A transnational comparative study of preservice teachers’ critical thinking skills and metaliteracy self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose While training students to new literacy and critical thinking has been recognized for several decades, it seems even more crucial today as education is presented as a lever to fight against fake news. Preservice teachers, both so-called digital natives at the cutting edge of the social web and tomorrow’s educators, represent a useful object of study. The purpose of this paper is to describe preservice teachers’ critical thinking skills scores notably regarding environmental factors (training type, country of study and employment) and personal determinants (metaliteracy self-efficacy and belief in the likelihood to become a teacher) in three French-speaking nations (Wallonia, France and Quebec). Design/methodology/approach Using a quantitative methodology, this article is part of sequential mixed design research aiming to describe the level of preservice teachers’ ( n = 245) critical thinking in three French-speaking nations: Wallonia, France and Quebec. This study aimed to see to what extent critical thinking skills (measured with a translated version of the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment; Halpern, 2016) can notably be influenced by metaliteracy self-efficacy (MASE). Metaliteracy is a concept that aims to join information, digital and media literacy providing a comprehensive framework “for engaging with individuals and ideas in digital environments” (Mackey and Jacobson, 2011, p. 70). Findings This study establishes the influence of individual determinants such as the feelings of self-efficacy in metaliteracy as well as the belief in the likelihood of becoming a teacher. This study proposes a model predicting the critical thinking skills based on self-efficacy in critical thinking and metaliteracy, the type of training and the interaction between employment and the country of study. Originality/value Considering contemporary information issues and infodemic phenomena, critical thinking skills should be developed among preservice teachers. There is a significant positive correlation between MASE and critical thinking skills. Pre-service teachers’ country of study, as well as their training trajectory, seems to influence their critical thinking skills. Involvement in professional life also appears to promote critical thinking skills.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".