about the world
Seven dimensions evaluated for the 3 different components of each C.
Aspects of the overall educational program teaching, emphasizing, and promoting the 4Cs | |
Availability and access to different means, materials, space, and expertise, digital technologies, mnemonic and heuristic methods, etc. to assist in the proper use and exercise of the 4Cs | |
Actual student and program use of available resources promoting the 4Cs | |
Critical reflection and metacognition on the process being engaged in around the 4Cs | |
The formal and informal training, skills, and abilities of teachers/trainers and staff and their program of development as promoters of the 4Cs | |
Use and integration of the full range of resources external to the institution available to enhance the 4Cs | |
Availability of resources for students to create and actualize products, programs, events, etc. that require the exercise, promotion, or manifestation of the 4Cs |
* Educational-level dependent and potentially less available for younger students or in some contexts.
The grid itself can be used in several important and different ways by different educational stakeholders: (1) by the institution itself in its self-evaluation and possible preparation for a certification or labelization process, (2) as an explicit list of criteria for external evaluation of the institution and its 4Cs-related programs, and (3) as a potential long-term development targeting tool for the institution or the institution in dialogue with the labelization process.
Dropping the component of “creative person” that is not relevant at the institutional level, this evaluation grid is based on Rhodes’ ( 1961 ) classic “4P” model of creativity, which remains the most concise model today ( Lubart and Thornhill-Miller 2019 ). The three “P” components retained are: creative process , creative environment , and creative product . Creative process refers to the acquisition of a set of tools and techniques that students can use to enhance the creativity of their thinking and work. Creative environment (also called “Press” in earlier literature) is about how the physical and social surroundings of students can help them be more creative. Finally, creative product refers to the evaluation of actual “productions” (e.g., a piece of art, text, speech, etc.) generated through the creative process.
Our evaluation grid divides critical thinking into three main components: critical thinking about the world , critical thinking about oneself (self-reflection), as well as critical action and decision making . The first component refers to having an evidence-based view of the exterior world, notably by identifying and evaluating sources of information and using them to question current understandings and solve problems. Self-reflection refers to thinking critically about one’s own life situation, values, and actions; it presupposes the autonomy of thought and a certain distance as well as the most objective observation possible with regard to one’s own knowledge (“meta-cognition”). The third and final component, critical action and decision making, is about using critical thinking skills more practically in order to make appropriate life decisions as well as to be open to different points of view. This component also addresses soft skills and attitudes such as trusting information.
Our evaluation framework for critical thinking was in part inspired by Barnett’s “curriculum for critical being” (2015), whose model distinguishes two axes: one defined by the qualitative differences in the level of criticality attained and the second comprised of three different domains of application: formal knowledge, the self, and the world. The first two components of our framework (and the seven dimensions on which they are rated) reflect and encompass these three domains. Similar to Barrett’s proposal, our third rubric moves beyond the “skills-plus-dispositions” model of competency implicit in much theorizing about critical thinking and adds the importance of “action”—not just the ability to think critically and the disposition to do so, but the central importance of training and practicing “critical doing” ( Barnett 2015 ). Critical thinking should also be exercised collectively by involving students in collective thinking, facilitating the exchange of ideas and civic engagement ( Huber and Kuncel 2016 ).
The first component of collaboration skills in the IICD grid is engagement and participation , referring to the active engagement in group work. Perspective taking and openness concerns the flexibility to work with and accommodate other group members and their points of view. The final dimension— social regulation —is about being able to reach for a common goal, notably through compromise and negotiation, as well as being aware of the different types of roles that group members can hold ( Hesse et al. 2015 ; Rusdin and Ali 2019 ; Care et al. 2016 ). (These last two components include elements of leadership, character, and emotional intelligence as sometimes described in other soft-skill and competency-related systems.) Participation, social regulation, and perspective taking have been identified as central social skills in collaborative problem solving ( Hesse et al. 2015 ). Regarding social regulation in this context, recognizing and profiting from group diversity is key ( Graesser et al. 2018 ). When describing an assessment in an educational setting of collaborative problem solving (with a task in which two or more students have to collaborate in order to solve it, each using a different set of resources), two main underpinning skills were described for the assessment: the social skill of audience awareness (“how to adapt one’s own behavior to suit the needs of the task and the partner’s requirements”, Care et al. 2016, p. 258 ) and the cognitive skill of planning and executing (developing a plan to reach for a goal) ( Care et al. 2016 ). The former is included in the perspective taking and openness rubric and the latter in the social regulation component in the IICD grid. Evans ( 2020 ) identified four main collaboration skills consistently mentioned in the scientific literature that are assessed in the IICD grid: the ability to plan and make group decisions (example item from the IICD grid: teachers provide assistance to students to overcome differences and reach a common goal during group work); the ability to communicate about thinking with the group (assessed notably in the meta-reflection strand of the IICD grid); the ability to contribute resources, ideas, and efforts and support group members (included notably in the engagement and participation as well as the social regulation components); and finally, the ability to monitor, reflect, and adapt individual and group processes to benefit the group (example item from the IICD grid: students use perspective-taking tools and techniques in group activities).
The evaluation grid for communication is also composed of three dimensions: message formulation, message delivery, and message and communication feedback . Message formulation refers to the ability to design and structure a message to be sent, such as outlining the content of an argument. Message delivery is about effectively transmitting verbal and non-verbal aspects of a message. Finally, message and communication feedback refers to the ability of students and teachers to understand their audience, analyze their social surroundings, and interpret information in context. Other components of communication skills such as theory of mind, empathy, or emotional intelligence are also relevant and included in the process of applying the grid. Thompson ( 2020 ) proposes a four-component operationalized definition of communication for its assessment in students. First, they describe a comprehension strand covering the understanding and selection of adequate information from a range of sources. Message formulation in the IICD grid captures this dimension through its focus on content analysis and generation. Second, the presentation of information and ideas is mentioned in several different modes, adjusted to the intended audience, verbally as well as non-verbally. The message delivery component of the IICD grid focuses on these points. Third, the authors note the importance of communication technology and its advanced use. The IICD grid also covers the importance of technology use in its tools and techniques category, with, for example, an item that reads: students learn to effectively use a variety of formats of communication (social media, make a video, e-mail, letter writing, creating a document). Finally, Thompson ( 2020 ) describes the recognition of cultural and other differences as an important aspect of communication. The IICD grid aims at incorporating these aspects, notably in the meta-reflection category under each of the three dimensions.
5.1. the 4cs in informal educational contexts.
So far, the focus has been on rather formal ways of nurturing the 4Cs. Although institutions and training programs are perhaps the most significant and necessary avenues of education, they are not the sole context in which 4Cs’ learning and improvement can manifest. One other important potential learning context is game play. Games are activities that are present and participated in throughout human society—by those of all ages, genders, and socio-economic statuses ( Bateson and Martin 2013 ; Huizinga 1949 ; Malaby 2007 ). This informal setting can also provide favorable conditions to help improve the 4Cs ( van Rosmalen et al. 2014 ) and should not be under-appreciated. Games provide a unique environment for learning, as they can foster a space to freely explore possibilities and one’s own potential ( de Freitas 2006 ). We argue that games are a significant potential pathway for the improvement of the 4Cs, and as such, they merit the same attention as more formal ways of learning and developing competencies.
Compared to schools and educational institutions, the focus of IICD’s evaluation framework for games (see International Institute for Competency Development 2021 ) is more narrow. Thus, it is fundamentally different from the institutional grid: games, complex and deep as they can sometimes be, cannot directly be compared to the complexity of a school curriculum and all the programs it contains. The evaluation of a game’s effectiveness for training/improving a given C rests on the following principle: if a game presents affordances conducive to exercising a given skill, engaged playing of that game should help improve that skill.
The game’s evaluation grid is scored based on two criteria. For example, as a part of a game’s rating as a tool for the development of creativity, we determine the game must first meet two conditions. First, whether or not the game allows the opportunity for creativity to manifest itself: if creativity cannot occur in the game, it is obviously not eligible to receive ratings for that C. Second, whether or not creativity is needed in order to perform well in the game: if the players can win or achieve success in the game without needing creativity, this also means it cannot receive a rating for that C. If both conditions are met, however, the game will be considered potentially effective to improve creativity through the practice of certain components of creative behavior. This basic principle applies for all four of the Cs.
As outlined in Table 3 , below, the evaluation grid for each of the four Cs is composed of five components relevant to games that are different for each of the Cs. The grid works as follows: for each of the five components of each C, we evaluate the game on a list of sub-components using two yes/no scales: one for whether it is “possible” for that subcomponent to manifest and one for whether that sub-component is “required for success” in the game. This evaluation is done for all sub-components. After this, each general component is rated on the same two indicators. If 60% (i.e., three out of five) or more sub-components are positively rated as required, the general component is considered required. Then, the game is evaluated on its effectiveness for training and improving each of the 4Cs. If 60% or more components are positively rated as required, the game will be labelized as having the potential to be effective for training and improving the corresponding C.
Five different components evaluated for each C by the 4Cs assessment framework for games.
