The Development of Critical Thinking Skills during Practical Training: The Perspectives of Pedagogical Supervisors and Sports and Physical Education Trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Republic of Congo, formal teacher training is comprised of both theoretical and practical components. Theoretical training takes the form of theoretical courses within the training institution itself. On the other hand, practical training takes place in professional settings such as secondary school. The purpose of this comparative study was to identify the conceptions of critical thinking development held by pedagogical supervisors and student trainees. Rooted in a qualitative methodological approach, this research was based on Eric Lavertu's (2013) conceptual approach to the development of critical thinking during internships. Eight (08) pedagogical supervisors and nineteen (19) student-interns voluntarily participated in the study via focus groups. The results revealed a categorization of several didactic-pedagogical devices for the development of student-interns' critical thinking, according to both the pedagogical supervisors and the studentinterns themselves. To foster the development of critical thinking in student trainees, the devices mentioned specify that the supervisor must implement a supervisory pedagogical approach anchored in a socio-constructivist paradigm to accompany the student's development while employing a reflective approach in coaching. In addition, these systems stress the importance of placing the student at the center of their learning, making them a real player in their own development.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".