale thus
has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=.916).
Netiquette. A subscale of
the questionnaire “Evaluation of cyberbehaviour
quality” (Evaluación de la calidad de
la ciberconducta «EsCaCiber»)
(Ortega et al.,
2012), designed as a
measurement scale in adolescents. The netiquette subscale consists of four
Likert-type items with five frequency responses (ranging from 0=never to 4=always)
regarding respect for fellow users and protecting their privacy when evaluating
online information (e.g., “Before I publish something by someone else, I ask
them for permission”). In our study, this scale’s reliability index was α
= .80.
2.3 Procedure
The university students completed the battery of
questionnaires, which were placed at their disposal on an online platform. User
anonymity and answer confidentiality were guaranteed. Ethical standards
established in the Helsinki Declaration (World Medical Association, 2013) were
respected: these included voluntary participation and providing free, informed
consent for the use of participant data for research purposes while also
informing participants that they could choose to opt out at any moment of the
questionnaire. Data were treated confidentially, respecting participants’
privacy.
2.4 Data analysis
We conducted a univariate descriptive analysis of the
sample to ascertain participants’ sociodemographic profiles and scores for the
study variable. First, we applied the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to analyse the normal
data distribution. Although the results showed a non-normal sample, we used
parametric tests, as with sample sizes larger than thirty individuals, the
distributions of means tend to approximate a normal distribution, and it is
thus possible to use parametric statistical techniques (Box et al., 1988). We
thus proceeded to conduct a descriptive analysis of the study variables by applying
a one-way ANOVA to analyse significant differences according to sex. In cases that
did not fulfil the assumption of equal variance, we applied the Brown-Forsythe
test. We also calculated effect size (η).
Subsequently, we applied bivariate correlation (Pearson's r) to analyse
relationships among variables. In a last step, we applied multiple linear
regression to analyse the variables’ capacity to predict critical thinking
disposition (Pardo & Ruiz, 2005). We included the age variable, as the age
range in our sample was large, and researchers have found that critical
thinking increases with age (Casas & Ceñal,
2005). Variables were added in successive blocks to allow us to independently assess
the contribution provided by new variables once a previous variable had made
its contribution (Block 1: evaluation of online information reliability; Block 2:
netiquette; Block 3: current age). SPSS v26 statistical software was used to
calculate results.
3. Analysis and results
3.1. Statistical descriptives and relationships among
study variables according to sex
As shown in Table 1, differences among females and
males appeared. Women scored higher on critical thinking and netiquette;
however, only the netiquette difference was statistically significant, with a
medium effect size (η2= .49). Values were similar in students’ capacity to
evaluate the reliability of online information; here, males scored slightly
higher, and the difference was
statistically significant.
Table 1
Analysis of statistical descriptives according to sex
|
|
Female M (SD) |
Male M (SD) |
F |
η2 |
|
Critical
thinking disposition |
44.26 (±4.66) |
43.71 (±5.40) |
1.03 |
.002 |
|
Evaluating
reliability of online information |
34.80 (±26.57) |
34.97 (±6.36) |
0.06 |
.000 |
|
Netiquette |
13.44 (±2.47) |
12.12 (±2.96) |
21.23** |
.049 |
|
Age |
19.50 (±6.57) |
21.26 (±4.87) |
170.09** |
.034 |
Nota. * p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.
3.2. Correlations
Table 2 displays the
relationships among variables according to sex. Critical thinking disposition
correlates in both sexes with the two behaviours (netiquette and evaluating
online information), yielding medium-high values. In men, the relationship
between evaluating online information and critical thinking disposition stands
out (.333** vs .384**). The relationship between critical thinking disposition
and netiquette in women is likewise notable (.391** vs .216**). The age
variable is only related to the other variables in the case of women.
Table 2
Correlations among variables according to sex
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Females |
||||
|
1. Critical
thinking disposition |
|
.384** |
.391** |
.231** |
|
2. Evaluating
information reliability |
.443** |
|
.278** |
.119** |
|
3. Netiquette |
.216** |
.077 |
|
.036 |
|
4. Age |
.122 |
.148 |
-.126 |
|
|
|
Males |
|
|
|
**. The
correlation is significant on the 0.01 level (bilateral).
