Crucial Cognitive Skills in Science Education: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review focuses on identifying three common cognitive skills in science education—process skills, critical thinking skills, and reasoning skills—in order to find the crucial skills in science education. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were created. In total, 78 articles published in 17 countries, namely the USA, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, Palestine, Thailand, Nigeria, Jamaica, Israel, Kenya, Oman, Columbia, China, Philippines, Korea, Canada, were selected. The reviewed studies were published from 1998 to 2019. Fifty-seven studies were reported as journal publications and 21 studies came from conference proceedings. The results indicate that crucial skills exist such as science process skills (inference, measuring, identifying and controlling variable, definition operational variable, and explanation), critical thinking skills (interpreting data, inference, and evaluation), and reasoning skills (all subskills), and also revealed the relationship among them. This study concludes that the crucial skills in science education are mostly located in the reasoning skills domain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".