Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39590636›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2024

Breaking Down the Concept of Students' Thinking and Reasoning Skills for Implementation in the Classroom.

Liena Hačatrjana, Dace Namsone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Liena HačatrjanaFaculty of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Latvia, LV-1586 Riga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0001-5961-3619
Dace NamsoneFaculty of Sciences and Technologies, The Interdisciplinary Center for Educational Innovations, University of Latvia, LV-1004 Riga, Latvia.

Funding

State Research Program of Latvia Project Nr. VPP-LETONIKA-2021/1-0010
6 · The paper itself

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

cognitive processescurriculumHOT skillsinterdisciplinarypolicy papersreasoningsciencessocial sciencesthinking skills

Identifiers

PMID39590636
PMCPMC11595829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.