A Critical Stand of My Own: Complementarity of Responsible Environmental Sustainability Education and Quality Thinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the teaching of education for environmental sustainability-related programs in higher education and puts forward an argument for embedded critical thinking within all courses that promote action competence and pro-environmental behaviour. Mogensen's four paradigms of critical thought - epistemological, transformative, dialectical, holistic - provide a template to expand the notion of critical thinking as one that is not limited to a higher order, analytical process suitable for a select few individuals. Drawing on diverse research literature in educational philosophy and psychology, as well as environmental sustainability educational theory and practice, an argument is put forward that without embedded critical thinking pedagogy there can be no action competence and without action competence environmental sustainability programs are deficient and powerless. Therefore it is the case that teaching environmental sustainability education without embedded critical thinking is in danger of indoctrinating students.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".