Originality | Divergent Thinking | Convergent Thinking | Mental Flexibility | Creative Dispositions | |
Goal-adequate judgment/ discernment | Objective thinking | Metacognition | Elaborate eeasoning | Uncertainty management | |
Collaboration fluency | Well-argued deliberation and consensus-based decision | Balance of contribution | Organization and coordination | Cognitive syncing, input, and support | |
Social Interactions | Social cognition | Mastery of written and spoken language | Verbal communication | Non-verbal communication |
The evaluation grid for creativity is based on the multivariate model of creative potential (see Section 2.1.1 and Lubart et al. 2013 for more information) and is composed of four cognitive factors and one conative factor: originality , divergent thinking , convergent thinking , mental flexibility , and creative dispositions . Originality refers to the generation of ideas that are novel or unexpected, depending on the context. Divergent thinking corresponds to the generation of multiple ideas or solutions. Convergent thinking refers to the combination of multiple ideas and the selection of the most creative idea. Mental flexibility entails changing perspectives on a given problem and breaking away from initial ideas. Finally, creative dispositions concerns multiple personality-related factors conducive to creativity, such as openness to experience or risk taking.
The evaluation grid for critical thinking echoes Halpern’s ( 1998 ) as well as Marin and Halpern’s ( 2011 ) considerations for teaching this skill, that is, taking into consideration thinking skills, metacognition, and dispositions. The five components of the critical thinking grid are: goal-adequate discernment, objective thinking, metacognition, elaborate reasoning, and uncertainty management. Goal-adequate discernment entails the formulation of inferences and the discernment of contradictions when faced with a problem. Objective thinking corresponds to the suspension of one’s own judgment and the analysis of affirmations and sources in the most objective manner possible. Metacognition, here, is about questioning and reassessing information, as well as the awareness of one’s own cognitive biases. Elaborate reasoning entails reasoning in a way that is cautious, thorough, and serious. Finally, uncertainty management refers to the dispositional propensity to tolerate ambiguity and accept doubt.
The evaluation grid for collaboration is based on the quality of collaboration (QC) method ( Burkhardt et al. 2009 ; see Section 2.4.2 for more details) and is composed of the following five components: collaboration fluidity, well-argued deliberation and consensus-based decision, balance of contribution, organization and coordination, and cognitive syncing, input, and support. Collaboration fluidity entails the absence of speech overlap and the presence of a good flow in terms of turns to speak. Well-argued deliberation and consensus-based decision is about contributing to the discussion and task at hand, as well as participating in discussions and arguments, in order to obtain a consensus. Balance of contribution refers to having equal or equivalent contributions to organization, coordination, and decision making. Organization and coordination refers to effective management of roles, time, and “deadlines”, as well as the attribution of roles depending on participants’ skills. Finally, cognitive syncing, input, and support is about bringing ideas and resources to the group, as well as supporting and reinforcing other members of the group.
The five components used to evaluate communication in games include both linguistic, pragmatic, and social aspects. Linguistic skills per se are captured by the mastery of written and spoken language component. This component assesses language comprehension and the appropriate use of vocabulary. Pragmatic skills are captured by the verbal and non-verbal communication components and refer to the efficient use of verbal and body signals in the context of the game to achieve one’s communicative goals ( Grassmann 2014 ; Matthews 2014 ). Finally, the grid also evaluates social skills with its two last components, social interactions and social cognition, which, respectively, refer to the ability to interact with others appropriately—including by complying with the rules of the game—and to the understanding of other people’ mental states ( Tomasello 2005 ).
Each of the 4Cs is a broad, multi-faceted concept that is the subject of a tremendous amount of research and discussion by a wide range of stakeholders in different disciplines, professions, and parts of the educational establishment. The development of evaluation frameworks to allow support for the 4Cs to be assessed and publicly recognized, using a label, is an important step for promoting and fostering these skills in educational contexts. As illustrated by IICD’s 4Cs Framework for educational institutions and programs, as well as its games/activities evaluation grid, the specific criteria to detect support for each C can vary depending upon the educational context (e.g., formal and institutional level or informal and at the activity level). Yet considering the 4Cs together highlights some additional observations, current challenges, and opportunities for the future that are worthy of discussion.
One very important issue for understanding the 4Cs and their educational implementation that can be simultaneously a help and a hindrance for teaching them—and also a challenge when assessing them—is their multidimensionality and interrelatedness. In other words, the 4Cs are not entirely separate entities but instead, as Figure 2 shows, should be seen as four interlinked basic “elements” for future-oriented education that can help individuals in their learning process and, together, synergistically “bootstrap” the development of their cognitive potentials. Lamri and Lubart ( 2021 ), for example, found a certain base level of creativity was a necessary but not sufficient condition for success in managerial tasks, but that high-level performance required a combination of all four Cs. Some thinkers have argued that one cannot be creative without critical thinking, which also requires creativity, for example, to come up with alternative arguments (see Paul and Elder 2006 ). Similarly, among many other interrelationships, there is no collaboration without communication—and even ostensibly individual creativity is a “collaboration” of sorts with the general culture and precursors in a given field. As a result, it ranges from impossible to suboptimal to teach (or teach towards) one of the 4Cs without involving one or more of the others, and this commingling also underscores the genuine need and appropriateness of assessing them together.
“‘Crea-Critical-Collab-ication’: a Dynamic Interactionist Model of the 4Cs”. (Illustration of the interplay and interpenetration of creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication shown in dimensional space according to their differing cognitive/individual vs. social/interpersonal emphases; (© 2023, Branden Thornhill-Miller. All Rights Reserved. thornhill-miller.com; accessed on 20 January 2023)).
From this perspective, Thornhill-Miller ( 2021 ) proposed a “dynamic interactionist model of the 4Cs” and their interrelated contributions to the future of education and work. Presented in Figure 2 , this model is meant to serve as a visual and conceptual aid for understanding the 4Cs and their interrelationships, thereby also promoting better use and understanding of them in pedagogical and policy settings. In addition to suggesting the portmanteau of “crea-critical thinking” as a new term to describe the overlap of much of the creative and critical thinking processes, the title of this model, “Crea-Critical-Collab-ication”, is a verbal representation of the fluid four-way interrelationship between the 4Cs visually represented in Figure 2 (a title meant to playfully repackage the 4Cs for important pedagogical and policy uses). This model goes further to suggest some dimensional differences in emphases that, roughly speaking, also often exist among the 4Cs: that is to say, the frequently greater emphasis on cognitive or individual elements at play in creativity and critical thinking in comparison to the social and interpersonal aspects more central to communication and collaboration ( Thornhill-Miller 2021 ).
Similarly focused on the need to promote a phase change towards future-oriented education, Lucas ( 2019 ) and colleagues have suggested conflating creative thinking and critical thinking in order to propose “3Cs” (creative thinking, communication, and collaboration) as new “foundational literacies” to symmetrically add to the 3Rs (Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic) of previous educational eras. Although we applaud these efforts, from our applied research perspective, we believe that the individual importance of, and distinct differences between, creative thinking and critical thinking support preserving them both as separate constructs in order to encourage the greatest development of each of them. Moreover, if only three categories were somehow required or preferable, one could argue that uniting communication and collaboration (as “collab-ication” suggests) might be preferable—particularly also given the fact that substantial aspects of communication are already covered within the 3Rs. In any case, we look forward to more such innovations and collaborations in this vibrant and important area of work at the crossroads between research, pedagogy, and policy development.
The rich literature in each of the 4Cs domains shows the positive effects of integrating these dimensions into educational and professional curricula. At the same time, the complexity of their definitions makes them difficult to assess, both in terms of reliability (assessment must not vary from one measurement to another) and of validity (tests must measure that which they are intended to measure). However, applied research in this area is becoming increasingly rigorous, with a growing capacity to provide the necessary tools for evidence-based practice. The development of these practices should involve interdisciplinary teams of teachers and other educational practitioners who are equipped and trained accordingly. Similarly, on the research side, further exploration and clarification of subcomponents of the 4Cs and other related skills will be important. Recent efforts to clarify the conceptual overlap and hierarchical relations of soft skills for the future of education and work, for example, have been helpful and promising (e.g., Joie-La Marle et al. 2022 ; Lamri et al. 2022 ). But the most definitive sort of taxonomy and measurement model that we are currently lacking might only be established based on the large-scale administration of a comprehensive battery of skill-measuring psychometric tests on appropriate cross sections of society.
The rapid development and integration of new technologies will also aid and change the contexts, resources, and implementation of the 4Cs. For example, the recent developments make it clear that the 4Cs will be enhanced and changed by interaction with artificially intelligence, even as 4Cs-related skills will probably, for the same reason, increasingly constitute the core of available human work in the future (see, e.g., Ross 2018 ). Similarly, research on virtual reality and creativity suggest that VR environments assist and expand individual and collaborative creativity ( Bourgeois-Bougrine et al. 2022 ). Because VR technologies offer the possibility of enhanced and materially enriched communication, collaboration, and information availability, they not only allow for the enhancement of creativity techniques but also for similar expansions and improvements on almost all forms of human activity (see Thornhill-Miller and Dupont 2016 )—including the other three Cs.
