Development of Students’ Verbal and Logical Thinking in the Course of Research Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Verbal and logical thinking is a type of thinking carried out through logical operations with concepts. The subject can learn the essential features and relationships of the reality in the course of verbal and logical thinking, operating with logical concepts. The aim of the study was to experimentally test the impact of research work on the students’ level of verbal and logical thinking. The study involved: Thinking Types, Generalization of Concepts, Classification of Objects, Comparison of Concepts by K. Goldstein. The results of the pedagogical experiment allowed stating that there was an increase in the level of verbal and logical thinking in the subjects of the experimental group as a result of special experimental work. The students of the experimental group were involved in research work in three stages: motivational and preparatory, substantive and procedural, analytical and resultant. The main forms of research work of students were: holding round tables, meetings of the student scientific community, the Council of Young Scientists; involvement of students in webinars on research programmes and grants, competitions for student research papers, introduction of students into the basics of research activities through individual consultations with supervisors, representatives of the Council of Young Scientists; preparation of abstracts, brief outline reports of conferences, articles; conducting disputes; participation in the work of the student scientific community, problem groups, workshops, laboratories. We consider the study of the relationship between the dominant type of thinking of students and the major chosen in higher educational institution as a prospect for further research.
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 | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".