Instructional Strategies for Developing Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>In English as first language contexts, clear requirement for critical thinking (CT) has been listed in teaching guidelines and assessment criteria in higher education. At present, fostering language learners to be critical thinkers is valued in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching as well; yet how to achieve the objective remains a challenge. Efforts have been made to seek appropriate ways to develop CT in various courses; although no single method has emerged as the best, some do seem to be effective when properly implemented. This paper focuses on three sets of research-supported teaching strategies which are useful in promoting CT and applicable to EFL classrooms; that is, explicit instruction, teacher questioning, as well as active and cooperative learning strategies. Meanwhile, common features of effective CT instruction are discussed, which aims to illuminate instructional strategies for CT at a macro level.</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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it