Building Metacognition and Critical Thinking Using a Deliberate Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the Context Based Learning (CBL) redesign of Nursing courses addressing life transitions, including by implementing group discussion, written concept analysis, group presentations, reflections on thinking and simulation performance, group skills analysis and a final paper. The purpose of the study was to determine how these strategies build metacognition and thinking in the students. Both students and faculty participants agreed the structure of the courses stimulated thinking and metacognition, especially through group discussion of the presentations based on the concept analysis. Students said listening and a safe learning environment helped them think and reflect. However, the larger the group and the more faculty controlled the group, the less thinking developed. This study provides insights into the importance of a safe learning environment, listening, group size and faculty control in the development of thinking and self-reflection in small group CBL format that may be applicable to many disciplines. Dans cet article, nous examinons la refonte, axée sur l’apprentissage fondé sur le contenu, des cours en soins infirmiers portant sur les transitions de la vie. Cette refonte comprend la mise en place de la discussion de groupe, de l’analyse de concepts à l’écrit, de présentations de groupe, de réflexions sur la pensée et de simulations, d’analyses de compétence en groupe et d’un travail final. L’étude visait à déterminer de quelle manière ces stratégies permettent de bâtir des capacités de pensée et de métacognition chez les étudiants. Les participants à l’étude, qu’ils soient étudiants ou enseignants, ont reconnu que la structure des cours avait eu pour effet de mobiliser la pensée et la métacognition, tout particulièrement lors des discussions de groupe portant sur les présentations fondées sur l’analyse des concepts. Les étudiants ont dit que l’écoute ainsi qu’un milieu d’apprentissage sûr les ont aidés à penser et à réfléchir. Toutefois, plus le nombre d’étudiants était élevé et plus les enseignants exerçaient un contrôle sur le groupe, moins la pensée trouvait à s’épanouir. Notre étude permet de mesurer l’importance d’un milieu d’apprentissage sûr, de l’écoute, de la taille du groupe et du contrôle exercé par l’enseignant dans le développement de la pensée et de l’autoréflexion dans le contexte de l’apprentissage fondé sur le contenu en petits groupes. Ces résultats pourraient s’appliquer à beaucoup d’autres disciplines.
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 | 0.023 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".