Traditional educational approaches cannot meet the educational needs of our emergent societies if they do not teach, promote, and assess in line with the new learner characteristics and contexts of the 21st century ( Sahin 2009 ). The sort of future-oriented change and development required by this shift in institutional practices, programming, and structure will likely meet with significant resistance from comfortably entrenched (and often outdated) segments of traditional educational and training establishments. Additional external evaluation and monitoring is rarely welcome by workers in any context. We believe, however, that top-down processes from the innovative and competition-conscious administrative levels will be met by bottom-up demands from students and education consumers to support these institutional changes. And we contend that efforts such as labelizing 4C processes will serve to push educators and institutions towards more relevant offerings, oriented towards the future of work and helping build a more successful future for all.
In the end, the 4Cs framework seems to be a manageable, focused model for modernizing education, and one worthy of its growing prevalence in the educational and research marketplace for a number of reasons. These reasons include the complexity and cumbersome nature of larger alternative systems and the 4Cs’ persuasive presence at the core of a number of early and industry-driven frameworks. In addition, the 4Cs have benefitted from their subsequent promotion by organizations such as the OECD and the World Economic Forum, as well as some more direct support from recent empirical research. The promotion, teaching, and assessment of the 4Cs will require a complex social intervention and mobilization of educational resources—a major shift in pedagogy and institutional structures. Yet the same evolving digital technologies that have largely caused the need for these massive, rapid changes can also assist in the implementation of solutions ( van Laar et al. 2017 ). To the extent that future research also converges on such a model (that has already been found pedagogically useful and policy-friendly by so many individuals and organizations), the 4Cs framework has the potential to become a manageable core for 21st century skills and the future of education and work—one that stakeholders with various agendas can already begin building on for a better educational and economic future together.
This research received no external funding.
Conceptualization, B.T.-M. and T.L.; writing—original draft preparation, B.T.-M., A.C., M.M., J.-M.B., T.M., S.B.-B., S.E.H., F.V., M.A.-L., C.F., D.S., F.M.; writing—review and editing, B.T.-M., A.C., T.L., J.-M.B., C.F.; visualization, B.T.-M.; supervision, B.T.-M., T.L.; project administration, B.T.-M., T.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
B.T.-M. and T.L. are unpaid academic co-founder and project collaborator for the International Institute for Competency Development, whose labelization frameworks (developed in cooperation with Afnor International and the LaPEA lab of Université Paris Cité and Université Gustave Eiffel) are used as examples in this review. S.E.H. and M.A.-L. are employees of AFNOR International. No funding was received to support this research or article, which reflects the views of the scientists and researchers and not their organizations or companies.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
With larry ferlazzo.
In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.
(This is the first post in a three-part series.)
The new question-of-the-week is:
What is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom?
This three-part series will explore what critical thinking is, if it can be specifically taught and, if so, how can teachers do so in their classrooms.
Today’s guests are Dara Laws Savage, Patrick Brown, Meg Riordan, Ph.D., and Dr. PJ Caposey. Dara, Patrick, and Meg were also guests on my 10-minute BAM! Radio Show . You can also find a list of, and links to, previous shows here.
You might also be interested in The Best Resources On Teaching & Learning Critical Thinking In The Classroom .
Dara Laws Savage is an English teacher at the Early College High School at Delaware State University, where she serves as a teacher and instructional coach and lead mentor. Dara has been teaching for 25 years (career preparation, English, photography, yearbook, newspaper, and graphic design) and has presented nationally on project-based learning and technology integration:
There is so much going on right now and there is an overload of information for us to process. Did you ever stop to think how our students are processing current events? They see news feeds, hear news reports, and scan photos and posts, but are they truly thinking about what they are hearing and seeing?
I tell my students that my job is not to give them answers but to teach them how to think about what they read and hear. So what is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom? There are just as many definitions of critical thinking as there are people trying to define it. However, the Critical Think Consortium focuses on the tools to create a thinking-based classroom rather than a definition: “Shape the climate to support thinking, create opportunities for thinking, build capacity to think, provide guidance to inform thinking.” Using these four criteria and pairing them with current events, teachers easily create learning spaces that thrive on thinking and keep students engaged.
One successful technique I use is the FIRE Write. Students are given a quote, a paragraph, an excerpt, or a photo from the headlines. Students are asked to F ocus and respond to the selection for three minutes. Next, students are asked to I dentify a phrase or section of the photo and write for two minutes. Third, students are asked to R eframe their response around a specific word, phrase, or section within their previous selection. Finally, students E xchange their thoughts with a classmate. Within the exchange, students also talk about how the selection connects to what we are covering in class.
There was a controversial Pepsi ad in 2017 involving Kylie Jenner and a protest with a police presence. The imagery in the photo was strikingly similar to a photo that went viral with a young lady standing opposite a police line. Using that image from a current event engaged my students and gave them the opportunity to critically think about events of the time.
Here are the two photos and a student response:
F - Focus on both photos and respond for three minutes
In the first picture, you see a strong and courageous black female, bravely standing in front of two officers in protest. She is risking her life to do so. Iesha Evans is simply proving to the world she does NOT mean less because she is black … and yet officers are there to stop her. She did not step down. In the picture below, you see Kendall Jenner handing a police officer a Pepsi. Maybe this wouldn’t be a big deal, except this was Pepsi’s weak, pathetic, and outrageous excuse of a commercial that belittles the whole movement of people fighting for their lives.
I - Identify a word or phrase, underline it, then write about it for two minutes
A white, privileged female in place of a fighting black woman was asking for trouble. A struggle we are continuously fighting every day, and they make a mockery of it. “I know what will work! Here Mr. Police Officer! Drink some Pepsi!” As if. Pepsi made a fool of themselves, and now their already dwindling fan base continues to ever shrink smaller.
R - Reframe your thoughts by choosing a different word, then write about that for one minute
You don’t know privilege until it’s gone. You don’t know privilege while it’s there—but you can and will be made accountable and aware. Don’t use it for evil. You are not stupid. Use it to do something. Kendall could’ve NOT done the commercial. Kendall could’ve released another commercial standing behind a black woman. Anything!
Exchange - Remember to discuss how this connects to our school song project and our previous discussions?
This connects two ways - 1) We want to convey a strong message. Be powerful. Show who we are. And Pepsi definitely tried. … Which leads to the second connection. 2) Not mess up and offend anyone, as had the one alma mater had been linked to black minstrels. We want to be amazing, but we have to be smart and careful and make sure we include everyone who goes to our school and everyone who may go to our school.
As a final step, students read and annotate the full article and compare it to their initial response.
Using current events and critical-thinking strategies like FIRE writing helps create a learning space where thinking is the goal rather than a score on a multiple-choice assessment. Critical-thinking skills can cross over to any of students’ other courses and into life outside the classroom. After all, we as teachers want to help the whole student be successful, and critical thinking is an important part of navigating life after they leave our classrooms.
Patrick Brown is the executive director of STEM and CTE for the Fort Zumwalt school district in Missouri and an experienced educator and author :
Planning for critical thinking focuses on teaching the most crucial science concepts, practices, and logical-thinking skills as well as the best use of instructional time. One way to ensure that lessons maintain a focus on critical thinking is to focus on the instructional sequence used to teach.
Explore-before-explain teaching is all about promoting critical thinking for learners to better prepare students for the reality of their world. What having an explore-before-explain mindset means is that in our planning, we prioritize giving students firsthand experiences with data, allow students to construct evidence-based claims that focus on conceptual understanding, and challenge students to discuss and think about the why behind phenomena.
Just think of the critical thinking that has to occur for students to construct a scientific claim. 1) They need the opportunity to collect data, analyze it, and determine how to make sense of what the data may mean. 2) With data in hand, students can begin thinking about the validity and reliability of their experience and information collected. 3) They can consider what differences, if any, they might have if they completed the investigation again. 4) They can scrutinize outlying data points for they may be an artifact of a true difference that merits further exploration of a misstep in the procedure, measuring device, or measurement. All of these intellectual activities help them form more robust understanding and are evidence of their critical thinking.
In explore-before-explain teaching, all of these hard critical-thinking tasks come before teacher explanations of content. Whether we use discovery experiences, problem-based learning, and or inquiry-based activities, strategies that are geared toward helping students construct understanding promote critical thinking because students learn content by doing the practices valued in the field to generate knowledge.
Meg Riordan, Ph.D., is the chief learning officer at The Possible Project, an out-of-school program that collaborates with youth to build entrepreneurial skills and mindsets and provides pathways to careers and long-term economic prosperity. She has been in the field of education for over 25 years as a middle and high school teacher, school coach, college professor, regional director of N.Y.C. Outward Bound Schools, and director of external research with EL Education:
Although critical thinking often defies straightforward definition, most in the education field agree it consists of several components: reasoning, problem-solving, and decisionmaking, plus analysis and evaluation of information, such that multiple sides of an issue can be explored. It also includes dispositions and “the willingness to apply critical-thinking principles, rather than fall back on existing unexamined beliefs, or simply believe what you’re told by authority figures.”
