Le développement de la pensée critique au collégial: étude de cas sur un groupe classe en psychologie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine, selon une approche empirique, le développement de la pensée critique dans le cadre d'un enseignement disciplinaire au collégial. La méthode utilisée est celle de l'étude de cas qui a permis, durant les quatre mois d'un trimestre, de recueillir une diversité de données sur un groupe classe en psychologie, à l'aide de l'observation participante, de l'entrevue et de l'analyse documentaire. Les résultats semblent établir qu'une stratégie d'enseignement axée sur le développement de quelques capacités de la pensée critique parvient à faire progresser de façon sensible les élèves sur ces capacités, notamment quant à l'évaluation de la crédibilité d'une source et quant au respect des étapes du processus de résolution d'un problème.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".