Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered
Open accessAbstract
This paper argues that Moore's specifist defence of critical thinking as ‘diverse modes of thought in the disciplines’, which appeared in Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 2011, is flawed as it entrenches relativist attitudes toward the important skill of critical thinking. The paper outlines the critical thinking debate, distinguishes between ‘top-down’, ‘bottom-up’ and ‘relativist’ approaches and locates Moore's account therein. It uses examples from one discipline-specific area, namely, the discipline of Literature, to show that the generalist approach to critical thinking does not ‘leave something out’ and outlines why teaching ‘generic’ critical thinking skills is central to tertiary education, teaching and learning, and employment opportunities for students. The paper also defends the assessment of critical thinking skills.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chigago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to teaching critical thinking. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 71-94.
- Birrell, B., & Healy, E. (2008). How are skilled migrants doing? People and Place, 16(1), 1-19.
- Davies, W.M. (2006). An 'infusion' approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking debate. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(2), 179-194.
- Ennis, R.H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sterberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9-26). New York:
- Ennis, R.H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4-10.
- Hitchcock, D. (2004). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in critical thinking. Informal Logic: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference, 24(3), 183-218.
- Ikuenobe, P. (2001). Teaching and Assessing critical thinking abilities as outcomes in an infor- mal logic course. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), 19-32.
- Larson, A.A., Britt, M.A., & Kurby, C.A. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 339-365.
- Larson, M., Britt, M.A., & Larson, A.A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25(3), 205-224.
- McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York: St. Martin's Press.
- Moore, T. (2004). The critical thinking debate: How general are general thinking skills? Higher Education Research & Development, 23(1), 3-18.
- Moore, T. (2011a). Critical thinking and disciplinary thinking: A continuing debate. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 261-274.
- Quinn, V. (1994). In defence of critical thinking as a subject: If McPeck is wrong he is wrong. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 28(1), 101-111.
- Ross, J. (2009). Employers shun overseas graduates: Surveys. Campus Review (9 November).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rubrics to assess critical thinking and information processing in undergraduate STEM courses
Reynders, G., Lantz, J., Ruder, S. M., Stanford, C. L., & Cole, R. S. (2020) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-020-00208-5 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Penkauskienė, D., Railienė, A., & Cruz, G. (2019) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1586323 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Aston, K. J. (2024) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/14697874231168341 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Ubani, M. (2025) · Religious Education · doi:10.1080/00344087.2025.2510741 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“There is an ongoing generalist versus specifist debate in the critical thinking literature (Davies 2013, 530; McPeck 1981) that also takes shape as a dispute between situated generic skill (Davies 2013) and discipline-based critical thinking (Moore 2004), but this is a debate not easily solved.”
- Authors
- Davies, M.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Davies, Martin
- ORCID
- Davies, Martin
- Venue
- Higher Education Research & Development
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-08
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 529-544
- ISSN
- 0729-4360 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8366
- OpenAlex
- W1964554908
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 33.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- philarchive.org
- Locations
- Higher Education Research & Development (publishedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Hort Innovation
- 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, relativism, top-down and bottom-up approaches, critical thinking assessment, higher education, employability
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
