Influence of Critical Thinking Technologies on Improvement of Students Performance During Self-Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applicability of the article is preconditioned by the requirements of information-oriented society that dictate modern youth the necessity of work with information ability, to see, to envisage and to correct logic errors. In modern world it is important to conduct reflection of own activity that maintain the necessity of critical thinking development, especially during individual acquisition of knowledge by students of higher educational establishments. Though critical thinking is introduced at school, it should be developed actively also on the next levels of education, including the level of higher education. Aims. To check complex of methods of critical thinking methods directed to the development of intellectual educational skills of students during unsupervised work. Methods: general scientific methods of information analysis were used in the research. Questionnaire method was introduced with the help of methods of the level of competency certification of Yu. Tatur, “critical analysis” of Barret, finding of logical errors of Cheifits. Qualimetric approach of the research of level of competency certification. Semantic differential tear of J. Dease. Statistic analysis was performed with the help of Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Results. During the research it was revealed that the average rate of rational thinking of all groups of respondents is on the average level and is equal to about 50%. Propensity for sweeping generalizations of students of 1-2 years of study is 10% higher, students of 2-3 years of study is for 10 % more empiric one. Empiric objectness of students of 3-4 years of study is 14,5%, and students of 1-2 years of study is from 11,4% to 12,1%. Conclusions. According to all criteria of diagnostics of efficiency of critical thinking effect on self-guided work if students positive dynamics was revealed. Students of 1-2 years of study showed higher potential for self-guided work than students of 3-4 years of study. Perspectives. Further researches can be organized in direction of development and introduction of critical thinking development for improvement of acquirement of competences with regard of future professional activity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".