critical thinking character communication

Critical Thinking and Effective Communication: Enhancing Interpersonal Skills for Success

In today’s fast-paced world, effective communication and critical thinking have become increasingly important skills for both personal and professional success. Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze situations, gather information, and make sound judgments, while effective communication involves not only conveying ideas clearly but also actively listening and responding to others. These two crucial abilities are intertwined, as critical thinking often mediates information processing, leading to a more comprehensive understanding and ultimately enhancing communication.

Key Takeaways

Critical thinking fundamentals, skill and knowledge, analysis and evidence.

A key component of critical thinking is the ability to analyze information, which involves breaking down complex problems or arguments into manageable parts to understand their underlying structure [2] . Analyzing evidence is essential in order to ascertain the validity and credibility of the information, which leads to better decision-making. Critical thinkers must consider factors like the source’s credibility, the existence of potential biases, and any relevant areas of expertise before forming judgments.

Clarity of Thought

In summary, mastering critical thinking fundamentals, including skill and knowledge, analysis of evidence, and clarity of thought, is essential for effective communication. Cultivating these abilities will enable individuals to better navigate their personal and professional lives, fostering stronger, more efficient connections with others.

Importance of Critical Thinking

Workplace and leadership, decisions and problem-solving, confidence and emotions.

Critical thinking plays a significant role in managing one’s emotions and cultivating self-confidence. By engaging in rational and objective thinking, individuals can develop a clearer understanding of their own beliefs and values. This awareness can lead to increased self-assurance and the ability to effectively articulate one’s thoughts and opinions. Additionally, critical thinking can help individuals navigate emotionally-charged situations by promoting logical analysis and appropriate emotional responses. Ultimately, honing critical thinking skills can establish a strong foundation for effective communication and emotional intelligence.

Effective Communication

Verbal communication, nonverbal communication, visual communication.

Visual communication involves the use of visual aids such as images, graphs, charts, and diagrams to support or enhance verbal messages. It can help to make complex information more understandable and engaging. To maximize the effectiveness of visual communication, consider the following tips:

Critical Thinking Skills in Communication

Listening and analyzing.

Developing strong listening and analyzing skills is crucial for critical thinking in communication. This involves actively paying attention to what others are saying and sifting through the information to identify key points. Taking a step back to analyze and evaluate messages helps ensure a clear understanding of the topic.

Biases and Perspective

Considering other people’s perspectives allows you to view an issue from multiple angles, eventually leading to a more thorough understanding. Approaching communications with an open and receptive mind gives you a greater ability to relate and empathize with others, which in turn enhances the overall effectiveness of communication.

Problem-Solving and Questions

Ultimately, enhancing your critical thinking skills in communication leads to better understanding, stronger connections, and more effective communication. By combining active listening, awareness of biases and perspectives, and problem-solving through questioning, you can significantly improve your ability to navigate even the most complex communications with confidence and clarity.

Improving Critical Thinking and Communication

Methods and techniques.

By honing these skills, individuals can better navigate the complexities of modern life and develop more effective communication capabilities.

Problem-Solving Skills

By mastering this framework, individuals can tackle problems more effectively and communicate their solutions with clarity and confidence.

Staying on Point and Focused

By maintaining focus throughout your communication, you can improve your ability to think critically and communicate more effectively.

Teaching and Training Critical Thinking

Content and curriculum, instructors and teachers.

The role of instructors and teachers in promoting critical thinking cannot be underestimated. They should be trained and equipped with strategies to stimulate thinking, provoke curiosity, and encourage students to question assumptions. Additionally, they must create a learning environment that supports the development of critical thinking by being patient, open-minded, and accepting of diverse perspectives.

Engaging Conversations

Frequently asked questions, what are the essential aspects of critical thinking, how do communication skills impact problem-solving.

Effective communication skills are crucial in problem-solving, as they facilitate the exchange of information, ideas, and perspectives. Clear and concise communication helps ensure that all team members understand the problem, the proposed solutions, and their roles in the process. Additionally, strong listening skills enable better comprehension of others’ viewpoints and foster collaboration.

How does language influence critical thinking?

What strategies can enhance communication in critical thinking, what are the benefits of critical thinking in communication.

Critical thinking enhances communication by promoting clarity, objectivity, and logical reasoning. When we engage in critical thinking, we question assumptions, consider multiple viewpoints, and evaluate the strength of arguments. As a result, our communication becomes more thoughtful, persuasive, and effective at conveying the intended message .

How do critical thinking skills contribute to effective communication?

You may also like, how to vote wisely: essential strategies for informed decision-making in elections, best movies for critical thinking: top picks to challenge your mind, critical thinking and goal setting, critical thinking vs. strategic thinking (strategy as a critical thinker), download this free ebook.

• Career Advice
• Job Search & Interview
• Productivity
• Public Speaking and Presentation
• Social & Interpersonal Skills
• Professional Development
• Remote Work

Eggcellent Work

What is the role of communication in critical thinking  .

Communication is the framework, foundation, and skeletal structure of critical thinking. People who continually strive to  improve their critical thinking skills  are better communicators.

Critical thinkers have communication skills that:

• help them to articulate and visualize problems and solutions from different angles
• enable them to present their perspectives with confidence
• assimilate and organize their thoughts through logical analysis

In today’s job market, communication ability based on critical thinking are valued traits in new employees—and according to one 2016 survey by the Harvard Business Review—those skills are  sadly lacking  in many of today’s job applicants.

• The Ultimate Guide To Critical Thinking
• Is Critical Thinking A Soft Skill Or Hard Skill?
• How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills At Work And Make Better Decisions
• 5 Creative and Critical Thinking Examples In Workplace
• 10 Best Books On Critical Thinking And Problem Solving
• 12 Common Barriers To Critical Thinking (And How To Overcome Them)

How To Promote Critical Thinking In The Workplace

Critical thinking vs problem solving: what’s the difference, examples of communication in critical thinking.

There are a variety of ways to communicate effectively using critical thinking. Indeed.com highlights  four types of communication  in critical thinking with suggestions on deploying those communication tools:

1.  Verbal —Critical thinkers use a strong and confident speaking voice as well as active listening—a conscious effort to not only hear the words, but the complete message the other person is communicating. They avoid “filler” words and fluff, as well as excessive industry jargon when plain speaking will do.

2.  Visual —Good visual communications are governed by the following rules of thumb:

• get permission in advance
• only use visual presentations when they add value to the process
• consider the audience
• present clear and easy-to-understand visual presentations  focusing on the core message

3.  Written —Good writers strive for simplicity and prefer active voice. They never rely on tone and always thoroughly review what they have written. They keep a file of their own and the writing of others that they find effective and appealing to their writing style.

4.  Nonverbal —At the core of critical thinking is controlling emotions and self-monitoring. A critical thinker communicates intentionally and uses appropriate facial expressions and body knowledge to reinforce objectivity.

Nonverbal communication is especially effective when it is backed up with solid research and evidence, with appropriate nonverbal messaging that projects a relaxed, confident persona.

How language or communication influences your critical thinking

So, all the above communication methods contribute a unique perspective to what is the role of communication in critical thinking. Also, effective communication influences your critical thinking in several positive ways:

Critical thinking communication skills help you to stay on point

Staying on topic and avoiding deviating is a byproduct of critical thinking. In group settings, it can be difficult to fix a problem when others have their own views and possible hidden agendas. A skilled communicator can stay on track and focus on core issues, while establishing trust and a reputation for staying on point.

Critical thinkers have a curious mind and are in control of their emotions.

An essential feature of critical thinking is self-knowledge and an ability to shed biases and to control emotions. Employers seek this quality and value an employee who can regulate emotions as well as ask questions for useful solutions to difficult problems.

A caveat about emotions

David R. Novak  sees communication as a difficult process and argues that “critical thinking isn’t a purely rational process.” He is wary of anyone “trumpeting their ‘rationality,’ arguing that “their humanity has likely been corrupted.” In fact, dealing with emotions is “part of the process of communicating and part of critical thinking.”

Says Novak, “Emotions are real and powerful.” They can sometimes be central when hashing out difficult problems with people. His advice when dealing with emotion-driven problems is to “embrace and express authentic emotions appropriately.”

Finally, the thing about emotive expressions is that they “are evidence of systemic problems that lie beneath.” Novak’s advice: “Strive to be flexible to and open to the authentic expressions of others. You can’t tell people in pain to suppress emotions.”

What is the role of communication in critical thinking when evaluating applicants for management positions?

