The Pedagogy of Critical Thinking: Object Design Implications for Improving Students' Thoughtful Engagement within E-Learning Environment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the author described how a model of teaching critical thinking couples with the development of learning objects may help respond to broader calls for critical thinking both as a central goal in education and as a key aspect in the ecology of 21st century e-learning environment. The model developed by the Canadian Critical Thinking Consortium is organized around a framework of four parts and involves embedding five categories of intellectual tools into the teaching of curriculum content. These tools for thought include addressing the need to focus critical inquiry on relevant background knowledge, using criteria for judgment, explicitly addressing thinking concepts, using specific thinking strategies and supporting the development of certain habits of mind. This model is informing a development project focused on designing objects that the author believes advance opportunities to teach critical thinking and better engage students. The project is a part of on-going efforts to design objects that advance “Type II” and generative characterizations and that better engage students in critical inquiry into content, support active learning, provide an extensive range of acceptable responses, involve creative tasks and require extended periods of time to complete. Although the development project is in-progress and yet to be assessed, the author offered a description of four of the objects while discussing implications of the conceptual model in their design. The author also addressed the need to assess the efficacy of using such objects to support instruction by briefly outlining a companion project where we are developing new measures to evaluate use of these objects.
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 | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".