English Language and Literature Students’ Perceptions of Critical Thinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fundamental purpose of the function of thinking is to attribute meaning to events in our lives, classify these events into categories and identify them subjectively. As an important dimension of education on thinking, the teaching of critical thinking since the 1950s has attained a wide conceptual framework. Accepted as a factor that facilitates the aquisition and comprehension of information, critical thinking is a desirable learning outcome of education. Some of the characteristics and properties of critical thinking are being aware, systematic, flexible and patient, encompassing open-meaning, metacognition, reconstruction, motivation and discussion. From this point, the perceptions of the students of Karabuk University, English Language and Literature Department, regarding critical thinking, were investigated in detail, in the Spring semester of the academic year 2017-2018. This study is a descriptive one and utilises the survey model to determine the levels of critical thinking in 222 teacher candidates, comprised of students ranging from freshmen to seniors and from both daytime and evening education. The findings have been evaluated and a set of conclusions have been drawn. While a statistical difference according to classes was not found when Anova results were analysed on the sub-dimensions of metacognition, flexibility, systematicity, open-mindedness, a difference was found between the sophomore and senior students on the sub-dimension of perseverance-patience.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".