3.3. Variables that predict critical thinking
disposition according to sex
Tables 3 and 4 gather the results of our linear
regression analysis differentiated according to sex. The study variables
predict 27% of critical thinking disposition in women and 23% in men. In both
cases, evaluating online information is the factor with the strongest
predictive capacity (15% in women and 20% in men), followed by netiquette (9% in
women and 3% in men).
Table 3
Multiple regression analysis in women
|
|
|
B |
SE B |
β |
R2 |
∆R2 |
F |
|
Model 1 |
Evaluating
online information reliability |
.27 |
.04 |
.38 |
.15 |
.15 |
51.63** |
|
Model 2 |
Evaluating
online information reliability |
.21 |
.04 |
.30 |
.24 |
.09 |
45.66** |
|
|
Netiquette |
.58 |
.10 |
.31 |
|
|
|
|
Model 3 |
Evaluating
online information reliability |
.20 |
.04 |
.28 |
.27 |
.03 |
36.43** |
|
|
Netiquette |
.60 |
.10 |
.31 |
|
|
|
|
|
Age |
.23 |
.06 |
.19 |
|
|
|
Note: *p<.05;
**p<.01; ***p<.001
In both sexes, the two variables “netiquette” and
“evaluating online information” predict critical thinking disposition. However,
in men, the coefficient achieved by “evaluating online information” is higher (β=.43
in men vs β=.28 in women). On the other hand, the “netiquette” coefficient
is higher in women (β=.18 in men vs β=.31 in women). In the case of
women, age is incorporated into the linear regression.
Table 4.
Linear multiple regression analysis in men
|
|
|
B |
SE B |
β |
R2 |
∆R2 |
F |
|
Model 1 |
Evaluating online
information reliability |
.38 |
.07 |
.44 |
.20 |
.20 |
27.42** |
|
Model 2 |
Evaluating online
information reliability |
.36 |
.07 |
.43 |
.23 |
.03 |
4.78** |
|
|
Netiquette |
.34 |
.15 |
.18 |
|
|
|
Nota: *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
4. Discussion
Aiming to open new lines of research to help
educational institutions deal with current challenges, our study examined whether
the subcompetency of netiquette and the capacity to
evaluate the reliability of online information predict critical thinking disposition
in pre-service teachers, differentiated according to sex.
Our descriptive results suggest that critical thinking
disposition reaches similar levels in male and female university students.
These findings are in line with previous investigations that found no
differences, in terms of sex, in rates of critical thinking disposition (Cieza
& Palomino, 2020; Fernández-Vilanova & Solaz-Portolés,
2022; Kawashima & Shiomi, 2007). Neither did we find differences in the
competency of evaluating online information reliability: this is a new finding,
given the absence of previous research on sex differences in this domain. However,
in line with previous studies featuring samples of adolescents (Cebollero-Salinas
et al., 2021 and 2022), we found that female university students attained
higher levels of netiquette: in other words, they evaluate online information to
communicate respectfully with other users while protecting those users’ privacy
(Flores, 2010). Certain studies have explained this phenomenon by suggesting
that girls spend more time on social media, implying that they are more
accustomed to considering and applying respect for other users’ privacy (Díaz-López et
al., 2020; Joiner et al., 2012; Tifferet, 2019).
Our bivariate correlation analysis suggested that
critical thinking disposition correlated with the two online-information-related
competencies (netiquette and evaluating reliability) in both sexes. This is in
line with certain previous studies on critical data/information literacy, which
have found that it is related to an improved capacity to analyse the news and
to an enhanced critical thinking capacity to evaluate socially relevant
problems (Castellví et al., 2020; Santisteban et al.,
2020; Šuminas & Jastramskis,
2020). It is likewise notable that the evaluation of online information
reliability only correlated with netiquette and age in our female participants.