Despite variation in definitions, critical thinking is nonetheless promoted as an essential outcome of students’ learning—we want to see students and adults demonstrate it across all fields, professions, and in their personal lives. Yet there is simultaneously a rationing of opportunities in schools for students of color, students from under-resourced communities, and other historically marginalized groups to deeply learn and practice critical thinking.
For example, many of our most underserved students often spend class time filling out worksheets, promoting high compliance but low engagement, inquiry, critical thinking, or creation of new ideas. At a time in our world when college and careers are critical for participation in society and the global, knowledge-based economy, far too many students struggle within classrooms and schools that reinforce low-expectations and inequity.
If educators aim to prepare all students for an ever-evolving marketplace and develop skills that will be valued no matter what tomorrow’s jobs are, then we must move critical thinking to the forefront of classroom experiences. And educators must design learning to cultivate it.
So, what does that really look like?
Unpack and define critical thinking
To understand critical thinking, educators need to first unpack and define its components. What exactly are we looking for when we speak about reasoning or exploring multiple perspectives on an issue? How does problem-solving show up in English, math, science, art, or other disciplines—and how is it assessed? At Two Rivers, an EL Education school, the faculty identified five constructs of critical thinking, defined each, and created rubrics to generate a shared picture of quality for teachers and students. The rubrics were then adapted across grade levels to indicate students’ learning progressions.
At Avenues World School, critical thinking is one of the Avenues World Elements and is an enduring outcome embedded in students’ early experiences through 12th grade. For instance, a kindergarten student may be expected to “identify cause and effect in familiar contexts,” while an 8th grader should demonstrate the ability to “seek out sufficient evidence before accepting a claim as true,” “identify bias in claims and evidence,” and “reconsider strongly held points of view in light of new evidence.”
When faculty and students embrace a common vision of what critical thinking looks and sounds like and how it is assessed, educators can then explicitly design learning experiences that call for students to employ critical-thinking skills. This kind of work must occur across all schools and programs, especially those serving large numbers of students of color. As Linda Darling-Hammond asserts , “Schools that serve large numbers of students of color are least likely to offer the kind of curriculum needed to ... help students attain the [critical-thinking] skills needed in a knowledge work economy. ”
So, what can it look like to create those kinds of learning experiences?
Designing experiences for critical thinking
After defining a shared understanding of “what” critical thinking is and “how” it shows up across multiple disciplines and grade levels, it is essential to create learning experiences that impel students to cultivate, practice, and apply these skills. There are several levers that offer pathways for teachers to promote critical thinking in lessons:
1.Choose Compelling Topics: Keep it relevant
A key Common Core State Standard asks for students to “write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.” That might not sound exciting or culturally relevant. But a learning experience designed for a 12th grade humanities class engaged learners in a compelling topic— policing in America —to analyze and evaluate multiple texts (including primary sources) and share the reasoning for their perspectives through discussion and writing. Students grappled with ideas and their beliefs and employed deep critical-thinking skills to develop arguments for their claims. Embedding critical-thinking skills in curriculum that students care about and connect with can ignite powerful learning experiences.
2. Make Local Connections: Keep it real
At The Possible Project , an out-of-school-time program designed to promote entrepreneurial skills and mindsets, students in a recent summer online program (modified from in-person due to COVID-19) explored the impact of COVID-19 on their communities and local BIPOC-owned businesses. They learned interviewing skills through a partnership with Everyday Boston , conducted virtual interviews with entrepreneurs, evaluated information from their interviews and local data, and examined their previously held beliefs. They created blog posts and videos to reflect on their learning and consider how their mindsets had changed as a result of the experience. In this way, we can design powerful community-based learning and invite students into productive struggle with multiple perspectives.
3. Create Authentic Projects: Keep it rigorous
At Big Picture Learning schools, students engage in internship-based learning experiences as a central part of their schooling. Their school-based adviser and internship-based mentor support them in developing real-world projects that promote deeper learning and critical-thinking skills. Such authentic experiences teach “young people to be thinkers, to be curious, to get from curiosity to creation … and it helps students design a learning experience that answers their questions, [providing an] opportunity to communicate it to a larger audience—a major indicator of postsecondary success.” Even in a remote environment, we can design projects that ask more of students than rote memorization and that spark critical thinking.
Our call to action is this: As educators, we need to make opportunities for critical thinking available not only to the affluent or those fortunate enough to be placed in advanced courses. The tools are available, let’s use them. Let’s interrogate our current curriculum and design learning experiences that engage all students in real, relevant, and rigorous experiences that require critical thinking and prepare them for promising postsecondary pathways.
Dr. PJ Caposey is an award-winning educator, keynote speaker, consultant, and author of seven books who currently serves as the superintendent of schools for the award-winning Meridian CUSD 223 in northwest Illinois. You can find PJ on most social-media platforms as MCUSDSupe:
When I start my keynote on student engagement, I invite two people up on stage and give them each five paper balls to shoot at a garbage can also conveniently placed on stage. Contestant One shoots their shot, and the audience gives approval. Four out of 5 is a heckuva score. Then just before Contestant Two shoots, I blindfold them and start moving the garbage can back and forth. I usually try to ensure that they can at least make one of their shots. Nobody is successful in this unfair environment.
I thank them and send them back to their seats and then explain that this little activity was akin to student engagement. While we all know we want student engagement, we are shooting at different targets. More importantly, for teachers, it is near impossible for them to hit a target that is moving and that they cannot see.
Within the world of education and particularly as educational leaders, we have failed to simplify what student engagement looks like, and it is impossible to define or articulate what student engagement looks like if we cannot clearly articulate what critical thinking is and looks like in a classroom. Because, simply, without critical thought, there is no engagement.
The good news here is that critical thought has been defined and placed into taxonomies for decades already. This is not something new and not something that needs to be redefined. I am a Bloom’s person, but there is nothing wrong with DOK or some of the other taxonomies, either. To be precise, I am a huge fan of Daggett’s Rigor and Relevance Framework. I have used that as a core element of my practice for years, and it has shaped who I am as an instructional leader.
So, in order to explain critical thought, a teacher or a leader must familiarize themselves with these tried and true taxonomies. Easy, right? Yes, sort of. The issue is not understanding what critical thought is; it is the ability to integrate it into the classrooms. In order to do so, there are a four key steps every educator must take.
QUESTIONING
TALK TIME / CONTROL
Thanks to Dara, Patrick, Meg, and PJ for their contributions!
Please feel free to leave a comment with your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.
Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.
You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .
Education Week has published a collection of posts from this blog, along with new material, in an e-book form. It’s titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching .
Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email (The RSS feed for this blog, and for all Ed Week articles, has been changed by the new redesign—new ones won’t be available until February). And if you missed any of the highlights from the first nine years of this blog, you can see a categorized list below.
I am also creating a Twitter list including all contributors to this column .
The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.
Edweek top school jobs.
Critical thinking in schools: can it be taught – and how.
In August, education secretary Bridget Phillipson proposed that children in England should be taught to identify extremist content and misinformation online.
This would be part of a broader effort to embed “critical thinking” throughout the curriculum. The aim is to counteract what she referred to as "putrid conspiracy theories" (see Cutteridge, 2024).
This idea faced scepticism from educational influencers, such as science teacher Adam Boxer, who stated on X: "Reasonably confident that beyond a few very basic heuristics this isn't possible."
There were also more general comments on critical thinking from figures like ResearchED founder Tom Bennett, who remarked, also on X: "A few assemblies on fake news won’t cut it. The best way to nurture generations of informed critical thinkers is by teaching them acres of knowledge-rich domain content and how reasoning works. Critical thinking isn’t a skill separate from these things; it is composed of them."
Critical thinking, then, is clearly a topic of debate – especially in light of the new government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review (DfE, 2024).
Critics argue that it cannot be taught explicitly, as it is too abstract or context-dependent to be effectively integrated into the curriculum. However, supporters believe that critical thinking can and should be taught as a signposted component of modern education, provided it is contextually embedded.
What is critical thinking?
Critical thinking is about thoughtful analysis and reasoned judgement, requiring a deep understanding of the subject.
While there is debate on what it is, with Derridean deconstructuralist and Foucaultian poststructuralist views out there (Abrami et al, 2015), the Cambridge Life Competencies Framework, which integrates critical thinking into English lessons, defines it as analysing and evaluating ideas, solving problems, and making informed decisions (Silver, 2021). This involves assessing the validity of arguments, discerning biases, and considering alternative perspectives.
In the 21st century, where students are bombarded with information from various sources – some reliable, some not – these skills are more important than ever.
This is particularly crucial given the harmful information exacerbated by artificial intelligence and algorithms, which potentially disseminate one-sided arguments, extremist rhetoric, and conspiracy theories, as referenced by the education secretary.
Standalone subject vs domain-specific skills
One of the central debates, however, is whether critical thinking should be taught as a standalone subject or embedded within other disciplines.
Proponents of the standalone approach argue that critical thinking encompasses a set of generalisable skills that can be applied across various contexts, making it suitable for dedicated courses (Ennis, 2011; Royalty, 1995).
