Secondary School Teachers' Conceptions of Critical Thinking\nin British Columbia and Japan: A Comparative Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical thinking has received much attention among\neducators yet remains largely undeveloped in traditional teacher-centered\nclassrooms. A study was conducted to: (1) obtain a sense of what secondary\nschool teachers believe critical thinking entails; (2) compare and contrast\nBritish Columbia (BC), Canada, and Japanese secondary teachers' conceptions\nof critical thinking; (3) investigate the nature of BC and Japanese secondary\nteachers' conceptions of critical thinking with respect to gender, age,\nteaching experience, and subject taught; and (4) determine whether critical\nthinking is a significant part of BC and Japanese teaching and the curriculum\nat the secondary level. Over 150 teachers from BC and Japan were asked to:\n(1) sort through 50 potential definers denoting possible attributes of\ncritical thinking; (2) rank the 10 most significant; and (3) answer a\nquestionnaire about the nature of critical thinking. Quantitative data,\nreduced through factor analysis, yielded a 5-factor solution: Scientific\nReasoning, Cognitive Strategizing, Conscientious Judgments, Relevance, and\nIntellectual Engagement. From a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative\ndata from teachers surveyed as well as expert opinion, critical thinking was\nfound to be a process in which an individual is actively engaged in\nanalyzing, reasoning, questioning, and searching for alternatives to solve a\nproblem or to make a decision or judgment. While over half the teachers\nindicated critical thinking was part of their curriculum and teaching, many\nwere unable to articulate how to teach it effectively, and there were\nsignificant differences in their conceptions of 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".