Developing Critical Thinking Dispositions through Academic Assertiveness among Higher Education Students in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research delves into the intricate landscape of academic assertiveness among higher education students in Thailand, focusing on developing critical thinking dispositions and related behaviors. Our investigation uncovered noteworthy patterns that resonated across diverse institutions, shedding light on the multifaceted challenges faced by students. These encompassed a common fear of negative consequences, the profound influence of cultural norms on assertive behaviors, a pervasive lack of self-confidence, a genuine desire for improved communication skills, susceptibility to peer influence, and the impact of the educational context itself. While an incremental improvement in academic assertiveness scores was discernible in the post-discussion phase, it is vital to acknowledge that this improvement did not attain statistical significance. This finding prompts reflection on the efficacy of the conducted discussion and suggests that it may need to be augmented by continuous and more potent interventions. It underscores the importance of cultivating an academic environment that values and nurtures academic assertiveness as an essential component of critical thinking development. The culmination of this study offers valuable insights into the intricate web of factors that influence academic assertiveness among higher education students. It underscores the necessity for a nuanced approach, encompassing ongoing interventions and creating a learning environment that empowers students to express themselves assertively, ultimately fostering the growth of critical thinking dispositions and behaviors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".