It is a given that when managers make a decision, they must share it both up and down the chain of their hierarchies. Managers who are critical thinkers demonstrate sophisticated communication skills. They provide supporting arguments and the necessary evidence to substantiate their decision. When their team is on the same page, they play by the same rules.

Critical thinking improves communication

When a manager thinks clearly and is not unduly swayed by bias, what follows is a more productive communication process. That process consists of better engagement where everyone can contribute to the mission.

Better communication through critical thinking is a stepping stone to emotional intelligence

Analytical rationality and  emotional intelligence  can coexist. In fact, a manager with well-developed critical thinking and communication skills can avoid emotion-driven decisions. However, their respect for the emotional and ethical implications of any problem or challenge enables them to come up with more  creative solutions.

Critical thinkers communicate with challenging open-ended questions

Managers who are critical thinkers actively encourage creativity. They are open to new ideas and their goal is, by effective communication, to amass a larger trove of information when facing decisions.

This communication habit, in turn, promotes even more creative solutions through asking challenging and open-ended questions from those who have a stake in the solution. When those open-ended questions are loaded with elements of critical thinking—e.g., “How do you know that? What evidence do you have?”—the manager is teaching everyone the value of critical thinking and communication.

Critical thinking plus good communication equal savings in time and money.

Managers who encourage critical thinking in the workplace minimize the requirement for supervision. They can catch problems early, and encourage initiative and independence. Managers can then focus on the core responsibilities of their duties and save their organization time and resources.

Let’s Recap

Communication is the foundation of critical thinking. Critical thinkers have communication skills that get to the heart of problems. Examples of communication resources in critical thinking include verbal, visual, written, and nonverbal skills. Each has its own value and applications in critical thinking.

Language or communication influences critical thinking effectiveness by helping you to stay on point and in control of your emotions. Emotions, however, can come into play in effectively communicating with those whose emotions have taken over.

Managers who are critical thinkers can develop communication styles that encourage their team to communicate better and play by the same rules. A manager who thinks and communicates clearly can promote better communications and a team that contributes to the mission.

When the goal is a creative solution to a difficult challenge, a manager who asks the right open-ended questions can tap into everyone’s innate desire to solve problems.

Finally, managers who encourage effective communication and critical thinking minimize the need for supervising their employees, while encouraging initiative and independence. That translates into savings in time, effort, and money.

• Is Critical Thinking Overrated?  Disadvantages Of Critical Thinking
• 15 Signs Of Poor Communication Skills And How To Fix Them   
• 25 In-Demand Jobs That Require Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills
• Brainstorming: Techniques Used To Boost Critical Thinking and Creativity
• 11 Principles Of Critical Thinking  
• Difference Between Public Speaking And Interpersonal Communication

Jenny Palmer

Founder of Eggcellentwork.com. With over 20 years of experience in HR and various roles in corporate world, Jenny shares tips and advice to help professionals advance in their careers. Her blog is a go-to resource for anyone looking to improve their skills, land their dream job, or make a career change.

Further Reading...

11 Principles Of Critical Thinking  

15 Examples of Confidence in the Workplace to Unlock Success

No comments, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Critical Thinking vs Problem Solving: What's the Difference?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PMC10054602

Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education

Branden thornhill-miller.

1 Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK

2 International Institute for Competency Development, 75001 Paris, France

Anaëlle Camarda

3 LaPEA, Université Paris Cité and Univ Gustave Eiffel, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France

4 Institut Supérieur Maria Montessori, 94130 Nogent-Sur-Marne, France

Maxence Mercier

Jean-marie burkhardt.

5 LaPEA, Univ Gustave Eiffel and Université Paris Cité, CEDEX, 78008 Versailles, France

Tiffany Morisseau

6 Strane Innovation, 91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, France

Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine

Florent vinchon, stephanie el hayek.

7 AFNOR International, 93210 Saint-Denis, France

Myriam Augereau-Landais

Florence mourey, cyrille feybesse.

8 Centre Hospitalier Guillaume Regnier, Université de Rennes 1, 35200 Rennes, France

Daniel Sundquist

Todd lubart, associated data.

Not Applicable.

This article addresses educational challenges posed by the future of work, examining “21st century skills”, their conception, assessment, and valorization. It focuses in particular on key soft skill competencies known as the “4Cs”: creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. In a section on each C, we provide an overview of assessment at the level of individual performance, before focusing on the less common assessment of systemic support for the development of the 4Cs that can be measured at the institutional level (i.e., in schools, universities, professional training programs, etc.). We then present the process of official assessment and certification known as “labelization”, suggesting it as a solution both for establishing a publicly trusted assessment of the 4Cs and for promoting their cultural valorization. Next, two variations of the “International Institute for Competency Development’s 21st Century Skills Framework” are presented. The first of these comprehensive systems allows for the assessment and labelization of the extent to which development of the 4Cs is supported by a formal educational program or institution. The second assesses informal educational or training experiences, such as playing a game. We discuss the overlap between the 4Cs and the challenges of teaching and institutionalizing them, both of which may be assisted by adopting a dynamic interactionist model of the 4Cs—playfully entitled “Crea-Critical-Collab-ication”—for pedagogical and policy-promotion purposes. We conclude by briefly discussing opportunities presented by future research and new technologies such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality.

1. Introduction

There are many ways of describing the massive educational challenges faced in the 21st century. With the appearance of computers and digital technologies, new means of interacting between people, and a growing competitiveness on the international level, organizations are now requiring new skills from their employees, leaving educational systems struggling to provide appropriate ongoing training. Indeed, according to the World Economic Forum’s 2020 “Future of Jobs Report”, studying 15 industries in 26 advanced and emerging countries, up to 50% of employees will need some degree of “reskilling” by 2025 ( World Economic Forum 2020 ). Although many national and international educational efforts and institutions now explicitly put the cultivation of new kinds of skills on their educational agendas, practical means of assessing such skills remains underdeveloped, thus hampering the valorization of these skills and the development of guidance for relevant pedagogy ( Care et al. 2018 ; Vincent-Lancrin et al. 2019 ; for overviews and discussion of higher education in global developmental context, see Blessinger and Anchan 2015 ; Salmi 2017 ).

This article addresses some of these challenges and related issues for the future of education and work, by focusing on so-called “21st Century Skills” and key “soft skills” known as the “4Cs” (creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration), more particularly. It begins with a brief discussion of these skills, outlining their conceptual locations and potential roles in the modern educational context. A section on each “C” then follows, defining the C, summarizing research and methods for its scientific assessment at the individual level, and then outlining some means and avenues at the systemic level for fostering its development (e.g., important aspects of curriculum, institutional structure, or of the general environment, as well as pedagogical methods) that might be leveraged by an institution or program in order to promote the development of that C among its students/trainees. In the next section, the certification-like process of “labelization” is outlined and proposed as one of the best available solutions both for valorizing the 4Cs and moving them towards the center of the modern educational enterprise, as well as for benchmarking and monitoring institutions’ progress in fostering their development. The International Institute for Competency Development’s 4Cs Framework is then outlined as an example of such a comprehensive system for assessing and labelizing the extent to which educational institutions and programs support the development of the 4Cs. We further demonstrate the possibility of labelizing and promoting support for the development of the 4Cs by activities or within less formal educational settings, presenting a second framework for assessment of the 4Cs in games and similar training activities. Our discussion section begins with the challenges to implementing educational change in the direction of 21st century skills, focusing on the complex and overlapping nature of the 4Cs. Here, we propose that promoting a “Dynamic Interactionist Model of the 4Cs” not only justifies grouping them together, but it might also assist more directly with some of the challenges of pedagogy, assessment, policy promotion, and ultimately, institutionalization, faced by the 4Cs and related efforts to modernize education. We conclude by suggesting some important future work for the 4Cs individually and also as an interrelated collective of vital skills for the future of education and work.

“21st Century Skills”, “Soft Skills”, and the “4Cs”

For 40 years, so-called “21st century skills” have been promoted as those necessary for success in a modern work environment that the US Army War College ( Barber 1992 ) has accurately described as increasingly “VUCA”—“volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous”. Various lists of skills and competencies have been formulated on their own or as part of comprehensive overarching educational frameworks. Although a detailed overview of this background material is outside the scope of this article (see Lamri et al. 2022 ; Lucas 2022 for summaries), one of the first prominent examples of this trend was the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21), whose comprehensive “Framework for 21st Century Learning” is presented in Figure 1 ( Battelle for Kids 2022 ). This framework for future-oriented education originated the idea of the “4Cs”, placing them at its center and apex as “Learning and Innovation Skills” that are in need of much broader institutional support at the foundational level in the form of new standards and assessments, curriculum and instructional development, ongoing professional development, and appropriately improved learning environments ( Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2008 ). These points are also consistent with the approach and assessment frameworks presented later in this article.

