Promoting university students’ critical thinking skills through peer feedback activity in an online discussion forum
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the impact of the critical inquiry model through peer feedback strategies in an online environment on university students’ critical thinking skills and examined their attitudes towards learning through the critical inquiry model and peer feedback strategies. Pre- and post-tests were employed to measure critical thinking skills based on Bloom’s questioning cognitive levels, together with a rubric designed to assess significant abilities involved in critical thinking in a domain-explicit manner. A questionnaire was used to investigate students’ attitudes. The findings reported an increase in the post-test mean scores, showing that the application of the critical inquiry model and peer feedback strategy can promote critical thinking skills. Results from the questionnaire suggested that students who used the critical inquiry model to provide peer feedback had favorable attitudes toward learning, higher levels of motivation, and increased levels of confidence when using discussions with peers in an online forum. Cette étude a examiné, d’un part, l’impact du modèle de recherche critique par les stratégies qu’emploient des étudiants à l’université pour la rétroaction des pairs en ligne et, d’autre part, les attitudes de ceux-ci relatives à l’apprentissage par le modèle de recherche critique et la rétroaction des pairs. Une analyse des pré- et post-tests et une rubrique conçue pour évaluer, en fonction de certains domaines, des habiletés significatives impliquées dans la pensée critique ont servi dans l’évaluation des aptitudes de réflexion critique selon les niveaux d’aptitudes cognitives de Bloom. Les attitudes des étudiants ont été recueillies par un questionnaire. Les résultats révèlent une augmentation dans le score moyen au post-test, indiquant ainsi que l’application du modèle de recherche critique et les stratégies de rétroaction des pairs peuvent développer la pensée critique. Selon les réponses au questionnaire, les étudiants s’étant servi du modèle de réflexion critique pour offrir de la rétroaction à leurs pairs avaient des attitudes favorables face à l’apprentissage, un niveau de motivation plus élevé et plus de confiance lors des discussions avec les pairs dans un forum en ligne.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it