For example, courses that focus exclusively on logical reasoning, argumentation, and the evaluation of evidence can equip students with tools they can use in any subject.
On the other hand, critics of this approach, such as McPeck (1981) and Willingham (2008), argue that critical thinking is inherently context-dependent.
They believe that critical thinking cannot be divorced from the content it is applied to and that teaching it as a standalone subject risks reducing it to a set of abstract skills with limited real-world applicability.
Instead, they advocate for embedding critical thinking instruction within specific subjects, where it can be taught in conjunction with domain-specific knowledge.
Explicit vs discreet instruction
Another layer of debate concerns whether critical thinking should be taught explicitly or more subtly integrated into everyday classroom activities.
Explicit instruction involves direct teaching of critical thinking skills, often through exercises that focus on identifying logical fallacies, analysing arguments, and drawing inferences (Facione, 1990). This approach ensures that students are aware of the skills they are developing and can consciously apply them in different contexts, as they are signposted by teachers in different subject areas.
Conversely, discreet instruction incorporates critical thinking into regular lessons without overtly labelling it as such. For example, a history teacher might encourage students to evaluate the reliability of different sources without explicitly framing the activity as a lesson in critical thinking.
This method can be effective, particularly in helping students see the relevance of critical thinking to their everyday learning, but it risks leaving some students unaware of the skills they are developing (Paul & Elder, 2008).
How critical thinking can work within subjects
Subsequently, there are three positions on critical thinking.
Overall, the research suggests that all three have an impact, although the latter has the least impact (Abrami et al, 2015).
Therefore, despite the debates, there is a consensus that critical thinking can and should be developed within subject-specific contexts as explicit “critical thinking” strategies.
When taught alongside subject matter, critical thinking can deepen students' understanding and enhance their ability to apply knowledge critically.
For example, in a science class, students can learn to “critically evaluate” experimental design and analyse data. In English, they can be taught to “critically assess” the strength of arguments in persuasive texts and to consider multiple interpretations of a literary work (see, for instance, meta-analyses by Abrami et al, 2008, 2015; as well as Halpern, 1998; Ennis, 2011; Heijltjes et al, 2014, for similar examples).
Evidence-based strategies for teaching critical thinking
While most aspects of critical thinking will be contextual to the content taught, researchers such as Halpern and Dunn (2022) and Abrami et al (2015) have suggested that a number of critical thinking strategies show evidence of impact across most curriculum subjects, as well as in standalone critical thinking programmes.
Even Willingham (2008, see appendix C) suggests some of these, albeit with reservations in terms of labelling them as critical thinking skills per se. Here are some examples:
Encourage questioning: One of the most effective ways to foster critical thinking is by encouraging students to ask questions. Open-ended questions that require more than a simple yes or no answer can stimulate deeper thinking. For example, instead of asking, "Did this experiment work?" a teacher might ask, "What variables could have influenced the outcome of this experiment, and how might they be controlled in future studies?" Of course, the importance of questioning, whether closed for factual recall or open for procedural explanations and critical discussion, is well established (see Chiles, 2024).
Teach metacognition: Helping students become aware of their own thinking processes can significantly enhance their critical thinking abilities. This involves teaching them to reflect on how they come to conclusions, identify potential biases, and assess the strength of their arguments. According to Halpern and Dunn (2022), metacognitive strategies are crucial for developing critical thinking because they help students regulate their thinking and approach problems more systematically.
Use real-world problems: Applying critical thinking to real-world problems makes the learning experience more engaging and relevant. When students are tasked with solving real-life issues, they must analyse information, weigh options, and make decisions based on evidence. This process naturally develops critical thinking skills. Abrami et al (2015) found that problem-based learning, which involves real-world problem-solving, significantly improves students' critical thinking and problem-solving abilities.
Debate and discussion: Structured debates and discussions are effective ways to encourage critical thinking. These activities require students to consider multiple viewpoints, develop arguments, and defend their positions. Moreover, they teach students to listen to and critique the arguments of others, which is a critical component of thinking critically (Nisbett, 2015). Kuhn (1999) also supports this approach, arguing that argumentative discourse is central to the development of critical thinking skills.
Integrate technology thoughtfully: Technology can be a powerful tool in teaching critical thinking, but it must be used thoughtfully. Digital platforms that allow students to explore simulations, engage in interactive problem-solving, and collaborate with peers can enhance critical thinking. However, it is important to guide students in distinguishing credible sources from unreliable ones – a skill crucial in the digital age (McDougall, 2023).
Final thoughts
The proliferation of social media, AI, and online misinformation highlights the importance of teaching critical thinking as an explicit, though multi-faceted, skill. However, evidence suggests that critical thinking is most effective when taught within subject domains.
This presents a challenge, as it may be difficult to find space within an already packed curriculum to transfer these skills to address these everyday issues directly, making it clear to students why they need them outside of subject-domains.
Unless schools are already teaching citizenship as required by law – or offering another avenue for media literacy – implementing this may be easier said than done.
Perhaps the Curriculum and Assessment Review will address this? Or perhaps the education secretary should be considering how we improve media literacy, as opposed to critical thinking, in order to combat the issues we are all concerned about.
Further information & resources
Critical thinking activities and ideas, critical thinking in practice, impactful interleaving strategies that can be used in the classroom.
... your login credentials do not authorize you to access this content in the selected format. Access to this content in this format requires a current subscription or a prior purchase. Please select the WEB or READ option instead (if available). Or consider purchasing the publication.
Creativity and critical thinking in everyday teaching and learning, what it means in school.
Creativity and critical thinking are key skills for complex, globalised and increasingly digitalised economies and societies. While teachers and education policy makers consider creativity and critical thinking as important learning goals, it is still unclear to many what it means to develop these skills in a school setting. To make it more visible and tangible to practitioners, the OECD worked with networks of schools and teachers in 11 countries to develop and trial a set of pedagogical resources that exemplify what it means to teach, learn and make progress in creativity and critical thinking in primary and secondary education. Through a portfolio of rubrics and examples of lesson plans, teachers in the field gave feedback, implemented the proposed teaching strategies and documented their work. Instruments to monitor the effectiveness of the intervention in a validation study were also developed and tested, supplementing the insights on the effects of the intervention in the field provided by the team co-ordinators.
What are the key elements of creativity and critical thinking? What pedagogical strategies and approaches can teachers adopt to foster them? How can school leaders support teachers' professional learning? To what extent did teachers participating in the project change their teaching methods? How can we know whether it works and for whom? These are some of the questions addressed in this book, which reports on the outputs and lessons of this international project.
English Also available in: French
This chapter presents a framework to support teachers in the design of classroom activities that nurture students’ creativity and critical thinking skills as part of the curriculum. Developed collaboratively by participants in the OECD-CERI project, the framework is composed of a portfolio of domain-general and domain-specific rubrics and a set of design criteria to guide teachers in the development of lesson plans that create opportunities for students to demonstrate their creativity and critical thinking while delivering subject content. Teachers across teams in 11 countries worked to adapt their usual teaching practice to this framework and to develop lesson plans in multiple subject areas. The chapter presents a selection of exemplar lesson plans across subject areas and concludes with some key insights.
Author(s) Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin i , Carlos González-Sancho i , Mathias Bouckaert i , Federico de Luca i , Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra i , Gwénaël Jacotin i , Joaquin Urgel i and Quentin Vidal i i OECD
12 Nov 2019
Pages: 127 - 164
It is 20 years since the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE, 1999) offered a simple if daunting definition of creativity:
Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value.
NACCCE also made a landmark recommendation about the need for a national strategy to embed creativity in schools. In the decade following the report, there was notable progress. The Creative Partnerships initiative ran between 2002 and 2011 and the concept of Personal Learning and Thinking Skills (PLTS) was created (QCA, 2009). For the first time, PLTS introduced the idea that there was a set of learnable skills associated with creativity. During this period, the Creativity: Find it, Promote it materials (QCA, 2005) offered significant practical support for the development of creativity.
In recent years creativity has become less visible in schools in England. The National Curriculum ( Department for Education The ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England , 2014) mentions creativity once but only in the sense of an abstract study of the phenomenon:
The national curriculum…introduces pupils to the best that has been thought and said; and helps engender an appreciation of human creativity and achievement.
But if things may have been moving sluggishly in England, elsewhere they have been galloping forward. For the last four years, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has been conducting research across 11 countries exploring the ways in which creative and critical thinking can be taught and assessed in schools (OECD, 2015).
In a study of broader skills across the world, the Brookings Institution has shown that the term ‘creativity’ is mentioned in government education documents (alongside communication, critical thinking, problem-solving and communication) from more than 50 countries (Horton et al., 2017). Australia, for example, makes ‘Critical and Creative Thinking’ a core capability in its national curriculum and the Welsh Government has launched a new curriculum to develop students as ‘enterprising creative contributors’ (Welsh Government, 2019). This year the Durham Commission on Creativity and Education calls for a 4–19 strategy for embedding creativity in all schools in England (Durham Commission, in press).
