MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2905086021

Critical thinking coding for secondary and higher education students discussions

2018· other· en· W2905086021 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maree Davies

Notice bibliographique

RevueResearchSpace (University of Auckland) · 2018
Typeother
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCritical thinkingMathematics educationPedagogyHigher educationCoding (social sciences)PsychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Individual Papers [3687063] Critical thinking coding for secondary and higher education students discussions Maree Davies [New Zealand]1 , Katharina Kiemer [Germany]2 , Adam Dalgleish [New Zealand]1 University of Auckland1, Universitat Augsburg2 Purpose of presentation The coding scheme, with examples from student group discussions, to be presented at BERA in 2017 attempts to address existing gaps in measuring empirical Critical Thinking (CT) data. The coding scheme has been written as a chapter in the new book, Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis to be published in 2018. Measurement tools of CT tend to be discipline specific, focusing on argument strength (philosophy), critical dispositions (education), or bias (sociology). What is missing from measurements on CT is the merging of these interpretations. This coding manual was developed to capture each aspect of CT, so that students can be taught to identify, practice all facets, and value group discussions as contributing to their learning. The coding manual was initially designed for a two year study in critical thinking across 30 classrooms in Auckland New Zealand at senior secondary level. Theory/Research Critical thinking (CT) is mostly described and researched from an individuals’ point of view; for example, the ability to engage in purposeful, self-regulatory judgement and based on a view that focuses on hierarchical models of thinking (Bloom et al., 1956) and deconstructing arguments for logic, for example (Zohar, Weinberger, and Tamir, 1994). CT is also commonly aligned with a market based approach to education; the Conference Board of Canada encouraged Canadians to improve their CT skills to strengthen Canada’s innovative and competitive advantage in the knowledge-based global economy (Bloom & Watt, 2003) and relates CT to measurements of CT in both dispositions and skills through psychometric testing (Ennis, 1962; Facione, 1990; Sternberg, 1987; Watson & Glaser, 1980). What seems to be missing from this literature is the view of CT as collective, dialogic exercise drawing on socio-political issues. More than concerned with how an individual is able to think logically, analytically, and with reason is the concern with the individual recognising the hierarchal structures in society and the consideration of wider perspectives and ethical consequences (Apple, 2010; Freire, 1970; hooks, 1994, 2010; Postman & Weigartner, 1969). Despite the American Philosophical Association Report of CT Skills and Dispositions including ‘flexibility in considering biases, prejudices, stereotype, egocentric or socio-centric tendencies’ (Facione, 1990, p.2) these skills have remained largely ignored in the assessment of CT. Goals of coding manual The coding scheme provides a framework of CT and offers concrete descriptions of desired interaction patterns (best-practice) for the generation of CT abilities in students and teachers. Individual Papers [3687063] Critical thinking coding for secondary and higher education students discussions Maree Davies [New Zealand]1 , Katharina Kiemer [Germany]2 , Adam Dalgleish [New Zealand]1 University of Auckland1, Universitat Augsburg2 Purpose of presentation The coding scheme, with examples from student group discussions, to be presented at BERA in 2017 attempts to address existing gaps in measuring empirical Critical Thinking (CT) data. The coding scheme has been written as a chapter in the new book, Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis to be published in 2018. Measurement tools of CT tend to be discipline specific, focusing on argument strength (philosophy), critical dispositions (education), or bias (sociology). What is missing from measurements on CT is the merging of these interpretations. This coding manual was developed to capture each aspect of CT, so that students can be taught to identify, practice all facets, and value group discussions as contributing to their learning. The coding manual was initially designed for a two year study in critical thinking across 30 classrooms in Auckland New Zealand at senior secondary level. Theory/Research Critical thinking (CT) is mostly described and researched from an individuals’ point of view; for example, the ability to engage in purposeful, self-regulatory judgement and based on a view that focuses on hierarchical models of thinking (Bloom et al., 1956) and deconstructing arguments for logic, for example (Zohar, Weinberger, and Tamir, 1994). CT is also commonly aligned with a market based approach to education; the Conference Board of Canada encouraged Canadians to improve their CT skills to strengthen Canada’s innovative and competitive advantage in the knowledge-based global economy (Bloom & Watt, 2003) and relates CT to measurements of CT in both dispositions and skills through psychometric testing (Ennis, 1962; Facione, 1990; Sternberg, 1987; Watson & Glaser, 1980). What seems to be missing from this literature is the view of CT as collective, dialogic exercise drawing on socio-political issues. More than concerned with how an individual is able to think logically, analytically, and with reason is the concern with the individual recognising the hierarchal structures in society and the consideration of wider perspectives and ethical consequences (Apple, 2010; Freire, 1970; hooks, 1994, 2010; Postman & Weigartner, 1969). Despite the American Philosophical Association Report of CT Skills and Dispositions including ‘flexibility in considering biases, prejudices, stereotype, egocentric or socio-centric tendencies’ (Facione, 1990, p.2) these skills have remained largely ignored in the assessment of CT. Goals of coding manual The coding scheme provides a framework of CT and offers concrete descriptions of desired interaction patterns (best-practice) for the generation of CT abilities in students and teachers.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,044
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,211
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,044
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,233

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0440,211
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0120,011
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,004
Communication savante0,0050,003
Science ouverte0,0030,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0400,010

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,044
Tête enseignante GPT0,325
Écart entre enseignants0,280 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueResearchSpace (University of Auckland)→Même sujetHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→Travaux en français237 207→