Program Development for Primary School Teachers’ Critical Thinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this research were: 1) to study the elements and indicators of primary school teachers’ critical thinking, 2) to study current situation, desirable situation, development technique, and need for developing the primary school teachers’ critical thinking, 3) to develop the program for developing the primary school teachers’ critical thinking, and 4) to study the findings of usage in development program for primary school teachers’ critical thinking by using Research and Development. The samples were 384 primary school teachers, and 34 volunteered teachers to participate in development by using questionnaire, evaluation form, and tests. The statistic using for data analysis included the percentage, mean, standard deviation, modified priority needs index (PNImodified), and t-test. The research findings found that: 1) the elements and indicators of primary school teachers’ critical thinking consisted of 3 elements and 12 indicators of critical thinking ability, and 6 elements and 24 indicators of critical thinking disposition, 2) the current situation of primary school teachers’ critical thinking was in “High” level, for desirable situation, it was in “The Highest” level, 3) the development program, consisted of: the principles, objectives, contents, and development activities included 4 Parts, Part 1: the readiness preparation, Part 2: training, Part 3: integration with work practice, and Part 4: posttest, and measurement and evaluation. 4. The posttest score was significantly higher than the pretest score at .01 level.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".