Perhaps most importantly, given its influence, the Programme for International Student Assessment Abbreviated to PISA, a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), intended to evaluate educational systems by measuring 15-year-old school students’ knowledge and skills ( PISA The Programme for International Student Assessment, a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), intended to evaluate educational systems by measuring 15-year-old school students’ knowledge and skills ) has decided that the concept of creativity in schools is a robust one that will be assessed in a new test of ‘Creative Thinking’ in 2021 (OECD Directorate for Education and Skills, 2018, p. 6):
Creative Thinking in PISA 2021 is defined as the competence to engage productively in an iterative process involving the generation, evaluation and improvement of ideas, that can result in novel and effective solutions.
Over the last 50 years, creativity has become an established field of study. An early pioneer, Guilford, suggested that there are two kinds of thinking: convergent (coming up with one good idea) and divergent (generating multiple solutions) (Guilford, 1950). Divergent thinking, he argued, was at the heart of creativity. Guilford sub-divided divergent thinking into three components: fluency (quickly finding multiple solutions to a problem), flexibility (simultaneously considering a variety of alternatives) and originality (selecting ideas that differ from those of other people). Creativity is, by common consent, multi-faceted and multi-dimensional (Sternberg, 1996).
Research into creativity in schools really began in the 1970s (Torrance and Myers, 1970). Locating creativity in schools presents immediate challenges given that school life is organised by subject disciplines, with no mention of creativity on a student’s timetable. Indeed, there is an ongoing debate about the degree to which creativity is domain-specific or domain-general – that’s to say whether, for example, being creative is different in maths or drama, at school or in the community, at play or at work. In an even-handed review of this debate (Baer, 2010), there are arguments on both sides. And, while the world is inspired by extraordinary creative genius, schools necessarily focus on what Craft calls ‘little c’ creativity (Craft, 2001, p. 46), the everyday ways in which all young people can harness their creative selves to good effect.
Figure 1 shows a model of creativity increasingly used in schools across the world. Developed by the Centre for Real-World Learning at the University of Winchester, it was trialled in English schools as part of the Creative Partnerships initiative (Lucas et al., 2013). The model is also the prototype for the OECD (OECD, 2015) and is currently being used in 500 secondary schools in Wales as part of an initiative coordinated by Creativity, Culture and Education, as well as in schools in England, the Republic of Ireland, Hungary, Norway and Australia.
This model reminds us that creativity is important both at an individual and at a group level. It also assumes that creativity exists in every discipline of a school’s curriculum and, as such, takes many forms depending on the subject context in which it is located. Schools that have adopted the model over time have developed a range of pedagogical strategies. In England, Thomas Tallis School (2017) is an excellent example.
Step 1 is the establishment of a robust and practical definition of creativity in schools, as evidenced in this paper.
Step 2 recognises that embedding creativity in schools is at least in part a cultural matter. Many researchers have helped us to understand the climate necessary for creativity to flourish (Torrance, 1970; Cropley, 1997, Lucas, 2001; QCA, 2005), and their thinking can broadly be subsumed within this list (Craft, 2010):
Step 3 involves considering those pedagogigcal methods most closely associated with what we want to learn. Such methods are, if you like, the unique DNA or fingerprint of creative thinking. Five interconnected pedagogies are of particular relevance to the cultivation of creative thinkers: problem-based learning, the idea of the classroom as a learning community, playful experimentation, growth mindset The theory, popularised by Carol Dweck, that students’ beliefs about their intelligence can affect motivation and achievement; those with a growth mindset believe that their intelligence can be developed and deliberate practice (Lucas and Spencer, 2017).
Step 4 often takes the form of engagement in extra-curricular activities. Creativity is one of the explicit objectives of the Scouting Programme, for example, with a Creative Activity badge (Scouts, 2019). The Royal Yachting Association promotes its OnBoard sailing sessions for schools as a way of fostering creativity in young sailors (Royal Yachting Association, 2018).
Our understanding of creativity and its assessment has advanced to such an extent that the global testing body PISA is preparing a new Creative Thinking Test for use in 2021. But whereas schools are familiar with the other subjects tested by PISA – mathematics, science and reading – most schools do not assess creativity.
They don’t do so for a number of reasons. They do not necessarily see why it would be helpful. Some teachers worry that assessing creativity is a bit too close to assessing personality. Many teachers are rightly concerned about any test that might reduce a complex concept to a reductive number or grade. They do not know how to. And always in schools, the gravitational pull of individual subjects is so great that it dominates thinking about achievement in schools.
Across the world there is growing evidence that creativity can be assessed and that such assessments help students and teachers to be more precise about how it is being cultivated and what they are doing that works (Lucas, 2016). Table 1 shows some of the different approaches being used by schools.
Table 1: Approaches to assessing creativity in schools (Lucas and Spencer, 2017)
Teachers will be familiar with some of these approaches. Of particular interest and perhaps less well-known are creativity portfolios, capstone projects (complex, real-world assignments), exhibitions (often inviting critique from experts) and digital badges marking progress in an aspect of creativity.
The only educational administration currently routinely administering summative tests of creativity to students is the State of Victoria in Australia. In most countries where schools are experimenting with assessing creativity, the emphasis is formative, using assessment for learning Known as AfL for short, and also known as formative assessment, this is the process of gathering evidence through assessment to inform and support next steps for a students’ teaching and learning . As Dylan Wiliam has argued (Wiliam, 2006), this kind of approach helps by clarifying and understanding learning intentions and criteria for success, provoking good discussions, providing feedback and engaging students in their learning.
Beghetto (2018) challenges school leaders and teachers to:
And I add a challenge about the language we use. Talking about cultivating as well as teaching creativity and using the phrase tracking the progression of their creative thinking rather than assessing seems to invest these activities with both the art and the science that they require. For creativity can be ‘caught’ as well as taught, as the word ‘cultivation’ suggests. Approaches that frame assessment as setting precise goals and more accurately understanding progress towards these is more motivating than the meaningless notion of an imaginary ‘level 4b in Creative Thinking’.
Baer J (2010) Is creativity domain specific? In: Kaufman J and Sternberg R (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity . Cambridge: Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 321–341.
Beghetto R (2018) Taking beautiful RISKS in education to support students’ creativity. Educational Leadership 76(4): 18–24.
Craft A (2001) Little c Creativity. In: Craft A, Jeffrey B and Liebling M (eds) Creativity in Education. London: Continuum, pp. 45–61.
Craft A (2010) Possibility thinking and wise creativity: Educational future in England? In: Beghetto R and Kaufman J (eds) Nurturing Creativity in the Cassroom . New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 289–312.
Cropley A (1997) Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In: Runco M (ed) The Creativity Research Handbook , volume 1 . Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 83–114.
Department for Education (2014) National Curriculum: Framework Document . London: DfE Department for Education - a ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England .
Guilford J (1950) Creativity. American Psychologist 5: 444–454.
Horton S, Kim H and Care E (2017) New Data on the Breadth of Skills Movement: Consolidation. Washington: Brookings Institution.
Lucas B (2001) Creative teaching, teaching creativity and creative learning. In: Craft A,
Jeffrey B and Leibling M (eds) Creativity in Education. London: Continuum. pp. 35–44.
Lucas B (2016) A five-dimensional model of creativity and its assessment in achools. Applied Measurement in Education 29(4): 278–290.
Lucas B, Claxton G and Spencer E (2013) Progression in Student Creativity in School: First Steps Towards New Forms of Formative Assessments. Paris: OECD.
Lucas B and Spencer E (2017) Teaching Creative Thinking: Developing Learners who Generate Ideas and Think Critically. Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing Ltd.
National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) (1999) All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture & Education. London: Department for Education and Employment.
OECD (2015) Intervention and Research Protocol for OECD Project on Assessing Progression in Creative and Critical Thinking Skills in Education . Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) Governing Board.
OECD Directorate for Education and Skills (2018) Framework for the Assessment of Creative Thinking in PISA 2021 (second draft). Paris: OECD.
QCA (2005) Creativity: Find it, Promote it – Promoting Pupils’ Creative Thinking and Behaviour Across the Curriculum at Key Stages 1, 2 Video Pack. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
QCA (2009) Personal, learning and thinking skills. Available at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110215111658/http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/skills/personal-learning-and-thinking-skills/index.aspx (accessed 16 July 2019).
Royal Yachting Association (2018) Creativity– why it’s the key to learning. Available at: www.rya.org.uk/newsevents/news/Pages/Creativity-why-its-the-key-to-learning.aspx (accessed 16 July 2019).
Scouts (2019) Creative Activity Badge. Available at: https://members.scouts.org.uk/supportresources/4258/creative-activity-badge/?cat=11,18,774&moduleID=10 (accessed 16 July 2019).
Sternberg R (1996) Successful Intelligence: How Practical and Creative Intelligence Determine Success in Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Thomas Tallis School (2017) Pedagogy Wheel. Available at: https://www.thomastallisschool.com/tallis-pedagogy-wheel-guide.html (accessed 16 July 2019).
Torrance E (1970) Encouraging Creativity in the Classroom. Dubuque, IA: William C Brown.
