The Role of Using Case Studies Method in Improving Students' Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education
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
Investigating the use of case studies as a teaching strategy to enhance the critical thinking skills of the students is the basic objective of this study. By discovering content and procedural issues, best practices are investigated and ways are discovered to foster critical thinking, as a result of which the students tend to develop the ability to think critically. This research employed mixed research methods and used the SPSS program for data analysis. The participants in this research are 42 students from the business management program of leadership and group dynamics course in applied sciences university (ASU) in the kingdom of Bahrain. Based on the research findings, the critical thinking skills of the students have been a consequence of the case study method. The findings of this research may have significant value for other higher education institutions in the wider Gulf region. If the case studies method is used in teaching, it will greatly contribute to the leadership and group dynamics educators in nurturing active learning. Additionally, it is likely to inculcate critical thinking skills, which are highly significant to develop leadership capabilities.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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