Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 631

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Higher Order Thinking Skills and Low-Achieving Students: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

Zohar, Anat, Dori, Yehudit J.·2003·Journal of the Learning Sciences

Abstract

Fostering students' higher order thinking skills is considered an important educational goal. Although learning theories see the development of students' thinking as an important goal for all students, teachers often believe that stimulating higher order thinking is appropriate only for high-achieving students. According to this view, low-achieving students are, by and large, unable to deal with tasks that require higher order thinking skills and should thus be spared the frustration generated by such tasks. Because this view may cause teachers to treat students in a nonegalitarian way, it is important to find out whether or not it is supported by empirical evidence. The goal of this study is to examine this issue in light of four different studies, by asking the following question: Do low-achieving students gain from teaching and learning processes that are designed to foster higher order thinking skills? Each of the4 studies addressed a different project whose goal was to teach higher order thinking in science classrooms. Following a brief general description of each project, we provide an analysis of its effects on students with low and high achievements. The findings show that by the end of each of the 4 programs, students with high academic achievements gained higher thinking scores than their peers with low academic achievements. However, students of both subgroups made considerable progress with respect to their initial score. In one of the 4 studies the net gain of low achievers was significantly higher than for high achievers. Our findings strongly suggest that teachers should encourage students of all academic levels to engage in tasks that involve higher order thinking skills.

Overview

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 · 10.1207/s15327809jls1202_1

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Cited by

See all 631

Metadata

Authors
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J.
Venue
Journal of the Learning Sciences
Published
2003-04
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
145-181
ISSN
  • 1050-8406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7809
OpenAlex
W2068368418
Cited by
631
References
56
FWCI
40.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Higher Order Thinking Skills and Low-Achieving Students: Are They Mutually Exclusive? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15327809jls1202_1
The paper
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher Order Thinking Skills and Low-Achieving Students: Are They Mutually Exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1202_1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.