Critical Thinking in Critical Courses: Principles and Applications
Abstract
This chapter contains sections titled: Learning to Teach Critical Thinking The Critical Thinking Pedagogical Framework Ideas for CT Teaching in Two Different Kinds of Courses Conclusions References
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When peer assessment provides the primary evaluative function, the staff role shifts to emphasize coaching.
“When peer assessment provides the primary evaluative function, the staff role shifts to emphasize coaching [Kuebli et al. 2008].”
From Peer and self assessment in massive online classes (2013) · cites this paper as Kuebli et al. 2008
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peer and self assessment in massive online classes
Kulkarni, C., Wei, K. P., Le, H., Chia, D., Papadopoulos, K., Cheng, J., Koller, D., & Klemmer, S. R. (2013) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/2505057 · Cited by 390 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kuebli, J. E., Harvey, R. D., & Korn, J. H.
- Affiliations
- Saint Louis University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kuebli, Janet E.
- Harvey, Richard D.
- Korn, James H.
- Venue
- Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-09-05
- Pages
- 137-148
- OpenAlex
- W1572025424
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- critical thinking, critical thinking instruction, pedagogical framework, university teaching
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