The P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning. (© 2019, Battelle for Kids. All Rights Reserved. https://www.battelleforkids.org/ ; accessed on 17 January 2023).

Other important organizations such as the World Economic Forum ( 2015 ) have produced similar overarching models of “21st century skills’’ with the 4Cs at their center, but the term “21st century skills’’ has been rightly criticized for a several reasons: the skills referred to are not actually all unique to, or uniquely important to, the 21st century, and it is a term that is often used more as an advertising or promotional label for systems that sometimes conflate and confuse different kinds of skills with other concepts that users lump together ( Lucas 2019 ). Indeed, though there is no absolute consensus on the definition of a “skill”, they are often described as being multidimensional and involve the ability to solve problems in context and to perform tasks using appropriate resources at the right time and in the right combination ( Lamri and Lubart 2021 ). At its simplest, a skill is a “learned capacity to do something useful” ( Lucas and Claxton 2009 ), or an ability to perform a given task at a specified performance level, which develops through practice, experience. and training ( Lamri et al. 2022 ).

The idea of what skills “are’’, however, has also evolved to some extent over time in parallel to the nature of the abilities required to make valued contributions to society. The digital and information age, in particular, has seen the replacement by machines of much traditional work sometimes referred to as “hard skills’’—skills such as numerical calculation or driving, budget-formulating, or copyediting abilities, which entail mastery of fixed sets of knowledge and know-how of standard procedures, and which are often learned on the job. Such skills are more routine, machine-related, or technically oriented and not as likely to be centered on human interaction. In contrast, the work that has been increasingly valued in the 21st century involves the more complex, human interactive, and/or non-routine skills that Whitmore ( 1972 ) first referred to as “soft skills”.

Unfortunately, researchers, educators, and consultants have defined, redefined, regrouped, and expanded soft skills—sometimes labeling them “transversal competencies”, “generic competencies”, or even “life skills” in addition to “21st century skills”—in so many different ways within and across different domains of research and education (as well as languages and national educational systems) that much progress towards these goals has literally been “lost in translation” ( Cinque 2016 ).

Indeed, there is also a long-standing ambiguity and confusion between the terms “competency” (also competence) and “skill” due to their use across different domains (e.g., learning research, education, vocational training, personnel selection) as well as different epistemological backgrounds and cultural specificities ( Drisko 2014 ; Winterton et al. 2006 ; van Klink and Boon 2003 ). The term “competency” is, however, often used as a broader concept that encompasses skills, abilities, and attitudes, whereas, in a narrower sense, the term “skill” has been defined as “goal-directed, well-organized behavior that is acquired through practice and performed with economy of effort” ( Proctor and Dutta 1995, p. 18 ). For example, whereas the command of a spoken language or the ability to write are skills (hard skills, to be precise), the ability to communicate effectively is a competence that may draw on an individual’s knowledge of language, writing skills, practical IT skills, and emotional intelligence, as well as attitudes towards those with whom one is communicating ( Rychen and Hersch 2003 ). Providing high-quality customer service is a competency that relies on listening skills, social perception skills, and contextual knowledge of products. Beyond these potential distinctions, the term “competency” is predominant in Europe, whereas “skill” is more commonly used in the US. Yet it also frequently occurs that both are used as rough synonyms. For example, Voogt and Roblin ( 2012, p. 299 ) examine the “21st century competences and the recommended strategies for the implementation of these skills”, and Graesser et al. ( 2022, p. 568 ) state that twenty-first-century skills “include self-regulated learning, collaborative problem solving, communication (…) and other competencies”. In conclusion, the term “competencies” is often used interchangeably with “skills” (and can have a particularly large overlap with “soft skills”), but it is also often considered in a broader sense as a set of skills, knowledge, and attitudes that, together, meet a complex demand ( Ananiadoui and Claro 2009 ). From this perspective, one could argue that the 4Cs, as complex, “higher-order” soft skills, might best be labeled competencies. For ease and convenience, however, in this text, we consider the two terms interchangeable but favor the term “skills”, only using “competency” in some instances to avoid cumbersome repetition.

Even having defined soft skills as a potentially more narrow and manageable focus, we are still aware of no large-scale study that has employed a comprehensive enough range of actual psychometric measures of soft skills in a manner that might help produce a definitive empirical taxonomy. Some more recent taxonomic efforts have, however, attempted to provide additional empirical grounding for the accurate identification of key soft skills (see e.g., Joie-La Marle et al. 2022 ). Further, recent research by JobTeaser (see Lamri et al. 2022 ) surveying a large, diverse sample of young workers about a comprehensive, systematic list of soft skills as actually used in their professional roles represents a good step towards some clarification and mapping of this domain on an empirical basis. Despite the fact that both these studies necessarily involved assumptions and interpretive grouping of variables, the presence and importance of the 4Cs as higher-order skills is evident in both sets of empirical results.

Various comprehensive “21st century skills” systems proposed in the past without much empirical verification also seem to have been found too complex and cumbersome for implementation. The 4Cs, on the other hand, seem to provide a relatively simple, persuasive, targetable core that has been found to constitute a pedagogically and policy-friendly model by major organizations, and that also now seems to be gaining some additional empirical validity. Gathering support from researchers and industry alike, we suggest that the 4Cs can be seen as highest-level transversal skills—or “meta-competencies”—that allow individuals to remain competent and to develop their potential in a rapidly changing professional world. Thus, in the end, they may also be one of the most useful ways of summarizing and addressing the critical challenges faced by the future of work and education ( National Education Association 2011 ).

Taking them as our focus, we note, however, that the teaching and development of the 4Cs will require a complex intervention and mobilization of educational and socio-economic resources—both a major shift in pedagogical techniques and even more fundamental changes in institutional structures ( Ananiadoui and Claro 2009 ). One very important issue for understanding the 4Cs and their educational implementation related to this, which can simultaneously facilitate their teaching but be a challenge for their assessment, is the multidimensionality, interrelatedness, and transdisciplinary relevance of the 4Cs. Thus, we address the relationships between the Cs in the different C sections and later in our Discussion, we present a “Dynamic Interactionist Model of the 4Cs’’ that we hope will assist in their understanding, in the further development of pedagogical processes related to them, and in their public promotion and related policy. Ultimately, it is partly due to their complexity and interrelationships, we argue, that it is important and expedient that the 4Cs are taught, assessed, and promoted together.

2. The 4Cs, Assessment, and Support for Development

2.1. creativity.

In psychology, creativity is usually defined as the capacity to produce novel, original work that fits with task constraints and has value in its context (for a recent overview, see Lubart and Thornhill-Miller 2019 ). This basic definition, though useful for testing and measurement, is largely incomplete, as it does not contain any information about the individual or groups doing the creating or the nature of physical and social contexts ( Glăveanu 2014 ). Moreover, Corazza ( 2016 ) challenged this standard definition of creativity, arguing that as it focuses solely on the existence of an original and effective outcome, it misses the dynamics of the creative process, which is frequently associated with periods of creative inconclusiveness and limited occasions of creative achievements. To move away from the limitations of the standard definition of creativity, we can consider Bruner’s description of creativity as “figuring out how to use what you already know in order to go beyond what you currently think” (p. 183 in Weick 1993 ). This description echoes the notion of potential, which refers to a latent state that may be put to use if a person has the opportunity.

Creativity is a multifaceted phenomenon that can be approached from many different angles. There are three main frameworks for creativity studies: the 4Ps ( Rhodes 1961 ), the 5As ( Glăveanu 2013 ), and the 7Cs model ( Lubart 2017 ). These frameworks share at least four fundamental and measurable dimensions: the act of creating (process), the outcome of the creative process (product), the characteristics of creative actor(s) enacting the process (person), and the social and physical environment that enable or hinder the creative process (press). Contrary to many traditional beliefs, however, creativity can be trained and taught in a variety of different ways, both through direct, active teaching of creativity concepts and techniques and through more passive and indirect means such as the development of creativity-supporting contexts ( Chiu 2015 ; Thornhill-Miller and Dupont 2016 ). Alongside intelligence, with which it shares some common mechanisms, creativity is now recognized as an indispensable element for the flexibility and adaptation of individuals in challenging situations ( Sternberg 1986 ).

