The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research
Abstract
The claim that critical thinking is subject specific appears, to be of practical importance and theoretical interest. Its meaning is unclear, however, and discussions of its are often confusing and at cross purposes. In an attempt to clarify the topic, Ennis offers a number of distinctions, including a distinction among three versions of subject specificity: domain, epistemological, and conceptual subject specificity. He holds that the first two versions contain valuable insights, but that all three suffer from excessive vagueness of their basic concept (domain, field, and subject, respectively). If the proposed clarification and critique are appropriate, then a number of avenues of research—at both practical and theoretical levels—need to be pursued, some of which are outlined in this essay
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
Education and thinking: The role of knowledge.
Glaser, R. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.2.93 · Cited by 1,272 · cited 3×
“That knowledge about a topic is or-dinarily a necessary condition for thinking critically in the topic seems obvious and is shown by a number of studies, including several cited by Glaser (1984) in support of his infusion-only position.”
Nisbett, R. E., Fong, G. T., Lehman, D. R., & Cheng, P. W. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3672116 · Cited by 272
Cited by
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654308326084 · Cited by 977
Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654314551063 · Cited by 932
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
Higher Order Thinking Skills and Low-Achieving Students: Are They Mutually Exclusive?
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1202_1 · Cited by 631
(2018) · doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4 · Cited by 568
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ennis, R. H.
- Venue
- Educational Researcher
- Published
- 1989-04
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 4
- ISSN
- 0013-189X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2083554603
- Cited by
- 1,055
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 83.01
- 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: Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1174885
- The paper
- Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research. Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.2307/1174885
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.
