Critical Thinking among Post-Graduate Diploma in Education Students in Higher Education: Reality or Fuss?
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
Critical thinking is recognised as an influential attribute to achieve quality learning and teaching in higher education institutions world over. This interpretive research study explored the critical thinking among PGDE students at the University of Botswana. The aim of the study was to identify factors contributing to the application of critical thinking among teacher trainees. Data was collected from Cohort 2015/16 PGDE students, through one on one interview with 59 students and 2 focus group discussions comprising five students in each focus group between April to June 2016. The findings revealed that the teacher trainees had a lower description of critical thinking during interviews, but refined during focus group discussions; however, the students were wide aware of factors influencing their inabilities to think critically during their training. These finding clearly indicated that most students were not applying critical thinking during their training. Through the interviews and focus group discussion, the study also identified strategies to promote the application of critical thinking in areas of programme content, teaching and assessment methods and techniques, programme logistics and personal attributes. The findings are instrumental to various key stakeholders. Specifically, the findings inform education institutions, teacher educators and students on how to promote critical thinking during teacher training. The study was qualitative, as such the findings will not be generalised. As such a similar study is recommended among the PGDE and other students but using quantitative and or mixed methods to allow inferences and generalisations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it