Examination of Critical Thinking Skills of Preservice Science Teachers: A Perspective of Social Constructivist Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the critical thinking skills of preservice science teachers in terms of various variables (gender, grade level, academic grade point average, participation in activities) and their opinions. In the research, sequential explanatory design, which is one of the mixed method research designs, was used. The study was carried out with 200 preservice teachers studying at Science Education Department of a state university chosen at Cappadocia region of Turkey. Interviews were conducted with low-level (f=7) and high-level (f=7) preservice teachers selected by means of purposive sampling method from these pre-service teachers participating in the study. Regarding the quantitative and qualitative data obtained; it has been determined that the critical thinking skills of the preservice teachers did not show any significant difference according to gender, grade level and academic grade point average, but there was a significant difference in terms of the activities performed. Preservice teachers expressed that their family structures, social environments in which they interact, and characteristic features were said to be effective in the development of critical thinking skills. Regarding the findings, it has been concluded that trainings that will evoke higher level skills such as critical thinking skills in universities can be effective, but the social and cultural background of the preservice teachers are also effective on these skills. It is recommended to prepare contents that enhance higher level skills such as critical thinking skills as well as education for pedagogy or content knowledge given at universities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".