One explanation could be the greater amount of time spent by girls/women on
social networks (Twenge & Martin, 2020), which can lead them to evaluate a
greater quantity of information overall. Thus, either by trial and error or by
gradually developing awareness, they would develop an improved capacity to
discern flaws and inconsistencies in the online information they view. As age
advances, they evaluate risks more frequently and become more capable of assuming
risky challenges despite eventual consequences (Elboj et al., 2023; Pérez-García & López-Martínez,
2024).
Our exploration of the variables’ predictive capacity
showed that the two variables, netiquette and the evaluation of online
information reliability, predicted critical thinking disposition in both sexes.
Our first hypothesis was thereby confirmed. This might imply that concrete
actions can encourage critical thinking in its most robust form. Age plays a
predictive role in women; in other words, female students studying in the last
two years toward a primary school teaching degree are more prone to develop a critical
thinking disposition. This might be explained by women’s more rapid maturing
process compared to men (Galdó-Muñóz, 2007).
In men, the variable with the strongest predictive
capacity was the competency to evaluate the reliability of online information.
In women, conversely, the variable with the strongest predictive capacity was
netiquette. This result aligns with previous studies that reported a greater
predictive role of netiquette in girls (Cebollero-Salinas et al., 2022a). This
confirms our second hypothesis and provides new evidence in this domain.
These results have relevant educational implications.
They highlight the importance of netiquette and evaluating the reliability of
online information in encouraging the development of critical thinking in
students studying toward a primary school teaching degree. Primary school
teachers frequently need to assess the reliability of online information, for
instance, when preparing didactic units for class. As they learn to communicate
and collaborate online with colleagues and families, they must be trained to
deal with problematic situations requiring efficient solutions. Our results open
new research paths in searching for ways to encourage these pre-service
trainees to develop their critical thinking.
Teachers must also know how to encourage the
evaluation of online information to improve harmonious coexistence in
educational centres, in face-to-face and online situations. This requires students
to follow adequate netiquette standards; meanwhile, teachers should design
activities that help schoolchildren learn this competency (Cebollero-Salinas et
al., 2022a). As netiquette is related to emotional competencies, it can thus be
featured in didactic units that feature socio-emotional competencies and encourage
harmonious coexistence in school (Cebollero-Salinas, 2022c y 2024).
Several studies in Spain have found that only a
minority of pre-service teachers studying toward a primary school teaching
diploma (Magisterio) tend to use critical thinking to
verify information, analyse proposals, and state their opinions (Castellví et al., 2020; Santisteban et al., 2020). It is
thus urgent to educate them further in this domain. Universities should
position themselves as a learning environment that encourages collective
reflection, preparing citizens to face the challenges that await them online (Mesquita-Romero
et al., 2022). Research articles
on data/information literacy in education have highlighted the need for
institutions to assume leadership in such actions, promoting a culture of
information literacy with research projects that focus on the relationship
between information literacy and its pedagogical, didactic, and curricular
components; this, in turn, will help to consolidate educational policies (Arcila Rodríguez
et al., 2022).
Our results should be taken into account, considering
our study’s limitations. We obtained our data from self-report responses to a
questionnaire, which can lead to response desirability bias. Future research
along these lines would require incorporating qualitative data and other
information sources. Moreover, our sample was gathered in terms of
accessibility, and the proportion of women was considerably greater than that
of men, reflecting actual enrolment in Primary Teacher Diploma studies (Grado de Magisterio). To generalise
results across the entire university student population, this study would need
to be replicated with an equitable distribution by sex, and the sample would
need to be randomised. It would also be interesting to ascertain whether our
findings on critical thinking disposition are reflected in similar tendencies
if we measure critical thinking abilities per
se.
Despite these limitations, our study provides certain
novel contributions. On the one hand, it provides evidence that the concrete
behaviour of evaluating online information can increase and support critical
thinking in its more robust state. Netiquette reveals itself as a further
channel for encouraging critical attitudes, and differences appear between
young men and young women in predicting critical thinking disposition; all
these aspects need to be considered.