Torrance E and Myers R (1970) Creative Learning and Teaching . London: Harper & Row.
Welsh Government (2019) Our National Mission: A Transformational Curriculum –Proposals for a New Legislative Framework. Cardiff: Welsh Government.
Wiliam D (2006) Assessment for learning – why, what and how. In: Cambridge Assessment Network Seminar. Cambridge: Cambridge Assessment Network.
Autumn 2019
Pears Pavillion Corum Campus 41 Brunswick Square London WC1N 1AZ
[email protected] 020 3433 7624
Drew rowlands, chair of education and a board member of shakespeare north, suggests that schools need to be explicit about teaching for creativity.
The latest Ofsted Education Inspection Framework has a greater emphasis on offering a broad curriculum. School leaders are required to describe the quality of the education they are offering young people in terms of ‘Intent’ (what they are trying to achieve), ‘Implementation’ (how it will be taught and assessed) and ‘Impact’ (the effect on pupils).
The framework gives schools the opportunity to put creativity at the heart of their intent and teaching for creativity as an underpinning mechanism for how they will implement their curriculum, all to ensure that the creativity of all pupils is developed across the curriculum.
We are living in a world during exponential times of change, which has been described by Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus as VUCA - Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous. A world in which:
The World Economic Forum Future Jobs Report of 2020 has suggested fifteen skills that will be most needed between now and 2025. At least 10 of these are direct outputs of developing independent learners through creativity such as:
Schools have a clear role in equipping students with the knowledge, skills and understanding of how to develop and utilise their creativity. For the competencies that make us creative are the same ones that will make us resilient to change and agile to the uncertain times in which we live.
Where schools have effective curriculum intent, they are often focused on a strong commitment to developing meaningful learning experiences that help pupils develop their capacity to learn. In England, the Teaching and Learning Toolkit produced by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) places metacognition (the act of learning to learn) at the top of its meta-analysis of interventions that impact on pupil progress.
In essence, teaching for creativity is the pedagogical practice that allows metacognition, or the act of learning to learn, to happen.
If curriculum intent is focused on creativity, teachers will need to embrace teaching for creativity as the tool for implementation. Many teachers already teach creatively. They use imaginative and innovative approaches to deliver curriculum and make learning interesting and memorable.
However, teaching for creativity is slightly different. It enables children to develop their own learning capacities. The following features summarise research into key aspects associated with teaching for creativity.
When creativity is taught effectively, it’s structured, disciplined and robust. The model below outlines a creative process developed by CapeUK (now IVE). It aims to recognise different dimensions that a creative process might go through.
The CapeUK/IVE Creative Process
In this method, teachers control the process. They frame each stage by posing questions that allow learners to respond and set a time limit for each step. In this way, the teacher can be confident there is structure, but, at the same time, pupils control the learning. They’re responsible for generating ideas, framing those ideas towards a solution, testing and refining them as part of the ‘doing’ and finally presenting and reflecting on their solution to the challenge.
A school that puts creativity at their heart of curriculum intent will be planning to:
In order to implement this vision learning will be typified by:
If schools puts creativity at the heart of their curriculum intent with teaching for creativity as the mechanism for how that intent is implemented, the impact can be an outstanding learning environment where significant and sustained progress is evident in all aspects of school life.
Drew Rowlands is Chair of Education and a board member of Shakespeare North.
Further Reading
Cochrane, P. and Cockett, M. (2006). Building a creative school: A dynamic approach to school development. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.
QCA (2004) Creativity: Find it Promote it
Lucas, B., Claxton, G. and Spencer, E. (2013) Progression in Student Creativity in School: First Steps Towards New Forms of Formative Assessments. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Vincent-Lancrin, S., et al. (2019). Fostering Students' Creativity and Critical Thinking: What it Means in School. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Jeffrey, B. and Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: distinctions and relationships . Educational Studies, 30:1, 77-87.
Davis, L. (2018). Creative Teaching and Teaching Creativity: How To Foster Creativity In The Classroom. Psych Learning Curve.
Pedagogy & Practice
1023 Accesses
1 Citations
This chapter provides real examples that highlight how teachers must translate the concepts of creativity, critical thinking and the integrated nature of STEM in their practical realities. Such practical realities also require teachers to think about pedagogical approaches and their behaviours such as standing back with a clear pedagogical purpose, using questions to prompt student thinking and actively valuing student ideas become essential aspects of teaching practice to enhance student critical and creative thinking. Teachers also need opportunities to focus on their own thinking around these concepts by sharing and developing cumulative thinking around the nature of knowledge which defines disciplines and how to integrate this thinking with critical and creative thinking in STEM education. There is benefit in understanding creativity as a process of producing new ideas and critical thinking as evaluating and making value judgements in relation to evidence and arguments. In translating these concepts of creativity, critical thinking and STEM into practical realities, teachers need to consider the contexts in which they operate and look for opportunities and manage the risks that will arise. Such translations and considerations are not only difficult but are also often highly problematic in education traditions and structures that are already well-established.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
ICT as defined by the Australian Office of the Chief Scientist, 2016 , p.2, and so the heading “ICT” was used; see Table 6.1 .
All teacher participants were Australian.
Mat time refers to the time when children sit together on a mat on the floor and attend to what their teacher is saying/doing.
ACARA. (2017). General capabilities in the Australian Curriculum: Science . Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking/
ACARA. (2018). International comparative study: The Australian Curriculum and the Finnish National Core Curriculum . Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/3922/ac-fncc-international-comparative-study-final.pdf
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organisations. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 10 , 123–167.
Google Scholar
Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32 (3), 393–410.
Article Google Scholar
Council for Aid to Education. (n.d.). Collegiate learning assessment (CLA) critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and writing skills: Definitions and scoring criteria . Author.
Corrigan, D., & Smith, K. (2020). Complexity, intellectual challenge and ongoing support: Key learning conditions to enhance students’ engagement in STEM education. In I. Parchmann, S. Simon, & J. Apotheker (Eds.), Engaging learners with chemistry: Projects to stimulate interest and participation (pp. 16–45). Royal Chemical Society.
Chapter Google Scholar
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2010). Critical thinking: Competency standards essential for the cultivation of intellectual skills, part 1. Journal of Developmental Education, 34 (2), 38–39.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations . Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED315423
Gallagher, C., Hipkins, R., & Zohar, A. (2012). Positioning thinking within national curriculum and assessment systems: Perspectives from Israel, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7 (2), 134–143.
Halinen, I. (2018). The new educational curriculum in Finland. In M. Matthes, L. Pulkkinen, C. Clouder, & B. Heys (Eds.), Improving the quality of childhood in Europe (pp. 75–89). Alliance for Childhood European Network Foundation.
Higgins, S. (2014). Critical thinking for 21st century education: A cyber-tooth curriculum? Prospects, 44 (4), 559–574.
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2007). How computerized work and globalization shape human skill demands. In M. M. Suarez-Orozco (Ed.), Learning in the global era: International perspectives on globalization and education (pp. 158–176). University of California.
Loughran, J. (2008). Cases: Building professional knowledge of practice. In J. Loughran & A. Berry (Eds.), Looking into practice: Cases of science teaching and learning (Vol. 3, pp. 7–10). Monash Print.
Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing . Routledge.
Book Google Scholar
Panizzon, D., Smith, K., & Carabot, K. (2019). Critical and creative thinking collaborative inquiry project. Final report . Monash University.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). The nature and functions of critical & creative thinking . Rowman & Littlefield.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2016). Australia’s STEM workforce . Australian Government.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary . Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/definitionandselectionofcompetenciesdeseco.htm
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation . Oxford University.
Shepard, L. A. (2013). Validity for what purpose? Teachers College Record, 115 (9), 1–12.
Shulman, J. H. (1992). Case methods in teacher education . Teachers College.
Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st century learning. The Phi Delta Kappan, 90 (9), 630–634.
Sternberg, R. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (1), 87–98.
Willingham, D. T. (2007, Summer). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31 (2), 8–19.
Download references
The researchers acknowledge the support from the Department for Education South Australia in funding the project discussed and permitting teacher contributions. We specifically acknowledge the Case Studies written by Ginny McTaggart, Roxanne Ware and Heather Brooks who agreed to the inclusion of identified excerpts in our chapter.
Authors and affiliations.
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
Deborah Corrigan, Debra Panizzon & Kathy Smith
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Deborah Corrigan .
Editors and affiliations.
Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
Amanda Berry
University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Cathy Buntting
Deborah Corrigan
Richard Gunstone
Alister Jones
Reprints and permissions
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Corrigan, D., Panizzon, D., Smith, K. (2021). STEM, Creativity and Critical Thinking: How Do Teachers Address Multiple Learning Demands?. In: Berry, A., Buntting, C., Corrigan, D., Gunstone, R., Jones, A. (eds) Education in the 21st Century. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_6
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_6
Published : 31 January 2022
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85299-3
Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85300-6
eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Policies and ethics
Cite this content as:.
