Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity
A Reply to Ennis
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11526966 |
|---|---|
| Authors | John E McPeck (Western University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1990 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 10-10 |
| Publication date | 1990-05-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Educational Researcher (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0013-189X • E-ISSN: 1935-102X |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.2307/1176382 |
| OpenAlex | W4244517822 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 8 |
Robert Ennis' recentEducational Researcher article (1989) helps to clarify the troublesome notion of subject specificity in the growing literature on critical thinking. It brings a welcome breath of fresh air to a set of questions that has vexed research efforts and educational programs that attempt to promote critical thinking. In calling for clarification on this matter, Ennis has also raised the level of discussion about the meaning of the terms subjects, domains, and even psychological transfer. No longer can we simply gloss over questions about the precise scope and limits of the putative skills that various critical thinking programs are alleged to promote. The recent paper in this journal by Perkins and Salomon (1989) also provides a useful historical overview of just how vexing this problem has been over the past 30 years. This article both replies to Ennis and continues the discussion
Critical thinking · Epistemology · Meaning (existential · Pedagogy · Scope (computer science · Set (abstract data type · Sociology · Subject (documents · Subject matter · Computer Science · Education and Critical Thinking Development · Educational and Psychological Assessments · Educational Strategies and Epistemologies · Philosophy · Psychology
| Citations per year | 0.23 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2013 - 2023 (11) |
| Highly cited | No |