MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515293885 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v62i1.56168

Teachers’ Understandings of Critical and Higher Order Thinking and What This Means for Their Teaching and Assessments

2016· article· en· W2515293885 on OpenAlex
Henry Schulz, Beverly FitzPatrick

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationHigher-order thinkingPsychologyCritical thinkingOrder (exchange)Teaching methodPedagogyCognitively Guided Instruction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical and higher order thinking is essential to education, but it is not clear what teachers understand this to mean and what role this has in their instruction. We interviewed 38 teachers in Kindergarten to Grade 9 classrooms from 14 schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, to obtain their understandings of critical and higher order thinking in social studies and science, and how this affects instruction and assessment. The teachers believed that higher order thinking was important for all students, and attempted to teach thinking; however, they were less sure of how they might assess thinking. The teachers indicated uncertainty about what higher order thinking means, and believed they were not well prepared to teach or assess higher order thinking.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.336 · 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