We conclude by highlighting the relevance of certain
concrete competencies in young people’s disposition when they use the Internet
and navigate social networks, namely, netiquette and the capacity to evaluate
the reliability of online information. Both of these competencies can work in
favour of university students’ critical thinking disposition. This opens up
avenues to work on the challenges posed by the generalised use of artificial
intelligence (AI) to the critical thinking abilities of future teachers and their
capacity to transfer such critical thinking disposition to the classrooms where
they exercise their teaching profession.
Financing
This article was made possible thanks to the
institutional support of the Competitive Call for Innovation Projects of the
University of Zaragoza (PI_DTOST) in the year 2023, reference ID 4974, with the
title “Visible Thinking Methodology and the use of news as didactic and
innovative strategies for authentic learning”.
References
Afshar, H.
S., & Rahimi, M. (2014). The Relationship among Critical Thinking, Emotional
Intelligence, and Speaking Abilities of Iranian EFL Learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 136,
75-79. https://doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.291
Álvarez-Huerta, P., Muela, A. &
Larrea, I. (2023). Disposition
Towards Critical Thinking and Student Engagement in Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education 48, 239–256.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-022-09614-9
Ang, R. P. (2015).
Adolescent cyberbullying: A review of characteristics, prevention and
intervention strategies. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 25, 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2015.07.011
Arcila Rodríguez,
W. O., Loaiza Zuluaga, &. E., y Castaño Duque, G. A. (2022). Research trends in Information Digital and Media
Literacy (AMID) in the educational field. Revista Complutense de Educacion, 33(2),
225–236. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.73935
Arouri, Y.
M., & Hamaidi, D. A. (2017). Undergraduate students’ perspectives of the extent of
practicing netiquettes in a Jordanian Southern University. International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 12(3),
84. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v12i03.6424
Box, G.E.P.,
Hunter, W. G., & Hunter, J. S. (2005). Estadística para investigadores:
Introducción al diseño de experimentos, análisis de datos y construcción de
modelos. Reverté
Bravo, M. J., Galiana, L., Rodrigo, M. F.,
Navarro-Pérez, J. J., & Oliver, A. (2020). An adaptation of the Critical Thinking Disposition
Scale in Spanish youth. Thinking Skills
and Creativity, 38, 100748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100748
Bronstein, M. V.,
Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., & Cannon, T. D. (2019). Belief in
fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious
fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8, 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005
Brusco, J. (2011).
Know Your Netiquette. AORN Journal 94(3), 279-286. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2011.07.003
Cabero-Almenara, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo,
J. J., Guillén-Gámez, F. D., & Gaete-Bravo, A. F. (2023). Digital Competence of Higher Education Students as a
Predictor of Academic Success. Technology, Knowledge
and Learning, 28(2), 683–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09624-8
Camas, L., Valero,
A., & Vendrell, M. (2018). “Hacking memes”: Democratic culture, social
media and education. Espiral.
Cuadernos del Profesorado, 11(23), 120-129. http://doi.org/10.25115/ecp.v12i23.2017
Casas Rivero, J. J. & Ceñal González Fierro, M. J. (2005). Desarrollo del
adolescente. Aspectos físicos, psicológicos y sociales. Pediatría Integral, 9(1), 20-24.
Castellví, J., Díez-Bedmar, M. &
Santisteban, A. (2020). Pre-Service
Teachers’ Critical Digital Literacy Skills and Attitudes to Address Social
Problems. Social Sciences 9(8), 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9080134
Cebollero-Salinas, A., Cano Escoriaza, J.,
& Orejudo Hernández, S. (2021). Abuso de Internet y adolescentes:
gratificaciones, supervisión familiar y uso responsable. Implicaciones
educativas y familiares. Digital Education Review, 39(39),
42–59. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2021.39.42-59
Cebollero-Salinas, A., Cano-Escoriaza, J.,
Orejudo, S., & Íñiguez-Berrozpe, T. (2022a). Netiquette, implication of online emotional content
and empathy in adolescents according to gender. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicologia, 54, 104–111.
https://doi.org/10.14349/RLP.2022.V54.12
Cebollero Salinas, A., Bautista Alcaine, P., Iñiguez-Berrozpe, T., & Elboj Saso, C. (2022b). Would you mind paying attention to me? Phubbing in
adolescence as an Educational challenge in digital and face to face
coexistence. Revista
Complutense de Educacion, 33(4),
601–610. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.76360
Cebollero-Salinas, A., Cano-Escoriaza, J., & Orejudo, S. (2022c). Social Networks, Emotions, and Education: Design and Validation
of e-COM, a Scale of Socio-Emotional Interaction Competencies among
Adolescents. Sustainability,14(5),
2566. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052566
Cebollero-Salinas, A., Orejudo-Hernández, S., & Cano-Escoriaza, J.
