Exploring Organization of the National Curriculum for Development of Thinking Competency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The purpose of this study is to identify problems by reviewing the contents of the 2022 revised curriculum general guidelines and subject curriculum on student thinking, and to explore organization of the National curriculum to develop students’ thinking competency. Methods By exploring the definitions and characteristics of the ability of creative thinking and problem-solving, which are higher-order thinking processes, to establish the foundation for understanding and improving creative thinking competency and knowledge information processing competency, and identified problems by analyzing the content dealing with students’ thinking in general guidelines and subject curriculum. Additionally, the definitions and characteristics of thinking competency in the curriculum documents of Australia and British Columbia, Canada, were examined, and the thinking competency presented in the subject curriculum was analyzed. Results In the general guidelines, the definition and elements of creative thinking competency and knowledge information processing competency are not clear, and the thinking process and the relationship between higher-order thinking processes are not considered. In addition, in the subject curriculum, it fails to demonstrate how procedural knowledge can lead to the development of higher-order thinking processes or competencies. In contrast, Australian and British Columbia have established thinking competencies and elements based on research on higher-order thinking processes, presented the development levels of thinking competencies, and provided subject curriculum contents that reflected the elements of thinking competencies. Conclusions Thinking competency needs to be established considering the relationship between higher-order thinking processes, and the elements and sub-elements of thinking competency must reflect the thinking process, not just the characteristics of thinking, so that they can be specified and applied to teaching, learning, and assessment. And, presenting the development of thinking competency can be used to deepen knowledge and skills in the curriculum content system and confirm the performance of students' competency in assessment.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".