2.1.1. Individual Assessment of Creativity

Drawing upon previous efforts to structure creativity research, Batey ( 2012 ) proposed a taxonomic framework for creativity measurement that takes the form of a three-dimensional matrix: (a) the level at which creativity may be measured (the individual, the team, the organization, and the culture), (b) the facets of creativity that may be assessed (person/trait, process, press, and product), and (c) the measurement approach (objective, self-rating, other ratings). It is beyond the scope of this article to offer a literature review of all these dimensions, but for the purposes of this paper, we address some important aspects of individual-level and institutional-level assessment here.

Assessing creativity at an individual level encompasses two major approaches: (1) creative accomplishment based on production and (2) creative potential. Regarding the first approach focusing on creative accomplishment , there are at least four main assessment techniques (or tools representing variations of assessment techniques): (a) the historiometric approach, which applies quantitative analysis to historically available data (such as the number of prizes won or times cited) in an effort to understand eminent, field-changing creativity ( Simonton 1999 ); (b) the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) ( Amabile 1982 ), which offers a method for combining and validating judges’ subjective evaluations of a set of (potentially) creative productions or ideas; (c) the Creative Achievement Questionnaire ( Carson et al. 2005 ), which asks individuals to supply a self-reported assessment of their publicly recognizable achievement in ten different creative domains; and (d) the Inventory of Creative Activities and Achievements (ICAA) ( Jauk et al. 2014 ; Diedrich et al. 2018 ), which includes self-report scales assessing the frequency of engagement in creative activity and also levels of achievement in eight different domains.

The second major approach to individual assessment is based on creative potential, which measures the cognitive abilities and/or personality traits that are important for creative work. The two most popular assessments of creative potential are the Remote Associations Test (RAT) and the Alternative Uses Task (AUT). The RAT, which involves identifying the fourth word that is somehow associated with each of three given words, underscores the role that the ability to convergently associate disparate ideas plays as a key capacity for creativity. In contrast, the AUT, which requires individuals to generate a maximum number of ideas based on a prompt (e.g., different uses for a paperclip), is used to assess divergent thinking capacity. According to multivariate models of creative potential ( Lubart et al. 2013 ), there are cognitive factors (e.g., divergent thinking, mental flexibility, convergent thinking, associative thinking, selective combination), conative factors (openness, tolerance of ambiguity, intuitive thinking, risk taking, motivation to create), and environmental factors that all support creativity. Higher creative potential is predicted by having more of the ingredients for creativity. However, multiple different profiles among a similar set of these important ingredients exist, and their weighting for optimal creative potential varies according to the profession, the domain, and the task under consideration. For example, Lubart and Thornhill-Miller ( 2021 ) and Lubin et al. ( forthcoming ) have taken this creativity profiling approach, exploring the identification and training of the components of creative potential among lawyers and clinical psychologists, respectively. For a current example of this sort of comprehensive, differentiated measurement of creative potential in adults in different domains and professions, see CreativityProfiling.org. For a recent battery of tests that are relevant for children, including domain-relevant divergent-exploratory and convergent-integrative tasks, see Lubart et al. ( 2019 ). Underscoring the growing recognition of the importance of creativity assessment, measures of creative potential for students were introduced internationally for the first time in the PISA 2022 assessment ( OECD 2019a ).

2.1.2. Institutional and Environmental Support for Development of Creativity

The structural support that institutions and programs can provide to promote the development of creativity can be described as coming through three main paths: (1) through design of the physical environment in a manner that supports creativity, (2) through teaching about creativity, the creative process, and creativity techniques, and (3) through training opportunities to help students/employees develop personal habits, characteristics, and other ingredients associated with creative achievement and potential.

Given the multi-dimensionality of the notion of creativity, the environment can positively influence and help develop creative capacities. Studies have shown that the physical environment in which individuals work can enhance their positive emotions and mood and thus their creativity. For example, stimulating working environments might have unusual furniture and spaces that have natural light, windows open to nature, plants and flowers, a relaxing atmosphere and colors in the room (e.g., green and blue), or positive sounds (e.g., calm music or silence), as well as inspiring and energizing colors (e.g., yellow, pink, orange). Furthermore, the arrangement of physical space to promote interpersonal exchange rather than isolation, as well as the presence of tools, such as whiteboards, that support and show the value of exchange, are also important (for reviews, see Dul and Ceylan 2011 ; Samani et al. 2014 ).

Although it has been claimed that “creativity is intelligence having fun” ( Scialabba 1984 ; Reiman 1992 ), for most people, opportunities for fun and creativity, especially in their work environment, appear rather limited. In fact, the social and physical environment often hinders creativity. Corazza et al. ( 2021 )’s theoretical framework concerning the “Space-Time Continuum”, related to support for creativity, suggests that traditional education systems are an example of an environment that is “tight” both in the conceptual “space” it affords for creativity and in the available time allowed for creativity to happen—essentially leaving little room for original ideas to emerge. Indeed, though world-wide data suggest that neither money nor mere time spent in class correlate well with educational outcomes, both policies and pedagogy that direct the ways in which time is spent make a significant difference ( Schleicher 2022 ). Research and common sense suggest that teachers, students, and employees need more space and time to invest energy in the creative process and the development of creative potential.

Underscoring the importance of teaching the creative process and creativity techniques is the demonstration, in a number of contexts, that groups of individuals who generate ideas without a specific method are often negatively influenced by their social environment. For example, unless guarded against, the presence of others tends to reduce the number of ideas generated and to induce a fixation on a limited number of ideas conforming to those produced by others ( Camarda et al. 2021 ; Goldenberg and Wiley 2011 ; Kohn and Smith 2011 ; Paulus and Dzindolet 1993 ; Putman and Paulus 2009 ; Rietzschel et al. 2006 ). To overcome these cognitive and social biases, different variants of brainstorming techniques have shown positive effects (for reviews of methods, see Al-Samarraie and Hurmuzan 2018 ; Paulus and Brown 2007 ). These include: using ( Osborn 1953 ) initial brainstorming rules (which aim to reduce spontaneous self-judgment of ideas and fear of this judgment by others); drawing attention to ideas generated by others by writing them down independently (e.g., the technique known as “brainwriting”); and requiring incubation periods between work sessions by forcing members of a problem-solving group to take breaks ( Paulus and Yang 2000 ; Paulus and Kenworthy 2019 ).

It is also possible to use design methods that are structured to guide the creative process and the exploration of ideas, as well as to avoid settling on uncreative solution paths ( Chulvi et al. 2012 ; Edelman et al. 2022 ; Kowaltowski et al. 2010 ; see Cotter et al. 2022 for a valuable survey of best practices for avoiding the suppression of creativity and fostering creative interaction and metacognition in the classroom). Indeed, many helpful design thinking-related programs now exist around the world and have been shown to have a substantial impact on creative outcomes ( Bourgeois-Bougrine 2022 ).

Research and experts suggest the utility of many additional creativity enhancement techniques (see, e.g., Thornhill-Miller and Dupont 2016 ), and the largest and most rapid effects are often attributed to these more method- or technique-oriented approaches ( Scott et al. 2004 ). More long-term institutional and environmental support for the development of creativity, however, should also include targeted training and understanding of personality and emotional traits associated with the “creative person” (e.g., empathy and exploratory habits that can expand knowledge, as well as increase tolerance of ambiguity, openness, and mental flexibility; see Lubart and Thornhill-Miller 2021 ). Complementing these approaches and focusing on a more systemic level, recent work conducted by the OECD exemplifies efforts aimed to foster creativity (and critical thinking) by focusing simultaneously on curriculum, educational activities, and teacher support and development at the primary, secondary, and higher education levels (see Vincent-Lancrin et al. 2019 ; Saroyan 2022 ).

2.2. Critical Thinking

Researchers, teachers, employers, and public policymakers around the world have long ranked the development of critical thinking (CT) abilities as one of the highest educational priorities and public needs in modern democratic societies ( Ahern et al. 2019 ; Dumitru et al. 2018 ; Pasquinelli et al. 2021 ). CT is central to better outcomes in daily life and general problem solving ( Hitchcock 2020 ), to intelligence and adaptability ( Halpern and Dunn 2021 ), and to academic achievement ( Ren et al. 2020 ). One needs to be aware of distorted or erroneous information in the media, of the difference between personal opinions and proven facts, and how to handle increasingly large bodies of information required to understand and evaluate information in the modern age.