(2024). Cybergossip in adolescence: Its relationship with social
competency, empathy, emotions in online communication and socio-emotional
e-competencies by gender and age. Cyberpsychology: Journal of
Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 18(2).
https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2024-2-2
Cieza G. L. C., & Palomino C. R.
(2020). Resiliencia y disposición al pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de una
universidad privada de Lima Metropolitana. Revista
de investigación en psicología, 23(1), 109-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.15381/rinvp.v23i1.18096
Cisneros Barahona, A. S., Marqués Molías,
L., Samaniego Erazo, N., & Mercedes, C. (2023). La Competencia Digital
Docente. Diseño y validación de una propuesta formativa. Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educación, 68, 7–41. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.100524
Cuesta, A. & Espitia, J. (2020).
Alfabetización informacional y aprendizaje reflexivo: de las fake news al análisis crítico de
las fuentes de información en
la formación de maestros. Revista Catalana de Pedagogía, 17,75-97. http://doi.org/10.2436/20.3007.01.139
Davies, M. & Barnett, R. (2015). Introduction. En M. Daviez
& R. Barnett (Eds.). The Palgrave
Han-dbook of Critical Thinkinhg
in Higher Education (pp.1-125). Palgrave Macmillan
US.
Díaz-López, A., Maquilón-Sánchez,
J. J., & Mirete-Ruiz, A. B. (2020). Maladaptive use of ICT in adolescence: Profiles,
supervision and technological stress. Comunicar, 28(64), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-03
Elboj, C.,
Íñiguez-Berrozpe, T., Cebollero-Salinas, A., & Bautista-Alcaine,
P. (2023). Listen to me !
” The role of family supervision and parental phubbing in youth cyberbullying. Family
Relations, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12968
Ennis, R. H.
(1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking abilities and dispositions. In J. B.
Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Teaching
thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9- 26). W. H.
Freeman.
Escribano-Muñoz C., Gil-Fernández R. &
Calderón-Garrido D. (2024). Confluencias entre pensamiento crítico y redes
sociales en el ámbito educativo. Mapeo de experiencias y detección de desafíos
a través de una revisión sistemática. Revista
Complutense de Educación, 35(2), 363-379. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.85615
Escurra, M., & Delgado, A. (2008).
Relación entre disposición hacia el pensamiento crítico y estilos de
pensamiento en alumnos universitarios de Lima metropolitana. Persona, (11), 143-175.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of
Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction.
Research Findings and Recommendations. American Philosophical Association.
Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C.,
Blohm, S. W., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2002). California critical thinking skills test: Test manual. The
California Press.
Fernández-Vilanova, J., & Soláz-Portolés, J. J. (2022). Relaciones entre creatividad
científica, pensamiento divergente, disposición hacia el pensamiento crítico,
nivel académico y género en la educación secundaria. En Esteve F.,
Fernández-Sogorb, A., Martinez-Roig,
R., & Álvarez-Herrero, J. (Eds.), Transformando
la educación a través del conocimiento. (pp. 354-365). Octaedro.
Figuera Avellán, S. (2022). Usos de las
redes sociales: cibercultura y pensamiento crítico. Atenas, 3(59), 49– 64
Flores, J. (2010). Netiqueta joven para
redes sociales: ciudadanía digital y ciberconvivencia.
Pantallas Amigas. https://bit.ly/3QwumaZ
Fonseca Morillo, F. (2020). Prólogo: La
Europa que protege, de la teoría a la práctica gracias al pensamiento crítico y
la alfabetización digital. Revista De
Estilos de Aprendizaje, 13(26), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.55777/rea.v13i26.2593
Frisby, C. L.
