A Review of Research on the Use of Higher Order Thinking Skills to Teach Writing
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
This paper reviews the literature on the teaching of higher order thinking skills to teach writing in Malaysian context. The issues pertaining the usage of higher order thinking skills to teach writing are also discussed in this paper. ESL teachers are only trained to ask Higher Order Thinking Skills questions where the teaching of writing is concerned but most of them have very little knowledge on implementing the pedagogical knowledge of higher order thinking skills. Despite having multiples of programs to help teachers to infuse higher order thinking skills to teach writing, past studies have reported that teachers were not prepared to teach higher order thinking skills in their own classrooms. Hence, this paper further analyses the need to investigate the issues that are related on the usage of higher order thinking skills to the teaching of writing which needs immediate attention.
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 | 0.009 | 0.496 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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