Self-Efficacy Based Instruction: Exploring the Correlation between Writing Self-Efficacy and Critical Thinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical thinking serves as a pivotal gauge of learners’ scholastic and professional achievements. It is recognised as an integral component of higher education, as it meets one of the educational prerequisites of this era. Learners of higher education are expected to acquire critical thinking skills, entrepreneurial skills, application skills, communication skills, presentation skills, organisational skills, cognitive skills, technology skills and digital literacy. In order to meet the educational demands of the present era, higher-education learners need to possess the ability to think critically. The current study employs self-efficacy strategies through activities namely, generating ideas (ideation), expressing ideas (conventions), managing writing (self-regulation) to foster self-efficacy in writing skills and critical thinking skills among the undergraduate learners by emphasising the association between writing and thinking. L2 Writer Self-Efficacy Scale (L2WSS) questionnaire was administered to assess the existing level of writing self-efficacy among the learners. The hypothesis formulated for this study was assessed by conducting a pre- and post-test to the samples comprising eighty-two students. The evaluation was carried out using two distinct rubrics, namely, The Criteria for Evaluating CT in L2 Writing and Rubric for grading scholarly paper assignment. The results revealed that the learners’ Writing Self-Efficacy (WSE) and critical thinking skills were enhanced. It was observed from Pearson correlation coefficient that there was a positive relationship between WSE and critical thinking. In addition, a comprehensive qualitative analysis was conducted through interviews, which elucidated the L2 learners’ positive perceptions of WSE and critical thinking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".