MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396912692 · doi:10.5539/elt.v17n6p25

Research on Cultivating Critical Thinking in High School English Reading Teaching

2024· article· en· W4396912692 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHigher Education and Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyReading (process)Mathematics educationCritical thinkingPedagogyTeaching methodCritical readingLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With a focus on fostering core competencies, nurturing students’ critical thinking has emerged as a crucial facet of English reading instruction. However, current English reading instruction in high schools tends to neglect the cultivation of critical thinking, leading to a widespread phenomenon of “absence of speculation” in teaching. Therefore, this study aims to explore effective strategies, including designing teaching objectives for critical thinking, utilizing visual aids, introducing cognitive level questioning, and implementing embedded evaluation for cultivating critical thinking in high school English reading instruction. The findings of the study provide insights for constructing a coherent framework for critical thinking teaching.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.385 · 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