MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294724598 · doi:10.5539/jel.v5n2p60

Adapting the Critical Thinking Assessment Test for Palestinian Universities

2016· article· en· W2294724598 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Nayamath Basha, Denise Drane, Gregory Light

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorthwestern University
KeywordsArabicCritical thinkingTest (biology)PsychologyPalestineMathematics educationPedagogyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Critical thinking is a key learning outcome for Palestinian students. However, there are no validated critical thinking tests in Arabic. Suitability of the US developed Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) for use in Palestine was assessed. The test was piloted with university students in English (n=30) and 4 questions were piloted in Arabic (n=48). Students responded favorably. Scores were comparable with US scores. Only two students found the content problematic. One-hundred-twelve Palestinian faculty reviewed the skills tested by the CAT. There was moderate agreement that they represent critical thinking. Translation of the CAT into Arabic and further study are warranted.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207