University lecturers’ lived experiences of teaching critical thinking in Australian university: a hermeneutic phenomenological research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study explores insights into the phenomenon of Australian lecturers’ lived experiences of teaching standalone critical thinking units within associate degree courses at one university in Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. The study makes an original contribution by focusing upon the experiences of teaching staff in Australian universities in relation to teaching critical thinking, particularly from a Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenological and Gadamerian hermeneutic theoretical and conceptual framework. At present, there are no unified methods, frameworks, or models of teaching critical thinking in Australian higher education. This problem for lecturers is an important aspect of a university education that is not well understood. This is a global educational issue and is a matter of teaching and learning concern worldwide in tertiary education (e.g. United States of America, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK). Although, several studies have been conducted on teaching critical thinking from the perspective of university lecturers. There is limited research that focus on teaching staff in Australian universities’ experience with teaching critical thinking that has used Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology and Gadamer’s hermeneutic circle, interpretive approach in gathering data. Using interviews, data is conducted with three first-year undergraduate Australian university Ph.D. lecturers. During the analysis of the empirical data, three themes were significant in revealing the key findings: (a) Dwelling; (b) Sorge, and (c) Concern. The comprehensive understanding of the results was that the challenges university lecturers faced in developing students to thinking critically provided new pedagogical curriculum insights for the teaching and learning of a standalone critical thinking unit within the associate degree course.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".