Problem Based Learning to Enhance Students Critical Thinking Skill via Online Tools
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
Critical thinking in 21st century has been recognized as a skill for citizens. Critical thinking is define as the intellectual thinking skills like analyzing, reasoning, problem solving, creative thinking, making judgement and good decision maker. One way to enhance critical thinking skill is by Problem Based Learning (PBL) approach and it is already widely utilized in educational course as problem solving in learning assessment. Meanwhile, an online tool is the effective approach for teaching and learning in worldwide nowadays. Recently, the previous papers more focus on PBL and the outcome of critical thinking, but not the process, tools to support especially in the new era of learning. There is quite a few paper discuss about using online tools in PBL and critical thinking. The purpose of this review is to look into how the online tools were tackled by previous scholars and the latest trends on online tools in PBL to enhance critical thinking skill. The finding is based on past articles from the other researchers before. Hopefully, this study will contribute to the introduction of a new era of understanding the importance of PBL to enhance critical thinking skill via online tools.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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