The Effect of Information Literacy on Teachers’ Critical Thinking Disposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concepts of information literacy and critical thinking are two important concepts of today’s information and technology age closely related to each other and sometimes used interchangeably. The purpose of the current study is to explore the relationship between the secondary school teachers’ critical thinking disposition and information literacy. The study was conducted in line with relational survey model. The study group of the research is comprised of 626 secondary school teachers working in 22 secondary schools located in the Şehzadeler province of the city of Manisa in Turkey. The scales were administered to all the teachers in the study group. However, the total number of teachers sampled resulted in 473 (75.56%) usable survey protocols. In the collection of the research data, Turkish adaptation of California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI-T) and Information Literacy Scale were used. The findings of the study revealed that the teachers’ critical thinking disposition and their information literacy levels are “low”. Besides, it was found that there is a significant, positive and bilateral relationship between the teachers’ critical thinking disposition and information literacy. Moreover, the regression analysis results indicate that the dimensions of information literacy level explain 15% of critical 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".