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?
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
(1999) · Cited by 12,812
National Science Education Standards
Shea, J. H. (1995) · Journal of Geological Education · doi:10.5408/0022-1368-43.2.102 · Cited by 7,888
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain
Bloom, B., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1966) · Cited by 4,616
The Journal of College Science Teaching
(1971) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/ed048p284 · Cited by 3,332
The National Science Education Standards
McComas, W. F. (2014) · The Language of Science Education · doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-497-0_58 · Cited by 2,877
(2007) · Achieving Excellence in Medical Education · doi:10.1007/978-1-84628-317-8_10 · Cited by 2,368
South African Journal of Education
(2025) · South African Journal of Education · doi:10.15700/201409161038 · Cited by 1,713
International Handbook of Science Education
(1998) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4940-2 · Cited by 1,477
Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2 · Cited by 1,394 · cited 1×
“This view, namely that teaching for higher order thinking is important for the learning of all students in all academic tracks, is emphasized by several additional researchers (Levine, 1993; Newmann, 1990; Peterson, 1988; Pogrow, 1988, 1996; White & Frederiksen, 1998).”
BackgroundFostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.10008 · Cited by 1,346
Self-citation
Cited by
Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement.
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0027268 · Cited by 1,229
Purposely Teaching for the Promotion of Higher-order Thinking Skills: A Case of Critical Thinking
Miri, B., David, B.-C., & Uri, Z. (2007) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2 · Cited by 667
(2008) · D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) · Cited by 194
Lee, J., & Choi, H. (2017) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.015 · Cited by 160
Horn, I. S. (2008) · Mathematical Thinking and Learning · doi:10.1080/10986060802216177 · Cited by 84
Metadata
- Authors
- Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J.
- Venue
- Journal of the Learning Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.