Although much research has addressed both potentially related constructs, such as intelligence and wisdom, and lists of potential component aspects of human thought, such as inductive or deductive reasoning (for reviews of all of these, see Sternberg and Funke 2019 ), reaching a consensus on a definition has been difficult, because CT relies on the coordination of many different skills ( Bellaera et al. 2021 ; Dumitru et al. 2018 ) and is involved in, and sometimes described from the perspective of, many different domains ( Lewis and Smith 1993 ). Furthermore, as a transversal competency, having the skills to perform aspects of critical thinking in a given domain does not necessarily entail also having the metacognitive ability to know when to engage in which of its aspects, or having the disposition, attitude, or “mindset” that motivates one to actually engage in them—all of which are actually required to be a good critical thinker ( Facione 2011 ).

As pointed out by the American Philosophical Association’s consensus definition, the ideal “critical thinker” is someone who is inquisitive, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded, and keeps well-informed, thus understanding different points of view and perspectives ( Facione 1990b ). These characteristics, one might note, are also characteristic of the “creative individual” ( Facione 1990b ; Lai 2011 ), as is the ability to imagine alternatives, which is often cited as a component of critical thinking ability ( Facione 1990b ; Halpern 1998 ). Conversely, creative production in any domain needs to be balanced by critical appraisal and thought at each step of the creative process ( Bailin 1988 ). Indeed, it can be argued that creativity and critical thinking are inextricably linked and are often two sides of the same coin. Representing different aspects of “good thought” that are linked and develop in parallel, it seems reasonable that they should, in practice, be taught and considered together in teaching and learning ( Paul and Elder 2006 ).

Given its complexity, many definitions of critical thinking have been offered. However, some more recent work has helpfully defined critical thinking as “the capacity of assessing the epistemic quality of available information and—as a consequence of this assessment—of calibrating one’s confidence in order to act upon such information” ( Pasquinelli et al. 2021 ). This definition, unlike others proposed in the field (for a review, see: Bellaera et al. 2021 ; Liu et al. 2014 ), is specific (i.e., it limits the use of poorly defined concepts), as well as consensual and operational (i.e., it has clear and direct implications for the education and assessment of critical thinking skills; Pasquinelli et al. 2021 ; Pasquinelli and Bronner 2021 ). Thus, this approach assumes that individuals possess better or worse cognitive processes and strategies that make it possible to judge the reliability of the information received, by determining, for example, what the arguments provided actually are. Are the arguments convincing? Is the source of information identifiable and reliable? Does the information conflict with other information held by the individual?

It should also be noted that being able to apply critical thinking is necessary to detect and overcome the cognitive biases that can constrain one’s reasoning. Indeed, when solving a problem, it is widely recognized that people tend to automate the application of strategies that are usually relevant in similar and analogous situations that have already been encountered. However, these heuristics (i.e., automatisms) can be a source of errors, in particular, in tricky reasoning situations, as demonstrated in the field of reasoning, arithmetic problems ( Kahneman 2003 ) or even divergent thinking tasks ( Cassotti et al. 2016 ; for a review of biases, see Friedman 2017 ). Though some cognitive biases can even be seen as normal ways of thinking and feeling, sometimes shaping human beliefs and ideologies in ways that make it completely normal—and even definitely human— not to be objective (see Thornhill-Miller and Millican 2015 ), the mobilization of cognitive resources such as those involved in critical reasoning on logical bases usually makes it possible to overcome cognitive biases and adjust one’s reasoning ( West et al. 2008 ).

According to Pasquinelli et al. ( 2021 ), young children already possess cognitive functions underlying critical thinking, such as the ability to determine that information is false. However, until late adolescence, studies have demonstrated an underdevelopment of executive functions involved in resistance to biased reasoning ( Casey et al. 2008 ) as well as some other higher-order skills that underlie the overall critical thinking process ( Bloom 1956 ). According to Facione and the landmark American Philosophical Association’s task force on critical thinking ( Facione 1990b ; Facione 2011 ), these components of critical thinking can be organized into six measurable skills: the ability to (1) interpret information (i.e., meaning and context); (2) analyze information (i.e., make sense of why this information has been provided, identify pro and con arguments, and decide whether we can accept the conclusion of the information); (3) make inferences (i.e., determine the implications of the evidence, its reliability, the undesirable consequences); (4) evaluate the strength of the information (i.e., its credibility, determine the trust in the person who provides it); (5) provide explanations (i.e., summarize the findings, determine how the information can be interpreted, and offer verification of the reasoning); (6) self-regulate (i.e., evaluate the strength of the methods applied, determine the conflict between different conclusions, clarify the conclusions, and verify missing elements).

2.2.1. Individual Assessment of Critical Thinking

The individual assessment of critical thinking skills presents a number of challenges, because it is a multi-task ability and involves specific knowledge in the different areas in which it is applied ( Liu et al. 2014 ; Willingham 2008 ). However, the literature provides several tools with which to measure different facets of cognitive functions and skills involved in the overarching critical thinking process ( Lai 2011 ; Liu et al. 2014 ). Most assessments involve multiple-choice questions requiring reasoning within a particular situation based upon a constrained set of information provided. For example, in one of the most widely used tests, the California Critical Thinking Skills Test ( Facione 1990a ), participants are provided with everyday scenarios and have to answer multiple questions targeting the six higher-order skills described previously. Similarly, the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal ( Watson 1980 ; Watson and Glaser 2010 ) presents test takers with passages and scenarios measuring their competencies at recognizing assumptions, evaluating arguments, and drawing conclusions. Although the Watson–Glaser is one of the oldest and most frequently used assessments internationally for hiring and promotion in professional contexts, its construct validity, like many other measures of this challenging topic, has some limitations ( Possin 2014 ).

Less frequently, case study or experiential methods of assessment are also used. This approach may involve asking participants to reflect on past experiences, analyze the situations they faced and the way they behaved or made judgments and decisions and then took action ( Bandyopadhyay and Szostek 2019 ; Brookfield 1997 ). These methods, often employed by teachers or employers on students and employees, usually involve the analysis of qualitative data that can cast doubt on the reliability of the results. Consequently, various researchers have suggested ways to improve analytic methods, and they emphasize the need to create more advanced evaluation methods ( Brookfield 1997 ; Liu et al. 2014 ).

For example, Liu et al. ( 2014 ) reviewed current assessment methods and suggest that future work improves the operational definition of critical thinking, aiming to assess it both in different specific contexts and in different formats. Specifically, assessments could be contextualized within the major areas addressed by education programs (e.g., social sciences, humanities, and/or natural sciences), and the tasks themselves should be as practically connected to the “real world” as possible (e.g., categorizing a set of features, opinions, or facts based on whether or not they support an initial statement). Moreover, as Brookfield ( 1997 ) argues, because critical thinking is a social process that takes place in specific contexts of knowledge and culture, it should be assessed as a social process, therefore, involving a multiplicity of experiences, perceptions, and contributions. Thus, Brookfield makes three recommendations for improving the assessment of critical thinking that are still relevant today: (1) to assess critical thinking in specific situations, so one can study the process and the discourse related to it; (2) to involve students/peers in the evaluation of critical thinking abilities, so that the evaluation is not provided only by the instructor; and (3) to allow learners or participants in an experiment to document, demonstrate, and justify their engagement in critical thinking, because this learning perspective can provide insight into basic dimensions of the critical thinking process.

Finally, another more recent and less widely used form of assessment targets the specific executive functions that underlie logical reasoning and resistance to cognitive biases, as well as the ability of individuals to resist these biases. This form of assessment is usually done through specific experimental laboratory tasks that vary depending on the particular executive function and according to the domain of interest ( Houdé and Borst 2014 ; Kahneman 2011 ; West et al. 2008 ).

2.2.2. Institutional and Environmental Support for Development of Critical Thinking Skills

The executive functions underlying general critical thinking, the ability to overcome bias ( Houdé 2000 ; Houdé and Borst 2014 ), and meta-cognitive processes (i.e., meta information about our cognitive strategies) can all be trained and enhanced by educational programs ( Abrami et al. 2015 ; Ahern et al. 2019 ; Alsaleh 2020 ; Bellaera et al. 2021 ; Uribe-Enciso et al. 2017 ; Popil 2011 ; Pasquinelli and Bronner 2021 ; Yue et al. 2017 ).

