Reflection: A Key Component to Thinking Critically
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to think critically is an important trait of all members of society. With today’s multinational, multicultural, complex issues, citizens must be able to sift through large amounts of various data to make intelligent decisions. Thinking critically must be a focus of higher education in order to provide the intellectual training for its students to participate in this world. This qualitative study examined critical reflection through student writing as seen in three different college settings. Structured reflections were analyzed using Marzano’s New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (2001). La capacité d’exercer son esprit critique est une caractéristique importante de tous les membres de la société. De nos jours, les enjeux sont multinationaux, multiculturels et complexes. Les citoyens doivent être capables de filtrer de grandes quantités de données diverses pour prendre des décisions intelligentes. L’enseignement supérieur doit être axé sur la pensée critique afin de procurer aux étudiants la formation intellectuelle qui leur permettra de participer au monde qui les entoure. La présente étude qualitative se penche sur la réflexion critique dans les écrits des étudiants de trois différents collèges. Les chercheurs ont analysé les réflexions structurées à l’aide de la nouvelle taxonomie des objectifs pédagogiques de Marzano (2001).
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 | 0.022 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".