(1991). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between grade level
and mean scores on the Cornell Critical Thinking Test (Level X). Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 23(4), 162–170. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-20272-001
Galdó
Muñoz, G. (2007). El adolescente normal. Desarrollo físico, psíquico y
social. Revista Española de
Pediatría, 63(1), 20-28.
Gil-Fernández, R.
& Calderón-Garrido, D. (2021).
El uso de las redes
sociales en educación:
Una revisión sistemática
de la literatura
científica. Digital Education
Review, 40, 82-109. https://raco.cat/index.php/DER/article/view/395132
Gormley J. W. T.
(2017). The Critical Advantage:
Developing Critical Thinking Skills in School. Harvard
Education Press.
Gozálvez-Pérez,
V., Valero-Moya, A., & González-Martín, M.-R. (2022). El pensamiento
crítico en las redes sociales. Una propuesta teórica para la educación cívica
en entornos digitales. Estudios Sobre Educación, 42, 35–54. https://doi.org/10.15581/004.42.002
Halpern, D. F.
(2013). Thought and knowledge: An
introduction to critical thinking. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315885278
Halpern, D. F.,
& Dunn, D. S. (2021). Critical thinking: A model of intelligence for
solving real-world problems. Journal of
Intelligence, 9(2), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9020022
Hammond, L., &
Moseley, K. (2018). Reeling in proper “netiquette.” Nursing Made Incredibly Easy!, 16(2),
50-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NME.0000529952.99334.e4
Jiménez-Aleixandre,
M. P. (2010). 10
ideas clave. Competencias en argumentación y uso de pruebas.
Graó.
Jiménez-Rojo, Ángel. (2020). La competencia
informacional y el pensamiento crítico en la enseñanza no universitaria: una
revisión sistemática. RiiTE Revista
interuniversitaria de investigación en Tecnología Educativa, (9). https://doi.org/10.6018/riite.431381
Joiner, R., Gavin,
J., Brosnan, M., Cromby, J., Gregory, H., Guiller, J., Maras, P., & Moon, A. (2012). Gender,
internet experience, internet identification, and internet anxiety: A ten-year followup. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(7), 370–372. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0033
Kawashima, N.,
& Shiomi, K. (2007). Factors of the thinking disposition of Japanese high
school students. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(2),
187-194. https://doi.org/10.2224/ sbp.2007.35.2.187
Kelly, Y.L., Qiuyi,
K., Song, Y., Deng, L., Kang, Y., & Hu, A. (2019). What predicts
adolescents´ Critical Thinking About Real-Life News? The Roles of Social Media
News Consumption and News Media Literacy. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 33, 2-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.05.004
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge
University Press.
Kumazaki, A., Suzuki, K., Katsura, R., Sakamoto, A., & Kashibuchi, M. (2011). The effects of netiquette and ICT
skills on school-bullying and cyber-bullying: The two-wave panel study of japanese elementary, secondary, and high school students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 29, 735–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.299
Linek, S. B.,
& Ostermaier-Grabow, A. (2018). Netiquette
between students and their lecturers on Facebook: Injunctive and descriptive
social norms. Social Media and Society, 4(3),
1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118789629
Lithoxoidou, A., & Papadopoulou, V. (2024). Critical
incidents analysis in teacher education: assessing student-teachers’ Critical
Thinking. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 51, 101476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101476
Liu, X, Han, X.,
Wang, T. & Ren, X. (2024). An account of the relationship between critical
thinking and fluid intelligence in considering executive functions. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101538
Mesquita-Romero,
W.-A., Fernández-Morante, C., & Cebreiro-López, B. (2022). Critical media literacy to improve students’
competencies. Comunicar,
30(70), 47–57. ttps://doi.org/10.3916/C70-2022-04
Ministerio de Educación y Formación profesional.
Resolución de 4 de mayo de 2022, de la Dirección General de Evaluación y
Cooperación Territorial, por la que se publica el Acuerdo de la Conferencia
Sectorial de Educación, sobre la actualización del marco de referencia de la
competencia digital docente. Boletín
Oficial del Estado, núm. 116, de 16 de mayo de 2022, pp. 67979 a
68026. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/res/2022/05/04/(5)
Ortega, R., Del Rey, R., & Sánchez, V.
