Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the changes in teachers' conceptions of critical thinking as they implemented a new curriculum resource that was based on a critical thinking approach. It described the teachers' ideas about the purposes for, benefits of, problems encountered while, and conditions requisite to teaching critical thinking. It also took into account the changes in teachers' conceptions of critical thinking within the unique context of a faith-based independent school. The school was located in a large metropolitan district in British Columbia. Three intermediate teachers (grades five and six) in one elementary school were interviewed at the beginning, middle and end of the implementation period to gather their perceptions about teaching critical thinking while using the new materials. The interview transcripts were analyzed for indicators of change for each teacher's conception of teaching critical thinking, and then analyzed for similarities and differences between the teachers' reported experiences. It was found that the first year teacher, who was very knowledgeable about the new resource through her university training, experienced change by way of disappointment from unmet expectations and struggled to implement the critical thinking pedagogy and curriculum content due to various complexities associated with being a beginning teacher. Another teacher with a dozen years of classroom experience enthusiastically implemented the new unit and was highly focused on the execution of the lessons. She, however, did not invest time in reviewing the introductory information where the critical thinking conception and pedagogical approach were explained. Consequently, her conception of critical thinking and pedagogy did not change significantly. The third participant had twenty-six years of experience in the study school and possessed a basic understanding of critical thinking. She was hesitant to be involved in implementing a new curriculum resource because she anticipated being stretched professionally. Ultimately, she experienced ongoing changes in her conception of critical thinking that affected various aspects of her work as a classroom teacher. All three participants indicated the value of teaching critical thinking in tandem with the faith perspective that is integrated into all aspects of the curriculum at this particular independent school.
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 | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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; 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".