Creativity and critical thinking are key skills for complex, globalised and increasingly digitalised economies and societies. While teachers and education policy makers consider creativity and critical thinking as important learning goals, it is still unclear to many what it means to develop these skills in a school setting. To make it more visible and tangible to practitioners, the OECD worked with networks of schools and teachers in 11 countries to develop and trial a set of pedagogical resources that exemplify what it means to teach, learn and make progress in creativity and critical thinking in primary and secondary education. Through a portfolio of rubrics and examples of lesson plans, teachers in the field gave feedback, implemented the proposed teaching strategies and documented their work. Instruments to monitor the effectiveness of the intervention in a validation study were also developed and tested, supplementing the insights on the effects of the intervention in the field provided by the team co-ordinators.
What are the key elements of creativity and critical thinking? What pedagogical strategies and approaches can teachers adopt to foster them? How can school leaders support teachers' professional learning? To what extent did teachers participating in the project change their teaching methods? How can we know whether it works and for whom? These are some of the questions addressed in this book, which reports on the outputs and lessons of this international project.
Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
INTRODUCTION: CREATIVITY IN THE ENGLISH CLASSROOM
Since the latter years of the twentieth century, creativity has been recognized by policy makers as increasingly important in the education process. At a global level, it has been argued that such policies, whether focused on the youngest learners or those engaged in higher education, are imbued with a “universalized” perspective (Jeffrey & Craft, 2001), which implies that creativity is involved in almost all activities and that all human beings are to some degree capable of creative engagement. In England, Banaji, Burn, and Buckingham (2006) identified nine distinct rhetorics that underpin distinct yet overlapping approaches to creativity in the English classroom. Some are more prevalent than others and each has an age focus, but all are visible in both policy and practice:
Creative genius rhetoric – With its roots in the European Enlightenment, this post-Romantic perspective emphasizes the fostering of extraordinary creativity in a range of domains.
Democratic and political rhetoric – With its roots in the Romantic era, this perspective views creativity as offering empowerment.
The notion of creativity as ubiquitous – This idea views creativity as pervasive.
Creativity as a social good – This concept emphasizes social and individual regeneration, with a focus on inclusion and multiculturalism.
Emphasis on the economic imperative – This rhetoric emphasizes the neoliberal discourse regarding the economic program thus developing a rationale for fostering creativity in the classroom as necessary to developing economic competitiveness.
Approaches that emphasize play – With roots again in Romantic thought, this perspective sees childhood play as the origin of adult creative thought.
Save book to kindle.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .
This National Strategies study guide offers tried and tested practical suggestions for teachers to use in the classroom when considering the teaching of How Science Works. A variety of tasks help teachers to focus on developing their own creativity and critical thinking, transferable skills which they can pass on to their students. There are also strategies for developing critical and creative thinking for teachers to try.
The National Curriculum of 2007 placed a strong emphasis on the development of skills for life and work, personal learning and thinking skills and using creativity and critical thinking in problem solving.
Please be aware that resources have been published on the website in the form that they were originally supplied. This means that procedures reflect general practice and standards applicable at the time resources were produced and cannot be assumed to be acceptable today. Website users are fully responsible for ensuring that any activity, including practical work, which they carry out is in accordance with current regulations related to health and safety and that an appropriate risk assessment has been carried out.
Subject(s) | Science |
---|---|
Age | 11-14, 14-16 |
Published | 2000 - 2009 |
Published by | |
Collections | |
Direct URL |
Did you like this resource, lists that tag this content, teaching physics , posted by.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Creativity is one of the most critical skills for the future. Without creativity, there would be no innovation. However, there is mixed evidence on how to develop it and whether it is transferable. OECD has done research with schools and teachers in 11 countries to develop and trial resources to develop creativity and critical thinking in ...
Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education ... Our evaluation framework for critical thinking was in part inspired by Barnett's "curriculum for critical being" (2015), whose model distinguishes two axes: one defined ...
The research on creativity and on critical thinking do not actually overlap much, even though critical thinking sometimes plays an important role in creativity, and vice versa. School curricula and educational rubrics are, however, prone to group them together and to talk about "creative and critical thinking".
Students grappled with ideas and their beliefs and employed deep critical-thinking skills to develop arguments for their claims. Embedding critical-thinking skills in curriculum that students care ...
6 Infusing Creative and Critical Thinking into the Curriculum Together; 7 The Five Core Attitudes, Seven I's, and General Concepts of the Creative Process; 8 Learning for Creativity; 9 Broadening Conceptions of Creativity in the Classroom; 10 Everyday Creativity in the Classroom: A Trip through Time with Seven Suggestions
The continuing rise of misinformation has sparked renewed calls for critical thinking to be at the heart of the national curriculum. Andrew Jones considers what exactly critical thinking is and how best it might be 'taught' Image: Adobe Stock In August, education secretary Bridget Phillipson ...
Critical thinking in the national curriculum and teacher education in ... Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar. ... Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Asses... Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar "Valued" Thinking in Education: Liberating the Narrative.
Creativity is a process that demands critical analysis and evaluation and shares with critical thinking the need for (to revisit Guilford) fluency, flexibility and originality of thought, the ability and dispositions to reinterpretation and challenge old ideas and to move forward in the face of ambiguity.
The primary education curriculum of the European Schools [64] mentions critical thinking as a key skill to develop among pupils together with other higher-order skills (e.g., problem-solving, collaboration, communication). However, there is a lack of clarity concerning what exactly is included across the curriculum.
Creativity and critical thinking are key skills for complex, globalised and increasingly digitalised economies and societies. While teachers and education policy makers consider creativity and critical thinking as important learning goals, it is still unclear to many what it means to develop these skills in a school setting.
The National Curriculum (Department for Education The ministerial department responsible for children's services and education in England, ... (OECD) has been conducting research across 11 countries exploring the ways in which creative and critical thinking can be taught and assessed in schools (OECD, 2015).
The policy focused on enabling students to develop creative and critical thinking skills, and its strategies included the explicit teaching of creative and critical thinking skills, reduction of curriculum content, revision of assessment modes, and greater emphasis on process instead of outcomes in learning and teaching (Tan, Koh et al ...
Creativity - from intent to implementation and impact. A school that puts creativity at their heart of curriculum intent will be planning to: Equip pupils with the tools to learn independently. Inspire a love of learning. Embed a culture that enables learners to grow in resilience and embrace challenge.
In Australia creativity is referred to as Critical and Creative Thinking and is part of its national curriculum. Critical and Creative Thinking is one of seven general capabilities, each one of which can be embedded in individual subjects or learning areas, as the model above shows. While the country has a broadly described national curriculum ...
Abstract. The current emphasis on national standards in core content areas works against 3 laudable goals of 21st-century education: cooperation, critical thinking, and creativity. I focus on creativity as a critical 21st-century skill and argue that the preoccupation with curriculum standards that are overly prescriptive undermines efforts at ...
Positioning thinking within national curriculum and assessment systems: Perspectives from Israel, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. ... Many nations are concerned to include explicit learning goals related to critical and creative thinking and problem-solving in their educational systems, as a response to 21st century learning challenges. ...
This chapter provides real examples that highlight how teachers must translate the concepts of creativity, critical thinking and the integrated nature of STEM in their practical realities. ... Within Australia there is a specified national curriculum for Foundation (5 years of age) to Year 12 (16-17 years of age) that covers a range of ...
If creative and critical thinking are both inherently important in developing global problem solvers and further represent the goals of gifted curriculum, then classroom assessments must be designed to measure student development of these process skills. Many assessment rubrics emphasize the end product or superficially address process skills.
Creativity and critical thinking are key skills for complex, globalised and increasingly digitalised economies and societies. While teachers and education policy makers consider creativity and critical thinking as important learning goals, it is still unclear to many what it means to develop these skills in a school setting. To make it more visible and tangible to practitioners, the OECD ...
6 Infusing Creative and Critical Thinking into the Curriculum Together; 7 The Five Core Attitudes, Seven I's, and General Concepts of the Creative Process; 8 Learning for Creativity; 9 Broadening Conceptions of Creativity in the Classroom; 10 Everyday Creativity in the Classroom: A Trip through Time with Seven Suggestions
This National Strategies study guide offers tried and tested practical suggestions for teachers to use in the classroom when considering the teaching of How Science Works. A variety of tasks help teachers to focus on developing their own creativity and critical thinking, transferable skills which they can pass on to their students. There are also strategies for developing critical and creative ...
Critical and creative thinking involves students thinking broadly and deeply using skills, behaviours and dispositions such as reason, logic, resourcefulness, imagination and innovation in all learning areas at school and in their lives beyond school. Thinking that is productive, purposeful and intentional is at the centre of effective learning ...
Typically, by the end of Year 10, students: Reflecting on thinking and processes element. Think about thinking (metacognition) describe what they are thinking and give reasons why. describe the thinking strategies used in given situations and tasks. reflect on, explain and check the processes used to come to conclusions.
Fostering Critical Thinking Skills: Comparative Creative Projects in General Education Humanities and Social Science Classrooms. ... According to both post-secondary educational advocates and employers, critical thinking is a vital skill for students to learn during their university education. It is not a skill, however, that students can be ...