(2012). Nuevas dimensiones de la
convivencia escolar y juvenil. Ciberconducta y
relaciones en la red: ciberconvivencia.
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Gobierno de España. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3141.1520
Pardo, A. & Ruiz, A. (2005). Análisis de datos con SPSS 13 Base.
McGraw Hill.
Pérez-García, Á., & López-Martínez, A.
S. A. (2024). Los adolescentes y la construcción del pensamiento crítico para
la gestión de los retos y las noticias falsas en las redes sociales. Aloma: Revista de Psicologia,
Ciències de l’Educació i de
l’Esport, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.51698/aloma.2024.42.1.59-67
Poondej, C., & Lerdpornkulrat,
T. (2015). The reliability and construct validity of the critical thinking
disposition scale. Journal of
Psychological and Educational Research, 23(1), 23.
Ren, X., Tong, Y.,
Peng, P., & Wang, T. (2020). Critical thinking predicts academic
performance beyond general cognitive ability: Evidence from adults and
children. Intelligence, 82, 101487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487
Riser, D. K.,
Clarke, S. D., & Stallworth, A. N. (2020). Scientific Memes: Using the
Language of Social Media to Improve Scientific Literacy and Communication in
Lifespan Development. Psychology Learning
& Teaching, 19(3), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725720929277
Santisteban, A., Díez-Bedmar, M.C., & Castellví,
J. (2020). Critical digital literacy of future teachers in the Twitter Age. Culture and Education, 32(2), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2020.1741875
Shea, V. (1994).
Netiquette. Retrieved from http://www.albion.com/bookNetiquette/
Silva-Quiroz, J., Rioseco-Pais, M.C., & Aranda-Faúndez, G. (2023). Nivel de
Competencia digital de estudiantes de primer año de formación inicial docente:
una mirada desde las variables de género y centro educativo. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 68,
155-182. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.101081
Silva Quiroz, J. E., Rioseco Pais, M. H., & Aranda Fáundez,
G. (2023). Nivel de Competencia digital de estudiantes de primer año de
formación inicial docente: una mirada desde las variables de género y centro
educativo. Pixel-Bit. Revista de
Medios y Educación, 68, 155-182. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.101081
Sosu, E. M. (2013). The development and psychometric
validation of a Critical Thinking Disposition Scale. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.09.002
Šuminas, A., & Jastramskis, D.
(2020). The importance of media literacy education: How Lithuanian students
evaluate online news content credibility. Central
European Journal of Communication, 13(2), 230-248. https://doi.org/10.19195/1899-5101.13.2(26).5
Tifferet, S. (2019). Gender differences in privacy tendencies
on social network sites: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 93,
1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.046
Twenge, J. M.,
& Martin, G. N. (2020). Gender differences in associations between digital
media use and psychological well-being: Evidence from three large datasets. Journal of Adolescence, 79, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.12.018
Vuorikari, R.,
Kluzer, S. y Punie, Y.,
(2022). DigComp 2.2: El marco de competencia digital para
ciudadanos. Con nuevos ejemplos de conocimientos, habilidades y actitudes, EUR
31006 EN. Oficina de Publicaciones de la Unión Europea.
https://doi.org/10.2760/490274
World Medical Association.
(2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles
for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310,
2191- 2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Yudes-Gómez,
C., Baridon Chauvie, D.,
& González-Cabrera, J. (2018). Cyberbullying and problematic Internet use in
Colombia, Uruguay and Spain: Cross-cultural study. Comunicar, 56,
49-58. https://doi.org/10.3916/C56-2018-05
Zeniali, S., Rezaei, S., Saadatmand, Z., & Farashbandi, R. (2019). The effectiveness of creative
thinking training on the critical thinking and media literacy in
students. Iranian Evolutionary and Educational Psychology Journal, 1(3),
213-221. https://doi.org/10.29252/ieepj.1.3.213