Pentagram of habits: Considering science teachers’ conceptions of “habits of mind” associated with critical thinking in several of Iran’s special gifted schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last two decades, one can see the widespread acceptance of the importance of teaching critical thinking (CT) as a 21st-century competency for all students from primary to graduate school. Lack of effective instructional strategies cause problems in developing effective CT curriculum. This research study aimed at the exploring the problem of domain-general versus domain-specific tension associated with the definition and fostering critical thinking. We examined Iranian science teachers’ conception(s) of this tension. We applied stratified random sampling for the observational phase (initial pool of participants). Using our classroom observation scale, through the lens of the Critical Thinking Consortium’s pedagogical framework (TC2) as a theoretical framework, we observed N = 27 gifted science classrooms to evaluate teachers’ instructional strategies in terms of developing CT abilities. Applying purposeful sampling, we interviewed expert teachers based on the observational phase, to investigate their understandings of CT’s general-domain habits of mind. Applying 4 + 1 classical elements as a conceptual framework, we examined various dimensions of these science teachers’ conceptualization of thinking critically. Traditional gradual reduction of interviews resulted in the development of a culturally informed five-elemental pentagram of habits of mind shared by these educators. Further, these teachers addressed some instructional strategies to embed CT in the science classes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".