CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 183Education and Critical Thinking DevelopmentEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Does explicit teaching of critical thinking improve critical thinking skills of English language learners in higher education? A critical review of causal evidence

Open access
El Soufi, Nada, See, Beng Huat·2019·Studies in Educational Evaluation
DOI 10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.12.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.12.006

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Reviews of the literature on how to effectively teach critical thinking identify mostly poorly designed studies with weak (if any) evidence of effectiveness.

    “Reviews of the literature on the question of how to effectively teach critical thinking identify mostly poorly designed studies with weak (if any) evidence of effectiveness (El Soufi & See, 2019).”

    From Lessons from the field: Isn't it just common sense? Naïve realism as a barrier to learning (2024) · cites this paper as El Soufi & See, 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 94 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
El Soufi, N., & See, B. H.
Affiliations
Durham University (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Studies in Educational Evaluation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
60
Pages
140-162
ISSN
0191-491X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.12.006
OpenAlex
W2907818351
Cited by
183
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 4
FWCI
43.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Studies In Educational Evaluation (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
critical thinking, explicit instruction, English language learners, higher education, critical thinking skills, teaching methods, evidence of effectiveness, methodological quality

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