Educational programs and institutions can support the development of critical thinking in several different ways. The process of developing critical thinking focuses on the interaction between personal dispositions (attitudes and habits), skills (evaluation, reasoning, self-regulation), and finally, knowledge (general and specific knowledge, as well as experience) ( Thomas and Lok 2015 ). It is specifically in regard to skills and knowledge that institutions are well suited to develop critical thinking through pedagogical elements such as rhetoric training, relevance of information evaluation (e.g., media literacy, where and how to check information on the internet, dealing with “fake news”, etc.), deductive thinking skills, and inductive reasoning ( Moore and Parker 2016 ). A few tools, such as case studies or concept mapping, can also be used in conjunction with a problem-based learning method, both in individual and team contexts and in person or online ( Abrami et al. 2015 ; Carmichael and Farrell 2012 ; Popil 2011 ; Thorndahl and Stentoft 2020 ). According to Marin and Halpern ( 2011 ), training critical thinking should include explicit instruction involving at least the four following components and objectives: (1) working on attitudes and encouraging individuals to think; (2) teaching and practicing critical thinking skills; (3) training for transfer between contexts, identifying concrete situations in which to adopt the strategies learned; and (4) suggesting metacognition through reflection on one’s thought processes. Supporting these propositions, Pasquinelli and Bronner ( 2021 ), in a French national educational report, proposed practical advice for creating workshops to stimulate critical thinking in school classrooms, which appear relevant even in non-school intervention situations. For example, the authors suggest combining concrete examples and exercises with general and abstract explanations, rules and strategies, which can be transferred to other areas beyond the one studied. They also suggest inviting learners to create examples of situations (e.g., case studies) in order to increase the opportunities to practice and for the learner to actively participate. Finally, they suggest making the process of reflection explicit by asking the learner to pay attention to the strategies adopted by others in order to stimulate the development of metacognition.

2.3. Communication

In its most basic definition, communication consists of exchanging information to change the epistemic context of others. In cooperative contexts, it aims at the smooth and efficient exchange of information contributing to the achievement of a desired outcome or goal ( Schultz 2010 ). But human communication involves multiple dimensions. Both verbal and non-verbal communication can involve large quantities of information that have to be both formulated and deciphered with a range of purposes and intentions in mind ( Jones and LeBaron 2002 ). These dimensions of communication have as much to do with the ability to express oneself, both orally and in writing and the mastering of a language (linguistic competences), as with the ability to use this communication system appropriately (pragmatic skills; see Grassmann 2014 ; Matthews 2014 ), and with social skills, based on the knowledge of how to behave in society and on the ability to connect with others, to understand the intentions and perspectives of others ( Tomasello 2005 ).

Like the other 4Cs, according to most authorities, communication skills are ranked by both students and teachers as skills of the highest priority for acquisition in order to be ready for the workforce in 2030 ( OECD 2019b ; Hanover Research 2012 ). Teaching students how to communicate efficiently and effectively in all the new modalities of information exchange is an important challenge faced by all pedagogical organizations today ( Morreale et al. 2017 ). All dimensions of communication (linguistic, pragmatic, and social) are part of what is taught in school curricula at different levels. But pragmatic and social competencies are rarely explicitly taught as such. Work on social/emotional intelligence (and on its role in students’ personal and professional success) shows that these skills are both disparate and difficult to assess ( Humphrey et al. 2007 ). Research on this issue is, however, becoming increasingly rigorous, with the potential to provide usable data for the development of science-based practice ( Keefer et al. 2018 ). Teachers and pedagogical teams also have an important, changing role to play: they also need to master new information and communication technologies and the transmission of information through them ( Zlatić et al. 2014 ).

Communication has an obvious link with the three other Cs. Starting with critical thinking, sound communication implies fostering the conditions for a communicative exchange directed towards a common goal, which is, at least in educational and professional contexts, based on a fair evaluation of reality ( Pornpitakpan 2004 ). Collaboration too has a strong link with communication, because successful collaboration is highly dependent on the quality of knowledge sharing and trust that emerges between group members. Finally, creativity involves the communication of an idea to an audience and can involve high-quality communication when creative work occurs in a team context.

2.3.1. Individual Assessment of Communication

Given the vast field of communication, an exhaustive list of its evaluation methods is difficult to establish. A number of methods have been reported in the literature to assess an individual’s ability to communicate non-verbally and verbally. But although these two aspects are intrinsically linked, they are rarely measured together with a single tool. Moreover, as Spitzberg ( 2003 ) pointed out, communication skills are supported by different abilities, classically conceptualized as motivational functions (e.g., confidence and goal-orientation), knowledge (e.g., content and procedural knowledge), or cognitive and socio-cognitive functions (e.g., theory of mind, verbal cognition, emotional intelligence, and empathy; McDonald et al. 2014 ; Rothermich 2020 ), implying different specific types of evaluations. Finally, producing vs. receiving communication involve different skills and abilities, which can also vary according to the context ( Landa 2005 ).

To overcome these challenges, Spitzberg ( 2003 ) recommends the use of different assessment criteria. These criteria include the clarity of interaction, the understanding of what was involved in the interaction, the satisfaction of having interacted (expected to be higher when communication is effective), the efficiency of the interaction (the more competent someone is, the less effort, complexity, and resources will be needed to achieve their goal), its effectiveness or appropriateness (i.e., its relevance according to the context), as well as criteria relative to the quality of the dialogue (which involves coordination, cooperation, coherence, reciprocity, and mutuality in the exchange with others). Different forms of evaluation are also called for, such as self-reported questionnaires, hetero-reported questionnaires filled out by parents, teachers, or other observers, and tasks involving exposure to role-playing games, scenarios or videos (for a review of these assessment tools, see Cömert et al. 2016 ; Landa 2005 ; Sigafoos et al. 2008 ; Spitzberg 2003 ; van der Vleuten et al. 2019 ). Results from these tools must then be associated with others assessing underlying abilities, such as theory of mind and metacognition.

2.3.2. Institutional and Environmental Support for Development of Communication Skills

Although communication appears to be a key employability skill, the proficiency acquired during studies rarely meets the expectations of employers ( Jackson 2014 ). Communication must therefore become a priority in the training of students, beyond the sectors in which it is already known as essential (e.g., in medicine, nursing, engineering, etc.; Bourke et al. 2021 ; D’Alimonte et al. 2019 ; Peddle et al. 2018 ; Riemer 2007 ), and also through professional development ( Jackson 2014 ). Training programs involving, for example, communication theory classes ( Kruijver et al. 2000 ) and self-assessment tools that can be used in specific situations ( Curtis et al. 2013 ; Rider and Keefer 2006 ) have had convincingly positive results. The literature suggests that interactive approaches in small groups, in which competencies are practiced explicitly in an open and feedback-safe environment, are more effective ( Bourke et al. 2021 ; D’Alimonte et al. 2019 ; AbuSeileek 2012 ; Fryer-Edwards et al. 2006 ). These can take different forms: project-based work, video reviews, simulation or role-play games (see Hathaway et al. 2022 for a review; Schlegel et al. 2012 ). Finally, computer-assisted learning methods can be relevant for establishing a secure framework (especially, for example, when learning another language): anonymity indeed helps to overcome anxiety or social blockages linked to fear of public speaking or showing one’s difficulties ( AbuSeileek 2012 ). Each of these methods tackles one or more dimensions of communication that must then be assessed as such, by means of tools specifically developed and adapted to the contexts in which these skills are expressed (e.g., see the two 4Cs evaluation grids for institutions and for games outlined in Section 4 and Section 5 , below).

2.4. Collaboration

Collaborative problem solving—and more generally, collaboration—has gained increasing attention in national and international assessments (e.g., PISA) as an educational priority encompassing social, emotional, and cognitive skills critical to efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation in the modern global economy ( Graesser et al. 2018 ; OECD 2017 ). Understanding what makes effective collaboration is of crucial importance for professional practice and training ( Détienne et al. 2012 ; Graesser et al. 2018 ), as evidenced by the long line of research on group or team collaboration over the past 40 years (for a review, see e.g., Salas et al. 2004 ; Mathieu et al. 2017 ). Although there is no consensus on a definition of collaboration, scholars often see it as mutual engagement in a coordinated effort to achieve a common goal that involves the sharing of goals, resources, and representations relating to the joint activity of participants; and other important aspects relate to mutual respect, trust, responsibilities, and accountability within situational rules and norms ( Détienne et al. 2012 ).

