Manifestations of Critical Thinking in Health and Physical Education Teachers: An Examination of Three Case Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the critical thinking manifestations of three Health and Physical Education (HPE) Teachers during the teaching/learning process in three elementary school HPE classes. Based on the conceptual framework of critical thinking developed by Lipman (1991, 1995, 2006), the present study describes and interprets the elements of this form of thinking in Physical Education Teachers. The results of the present study indicate that although critical thinking is not manifested in the same manner in all three teachers, it does however appear as a problem-solving process with the objective of optimizing students’ learning. Cette étude examine les manifestations de la pensée critique chez trois enseignants d’éducation physique et à la santé lors du processus enseignement-apprentissage dans trois écoles primaires. Se basant sur la conception de la pensée critique mise de l’avant par Lipman (1991, 1995, 2006), la présente étude décrit et interprète les éléments de cette forme de pensée chez des enseignants d’éducation physique et santé. Les résultats obtenus révèlent que bien que la pensée critique ne s’exprime pas de la même manière chez tous ces trois enseignants, elle apparaît toutefois comme un processus de résolution de problème avec pour principal objectif l’optimisation de l’apprentissage des élèves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".