CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60Education and Critical Thinking DevelopmentEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesScience Education and Pedagogy

Enhancing Scientific Thinking Through the Development of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

Open access
Hyytinen, Heidi, Toom, Auli, Shavelson, Richard J.·2019·Redefining Scientific Thinking for Higher Education
DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-24215-2_3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-24215-2_3

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Developing critical thinking is essential to prevent superficial learning, ensuring students can analyze, evaluate, and apply knowledge to new situations, avoiding deficiencies in competence.

    “Therefore, developing critical thinking is essential to prevent superficial learning, ensuring students can analyze, evaluate, and apply knowledge to new situations, avoiding deficiencies in competence [37].”

    From Generative artificial intelligence in physiotherapy education: great potential amidst challenges- a qualitative interview study (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

    The sections “Why Do University Students Need to Be Able to Think Critically?” and “Academic Competence” link critical thinking to evaluating knowledge independently, solving complex problems, and the quality of learning. The Conclusion also describes applying connected knowledge and skills in complex situations. The source does not establish that developing critical thinking prevents superficial learning or ensures students avoid deficiencies in competence. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Easily accessible information, if not critically interpreted, can lead to insufficient understanding.

    “This aligns with previous research showing that easily accessible information, if not critically interpreted, can lead to insufficient understanding [37].”

    From Generative artificial intelligence in physiotherapy education: great potential amidst challenges- a qualitative interview study (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

    In “Why Do University Students Need to Be Able to Think Critically?” (page not provided), the chapter says that information alone is insufficient for academic education: students also need thinking skills to construct understanding. It does not address whether the information is easily accessible, so that aspect of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge (5th ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  2. Healy, A. (Ed.) (2008). Multiliteracies and diversity in education. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
  3. Korhonen, V., Inkinen, M., Mattsson, M., & Toom, A. (2017). Student engagement and the transition from the first to second year in higher education. In E. Kyndt, V. Donche, K. Trigwell, & S. Lindblom-Ylänne (Eds.), Higher education transitions: Theory and research (pp. 113-134). London: Routledge.
  4. Fischer, C. A. Chinn, K. Engelmann, J. Osborne (eds.), Scientific reasoning and argumentation: The roles of domain-specific and domain-general knowledge (pp. 56-76). New York, NY: Routledge.
  5. Shavelson, R. (2018). Discussion of papers and reflections on "exploring the limits of domain-generality". In F. Fischer, C. A. Chinn, K. Engelmann, J. Osborne (eds.), Scientific reasoning and argumentation: The roles of domain-specific and domain-general knowledge (pp. 112-118). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hyytinen, H., Toom, A., & Shavelson, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Hyytinen, Heidi
ORCID
Venue
Redefining Scientific Thinking for Higher Education
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2019
Pages
59-78
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-24215-2_3
OpenAlex
W2973813239
Cited by
60
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 2
FWCI
28.42
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Springer eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
critical thinking, scientific thinking, higher education, cognitive skills, affective dispositions, curriculum integration, learning objectives, teaching practice, assessment, constructive alignment, teaching methods

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