Do Active-Learning Strategies Improve Students’ Critical Thinking?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving students’ ability to recognize work-related problems and apply effective strategies and solutions to fundamental challenges in the field is at the crux of a good college preparation. This paper attempts to investigate if active-learning strategies improve students’ critical thinking ability in this regard. Participants were pre-service teachers in physical education and athletic training education taking a teaching methods service-learning course. Findings showed significant improvement with critical thinking measures across both quasi experimental conditions. As a result, gains were largely attributed to the service-learning field component common to both conditions. Furthermore, academic tracking showed students pursuing a B.A. in physical education benefitted significantly more from the active-learning assessment than students pursuing a B.S. in athletic training. The paper also discusses how the active-learning sequence was a preferred method of instruction and how these strategies were purposeful with problematizing teaching situations and engaging students with course content. This paper may draw interest from educators who are research-minded and eager to apply critical thinking approaches in a learning environment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it