You never run out of 'why' : critical thinking and pre-service teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education literature is replete with articles on critical thinking in secondary and post secondary education. However, the bulk of this literature focuses on the process from the educator’s perspective of student performance and understanding of critical thinking. Very little research seems to have been done to uncover what the students themselves may think. This thesis attempts to address this lack of enquiry into student perceptions by illuminating how a group of pre-service teachers (and one long service master teacher) have experienced critical thinking in their education, and how they define and understand it. The thesis consists of a literature review that briefly examines the history of critical thinking in education, and how student understandings of critical thinking are perceived by professors and others at the post secondary level.Then, through a series of semi-structured interviews, the thesis examines the perspectives of eleven participants in comparison to those commonly held by writers and educators in the field. The data indicate that most of the participants did not acknowledge encountering critical thinking methodologies or structures during their K-12 education in any significant way, and that K-12 did not prepare them for critical thinking at the University level- and in fact often did not meet the criteria laid out in Saskatchewan Curricula. This finding is in general agreement with the literature. However, in addition, most of the students asserted that their experience indicated that high level critical thinking was not actually required for success at the undergraduate level.The data from this thesis suggest that further study may be useful in understanding how critical thinking may be better taught and encouraged at all levels of education.
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 | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".