ArticleJournal of Intelligence2024
Breaking Down the Concept of Students' Thinking and Reasoning Skills for Implementation in the Classroom.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An Editorial Introduction to Critical Thinking in Everyday Settings.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Various skills related to critical thinking, reasoning, and scientific reasoning are defined as essential for students in policy documents and curricula around the world as essential both in school and in everyday life. However, these concepts are often too vaguely defined and explained for a clear implementation in the classroom. In this conceptual article, the authors propose the following questions: (1) How are the concepts of thinking and reasoning as defined in policy documents reflected in curriculum descriptions across different disciplines? (2) To what extent do reasoning activities and processes overlap across different disciplines? (3) How can reasoning skills (particularly: analysis, evaluation, and creation) be described based on reasoning activities or processes and the outputs or products? Based on the literature review, it is concluded that researchers in various science disciplines have defined the aspects of reasoning that are typical for their respective disciplines, considering content, procedural knowledge, and epistemic knowledge. Meanwhile, looking from the perspective of cognitive psychology, it is concluded that reasoning processes (deductive, inductive, and analogical reasoning) are activated in the mind while students engage in reasoning activities (such as analysis, evaluation, and synthesis). Thus, similar cognitive processes occur in the mind, despite a student working in different disciplines. A conceptual framework is offered in this article showing (1) how reasoning processes and activities manifest themselves in different study domains both from a theoretical perspective and in everyday classroom work; and (2) what kind of outputs could be expected from students based on various reasoning activities. The importance of interdisciplinary collaboration is justified so that students develop their reasoning skills holistically, not fragmentarily.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.