Cited by 182Education and Critical Thinking DevelopmentEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Critical Thinking in Practice: The Priorities and Practices of Instructors Teaching in Higher Education

Open access
Bellaera, Lauren, Weinstein-Jones, Yana, Ilie, Sonia, Baker, Sara T.·2021·Thinking Skills and Creativity

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 · 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100856

Cites

60 of 61 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?

  • Reaching a consensus on a definition of critical thinking has been difficult, because critical thinking relies on the coordination of many different skills and is involved in many different domains.

    “Although much research has addressed both potentially related constructs, such as intelligence and wisdom, and lists of potential component aspects of human thought, such as inductive or deductive reasoning (for reviews of all of these, see Sternberg and Funke 2019), reaching a consensus on a definition has been difficult, because CT relies on the coordination of many different skills (Bellaera et”

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: 4

  1. Facione, P., & Facione, N., 1992. The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory Test Manual., Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
  2. Kuhn, D. (2018). Building our best future: Thinking critically about ourselves and our world. Wessex Press.
  3. Stedman, N. R., & Adams, B. L. (2012). Identifying faculty's knowledge of critical thinking concepts and perceptions of critical thinking instruction in higher education. NACTA Journal, 56, 9 -14.
  4. Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 740-763.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bellaera, L., Weinstein-Jones, Y., Ilie, S., & Baker, S. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Massachusetts Lowell (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Bellaera, Lauren
Venue
Thinking Skills and Creativity
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
41
Pages
100856
ISSN
1871-1871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3164160368
Cited by
182
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 3
FWCI
38.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Thinking Skills and Creativity (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Apollo
Funders
US-UK Fulbright Commission
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, teaching practice, university instructors, critical thinking skills, humanities and social sciences education, research-practice gap, 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