In the teamwork research literature, skills are commonly described across three classes most often labeled Knowledge, Behavior, and Attitudes (e.g., Cannon-Bowers et al. 1995 ). Knowledge competencies refer to the skills related to elaborating the knowledge content required for the group to process and successfully achieve the task/goal to which they are assigned. Behavior includes skills related to the actualization of actions, coordination, communication, and interactions within the group as well as with any other relevant interlocutors for the task at hand. Note here that effective collaboration involves skills that have also been identified elsewhere as essential competencies, including communication, creativity, and critical thinking. Finally, several attitudes have been evidenced or hypothesized as desirable competencies in the team context, for example, attitude towards teamwork, collective orientation, cohesion/team morale, etc. Another common distinction lies between teamwork and taskwork. Teamwork refers to the collaborative, communicative, or social skills required to coordinate the work within the participants in order to achieve the task, whereas taskwork refers to specific aspects related to solving the task such as using the tools and knowing the procedure, policies, and any other task-related activities ( Salas et al. 2015 ; Graesser et al. 2018 ). Furthermore, collaborative competences can have specific (to a group of people or to a task) and general dimensions (i.e., easily transferable to any group or team situation and to other tasks). For example, skills related to communication, information exchange, conflict management, maintaining attention and motivation, leadership, etc. are present and transferable to a large number of group work situations and tasks (team-generic and task-contingent skills). Other skills can, on the other hand, be more specific to a team or group, such as internal organization, motivation, knowledge of the skills distributed in the team, etc.

2.4.1. Individual Assessment of Collaboration

Assessing collaboration requires capturing the dynamic and multi-level nature of the collaboration process, which is not as easily quantifiable as group/team inputs and outputs (task performance, satisfaction, and changes at group/team and individual level). There are indeed multiple interactions between the context, the collaboration processes, the task processes, and their (various) outcomes ( Détienne et al. 2012 ). The integrative concept of “quality of collaboration” ( Burkhardt et al. 2009 ) encapsulates much of what is currently known about collaborative processes and what constitutes effective collaboration. According to this approach, collaborative processes can be grouped along several dimensions concerning communication processes such as grounding, task-related processes (e.g., exchanges of knowledge relevant for the task at hand), and organization/coordination processes ( Burkhardt et al. 2009 ). Communication processes are most important for ensuring the construction of a common referential within a group of collaborators. Task-related processes relate to how the group resolves the task at hand by sharing and co-elaborating knowledge, by confronting their various perspectives, and by converging toward negotiated solutions. Collaboration also involves group management activities such as: (a) common goal management and coordination activities, e.g., allocation and planning of tasks; (b) meeting/interaction management activities, e.g., ordering and postponing of topics in the meeting. Finally, the ability to pursue reflexive activity, in the sense of reflecting not only on the content of a problem or solution but on one’s collaboration and problem-solving strategies, is critical for the development of the team and supports them in changing and improving their practices. Graesser et al. ( 2018 ) identify collaborative skills based on the combination of these dimensions with a step in the problem-solving process.

A large body of methodology developed to assess collaboration processes and collaborative tools has been focused on quantifying a restricted subset of fine-grained interactions (e.g., number of speakers’ turns; number of words spoken; number of interruptions; amount of grounding questions). This approach has at least two limitations. First, because these categories of analysis are often ad hoc with respect to the considered situation, they are difficult to apply in all situations and make it difficult to compare between studies. Second, quantitative variations of most of these indicators are non-univocal: any increase or decrease of them could signify either an interactive–intensive collaboration or else evidence of major difficulties in establishing and/or maintaining the collaboration ( Détienne et al. 2012 ). Alternatively, qualitative approaches based on multidimensional views of collaboration provide a more elaborated or nuanced view of collaboration and are useful for identifying potential relationships between distinctive dimensions of collaboration and aspects of team performance, in order to identify processes that could be improved. Based on the method of Spada et al. ( 2005 ) in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) research, Burkhardt et al. ( 2009 ) have proposed a multi-dimensional rating scheme for evaluating the quality of collaboration (QC) in technology-mediated design. QC distinguishes seven dimensions, grouped along five aspects, identified as central for collaboration in a problem-solving task such as design: communication (1, 2), task-oriented processes (3, 4), group-oriented processes (5), symmetry in interaction—an orthogonal dimension—(6), and individual task orientation (7). This method has recently been adapted for use in the context of assessing games as a support to collaborative skills learning.

2.4.2. Institutional and Environmental Support for Development of Collaboration and Collaborative Skills

Support for individuals’ development of collaborative skills provided by institutions and programs can take a variety of forms: (a) through the social impact of the physical structure of the organization, (b) the nature of the work required within the curriculum, (c) content within the curriculum focusing on collaboration and collaborative skills, and (d) the existence and promotion of extracurricular and inter-institutional opportunities for collaboration.

For instance, institutional support for collaboration has taken a variety of forms in various fields such as healthcare, engineering, public participation, and education. Training and education programs such as Interprofessional Education or Team Sciences in the health domain ( World Health Organization 2010 ; Hager et al. 2016 ; O’Carroll et al. 2021 ), Peer-Led Team Learning in chemistry and engineering domains ( Wilson and Varma-Nelson 2016 ), or Collaborative Problem Solving in education ( Peña-López 2017 ; Taddei 2009 ) are notable examples.

Contextual support recently arose from the deployment of online digital media and new mixed realities in the workplace, in the learning environments and in society at large—obviously stimulated and accentuated with the COVID-19 pandemic. This has led many organizations to invest in proposing support for synchronous and asynchronous collaboration (notably remote, between employees, between students and educators or within group members, etc.) in various ways, including the provision of communication hardware and software, computer-supported cooperative work and computer-supported collaborative learning platforms, training and practical guides, etc. Users can collaborate through heterogeneous hybrid collaborative interaction spaces that can be accessed through virtual or augmented reality, but also simple video conferencing or even a voice-only or text-only interface. These new spaces for collaboration are, however, often difficult to use and less satisfactory than face-to-face interactions, suggesting the need for more research on collaborative activities and on how to support them ( Faidley 2018 ; Karl et al. 2022 ; Kemp and Grieve 2014 ; Singh et al. 2022 ; Waizenegger et al. 2020 ).

A substantive body of literature on teams, collaborative learning, and computer-supported technologies provides evidence related to individual, contextual, and technological factors impacting the collaboration quality and efficiency. For example, teacher-based skills that are critical for enhancing collaboration are, among others, the abilities to plan, monitor, support, consolidate, and reflect upon student interaction in group work ( Kaendler et al. 2016 ). Research focuses also on investigating the most relevant tasks and evaluating the possibilities offered by technology to support, to assess (e.g., Nouri et al. 2017 ; Graesser et al. 2018 ), and/or to learn the skills involved in pursuing effective and satisfying collaboration (see e.g., Schneider et al. 2018 ; Doyle 2021 ; Ainsworth and Chounta 2021 ).

3. Labelization: Valorization of the 4Cs and Assessing Support for Their Development

Moving from the nature of the 4Cs and their individual assessment and towards the ways in which institutions can support their development in individuals, we can now address the fundamentally important question of how best to support and promote this 21st century educational mission within and among institutions themselves. This also raises the question of the systemic recognition of educational settings that are conducive to the development of the 4Cs. In response to these questions, the nature and value of labelization is now presented.

A label is “a special mark created by a trusted third party and displayed on a product intended for sale, to certify its origin, to guarantee its quality and to ensure its conformity with the standards of practices in force” ( Renard 2005 ). A label is therefore a way of informing the public about the objective properties and qualities of a product, service, or system. The label is usually easily identifiable and can be seen as a proof that a product or service, a company, or an organization complies with defined criteria. Its effectiveness is therefore closely linked to the choice of requirements set out in its specifications, as well as to the independence and rigor of the body that verifies compliance with the criteria.

3.1. Labeling as a Means of Trust and Differentiation

As a sign of recognition established by a third party, the label or certification can constitute a proof of trust aiming to reassure the final consumer. According to Sutter ( 2005 ), there are different means of signaling trust. First, the brand name of a product or service and its reputation can, in itself, constitute a label when this brand name is recognized on the market. Second, various forms of self-declaration, such as internal company charters, though not statements assessed by a third party, show an internal commitment that can provide reassurance. Finally, there is certification or labeling, which is awarded by an external body and requires a third-party assessment by a qualified expert, according to criteria set out in a specific reference framework. It is this external body, a trusted third party, which guarantees the reliability of the label and constitutes a guarantee of credibility. Its objectivity and impartiality are meant to guarantee that the company, organization, product, or service meets defined quality or reliability criteria ( Jahn et al. 2005 ).

