MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389171129 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v65i1.56416

Reflective Thinking among Teachers: Development and Preliminary Validation of Reflective Thinking for Teachers Questionnaire

2019· article· en· W4389171129 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Chee Choy, Mun Yee Lee, Daljeet Singh Sedhu

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisExploratory factor analysisStructural equation modelingHumanitiesPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyStatisticsMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the development and validation of the 32-item Reflective Thinking for Teachers Questionnaire (RTTQ) designed to assess the process of reflective thinking among teachers. The process of instrument development and validation is described, along with a review of relevant literature related to the process of reflective thinking. An exploratory factor analysis and a subsequent confirmatory factor analysis of the responses of a large sample (N = 659) was carried out. The results of the study showed that the structural equation model developed fitted the questionnaire data well. The confirmatory factor analysis produced goodness of fit indices within an acceptable range, and the questionnaire appeared to be a reliable instrument that would assist in the assessment and improvement of the quality of reflective thinking among teachers. Cet article décrit le développement et la validation du questionnaire à 32 questions portant sur l’évaluation des compétences de la pensée critique chez les enseignants (Reflective Thinking for Teachers Questionnaire). Nous décrivons le processus d’élaboration et de validation du questionnaire, et présentons un examen de la littérature sur la pensée réflexive. Les réponses d’un échantillon de taille importante (N = 659) ont été soumises à une analyse factorielle exploratoire suivie d’une analyse factorielle confirmatoire. Les résultats indiquent que le modèle d’équation structurelle élaboré s’ajuste bien aux données du questionnaire. L’analyse factorielle confirmatoire a produit des valeurs élevées pour la qualité d’ajustement se situant dans une fourchette acceptable, et le questionnaire semble avoir été un outil fiable pour appuyer l’évaluation et l’amélioration de la qualité de la pensée réflexive chez les enseignants. Mots clés : pensée réflexive; formation des enseignants; validation d’instruments; élaboration d’instruments; pensée critique

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.393 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207