Questions of Development of Students’ Functional Literacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The article is devoted to the definition of critical thinking skills, the stimulation of critical thinking in language teaching. One of the requirements of the global linguistic globalisation is functional literacy, which involves a degree of native languages. Today the objective historical principal is the nomination of more serious requirements to the knowledge level and skills of students. Background: In the current realities, the educational process in higher education institutions should focus on building skills that contribute to the implementation of the concept of “education throughout life”. It is obvious that the main condition for the formation of such skills is the presence of a certain level of functional literacy. Method: To test the hypothesis of the research and achieve the objectives the following methods have been used: theoretical: analysis of pedagogical, philosophical, psychological literature on research; empirical: observation, analysis of results of operations, testing, conducting formative, notes and summarising experiments; statistical: mathematical processing of experimental results. Results: The results of experimental work have shown positive changes in all indicators of the activity component. Significantly reduce the number of students who own conclusions and explanations skills at a low level. Conclusion: To ensure the efficiency of the formation of functional literacy encourage students to apply the technology of critical thinking, which can be used to form the organisational, intellectual and other skills, including the ability to carry out activities of teaching independently.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".