Research on populations around the world (e.g., Amron 2018 ; Sasmita and Suki 2015 ) show that the buying decisions of consumers are heavily influenced by the trust they have in a brand. More specifically, third-party assurances and labelization have been shown to strongly influence customer buying intentions and purchasing behavior (e.g., Kimery and McCord 2002 ; Lee et al. 2004 ). Taking France as an example, research shows that quality certification is seen as “important” or “significant” by 76% of companies ( Chameroy and Veran 2014 ), and decision makers feel more confident and are more willing to invest with the support of third-party approval than if their decision is merely based on the brand’s reputation or its demonstrated level of social responsibility ( Etilé and Teyssier 2016 ). Indeed, French companies with corporate social responsibility labels have been shown to have higher than average growth rates, and the adoption of quality standards is linked with a 7% increase in the share of export turnover ( Restout 2020 ).

3.2. Influence on Choice and Adoption of Goods and Services

Studies diverge in this area, but based on the seminal work of Parkinson ( 1975 ); Chameroy and Veran ( 2014 ), in their research on the effect of labels on willingness to pay, found that in 75% of cases, products with labels are chosen and preferred to those without labels, demonstrating the impact of the label on customer confidence—provided that it is issued by a recognized third party. Thus, brands that have good reputations tend to be preferred over cheaper new brands, because they are more accepted and valued by the individual social network ( Zielke and Dobbelstein 2007 ).

3.3. Process of Labelizing Products and Services

The creation of a label may be the result of a customer or market need, a request from a private sector of activity or from the government. Creating a label involves setting up a working group including stakeholders who are experts in the field, product managers, and a certification body in order to elaborate a reference framework. This is then reviewed by a specialized committee and validated by the stakeholders. The standard includes evaluation criteria that must be clearly defined ( Mourad 2017 ). An audit system is set up by a trusted third party. It must include the drafting of an audit report, a system for making decisions on labeling, and a system for identifying qualified assessors. The validity of the assessment process is reinforced by this double evaluation: a first level of audit carried out by a team of experts according to a clearly defined set of criteria and a second level of decision making assuring that the methodology and the result of the audit are in conformity with the defined reference framework.

3.4. Labelization of 21st Century Skills

The world of education is particularly concerned by the need to develop and assess 21st century skills, because it represents the first link in the chain of skills acquisition, preparing the human resources of tomorrow. One important means of simultaneously offering a reliable, independent assessment of 21st century skills and valorizing them by making them a core target within an educational system (schools, universities, and teaching and training programs of all kinds) is labelization. Two examples of labelization processes related to 21st century skills were recently developed by the International Institute for Competency Development ( 2021 ; see iicd.net; accessed on 20 November 2022) working with international experts, teachers, and researchers from the University of Paris Cité (formerly Université Sorbonne Paris Cité), Oxford University, and AFNOR UK (an accredited certification body and part of AFNOR International, a subsidiary of the AFNOR group, the only standards body in France).

The last two or three decades has seen the simultaneous rise of international ranking systems and an interest in quality assurance and assessment in an increasingly competitive educational market ( Sursock 2021 ). The aim of these labelization frameworks is to assist in the development of “quality culture” in education by offering individual programs, institutions, and systems additional independent, reliable means of benchmarking, charting progress, and distinguishing themselves based on their capacity to support and promote the development of crucial skills. Importantly, the external perspectives provided by such assessment system should be capable of being individually adapted and applied in a manner that can resist becoming rigidly imposed external standards ( Sursock and Vettori 2017 ). Similarly, as we have seen in the literature review, the best approach to understanding and assessing a particular C is from a combination of different levels and perspectives in context. For example, important approaches to critical thinking have been made from educationally, philosophically, and psychologically focused vantage points ( Lai 2011 ). We can also argue that understandings of creativity are also results of different approaches: the major models in the literature (e.g., the “4Ps” and “7Cs” models; see Lubart and Thornhill-Miller 2019 ) explicitly result from and include the objectives of different education-focused, process-focused, and “ingredient” or component-focused approaches.

The two assessment frameworks outlined in the sections that follow were formulated with these different perspectives and objective needs in mind. Given the complexity and very different natures of their respective targets (i.e., one assessing entire formal educational contexts such as institutions or programs, whereas the other targets the less multi-dimensional, informal educational activities represented by games), the assessment of the individual Cs also represents what experts consider a target-appropriate balance of education- and curriculum-focused, process-focused, and component-focused criteria for assessing each different C.

4. The International Institute for Competency Development’s 21st Century Competencies 4Cs Assessment Framework for Institutions and Programs

One comprehensive attempt to operationalize programmatic-level and institutional-level support for the development of the 4Cs is the International Institute for Competency Development’s 4Cs Assessment Framework ( International Institute for Competency Development 2021 ). Based upon expert opinion and a review of the available literature, this evaluation grid is a practical tool that divides each of the 4Cs into three “user-friendly” but topic-covering components (see Table 1 and definitions and further discussion in the sections that follow). Each of these components is then assessed across seven dimensions (see Table 2 , below), designed to cover concisely the pedagogical process and the educational context. Examples for each point level are provided within the evaluation grid in order to offer additional clarity for educational stakeholders and expert assessors.

Three different components of each C in IICD’s 21st Century Skills 4Cs Assessment Framework.

Seven dimensions evaluated for the 3 different components of each C.

* 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.

4.1. Evaluation Grid for Creativity

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.

4.2. Evaluation Grid for Critical Thinking

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 ).

4.3. Evaluation Grid for Collaboration

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).

4.4. Evaluation Grid for Communication

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. Assessing the 4Cs in Informal Educational Contexts: The Example of Games

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.

5.2. 4Cs Evaluation Framework for Games

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.

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 ).

6. Discussion and Conclusions

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.

6.1. Interrelationships between the 4Cs and a New Model for Use in Pedagogy and Policy Promotion

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.

6.2. Limitations and Future Work

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.

6.3. Conclusion: Labelization of the 4Cs and the Future of Education and Work

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.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

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.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

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.

• Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Eugene, Waddington David I., Wade C. Anne, Persson Tonje. Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015; 85 :275–314. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• AbuSeileek Ali Farhan. The Effect of Computer-Assisted Cooperative Learning Methods and Group Size on the EFL Learners’ Achievement in Communication Skills. Computers & Education. 2012; 58 :231–39. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahern Aoife, Dominguez Caroline, McNally Ciaran, O’Sullivan John J., Pedrosa Daniela. A Literature Review of Critical Thinking in Engineering Education. Studies in Higher Education. 2019; 44 :816–28. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586325. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ainsworth Shaaron E., Chounta Irene-Angelica. The roles of representation in computer-supported collaborative learning. In: Cress Ulrike, Rosé Carolyn, Wise Alyssa Friend, Oshima Jun., editors. International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Springer; Cham: 2021. pp. 353–69. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alsaleh Nada J. Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Literature Review. [(accessed on 1 November 2022)]; The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 2020 19 :21–39. Available online: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1239945.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Samarraie Hosam, Hurmuzan Shuhaila. A Review of Brainstorming Techniques in Higher Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2018; 27 :78–91. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amabile Teresa M. Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982; 43 :997–1013. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amron Manajemen Pemasaran. The influence of brand image, brand trust, product quality, and price on the consumer’s buying decision of MPV cars. European Scientific Journal. 2018; 14 :228–39. doi: 10.19044/esj.2018.v14n13p228. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ananiadoui Katerina, Claro Magdalean. 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries. OECD Publishing; Paris: 2009. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailin Sharon. Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity. Springer; Dordrecht: 1988. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandyopadhyay Subir, Szostek Jana. Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking: Assessing Critical Thinking of Business Students Using Multiple Measures. Journal of Education for Business. 2019; 94 :259–70. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2018.1524355. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barber Herbert F. Developing Strategic Leadership: The US Army War College Experience. Journal of Management Development. 1992; 11 :4–12. doi: 10.1108/02621719210018208. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett Ronald. The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan US; New York: 2015. A Curriculum for Critical Being; pp. 63–76. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bateson Patrick, Martin Paul. Play, Playfulness, Creativity and Innovation. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batey Mark. The Measurement of Creativity: From Definitional Consensus to the Introduction of a New Heuristic Framework. Creativity Research Journal. 2012; 24 :55–65. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.649181. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Battelle for Kids Framework for 21st Century Learning Definitions. 2022. [(accessed on 1 November 2022)]. Available online: http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework_DefinitionsBFK.pdf
• Bellaera Lauren, Weinstein-Jones Yana, Ilie Sonia, Baker Sara T. Critical Thinking in Practice: The Priorities and Practices of Instructors Teaching in Higher Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2021; 41 :100856. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100856. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blessinger Patrick, Anchan John P. In: Democratizing Higher Education: International Comparative Perspectives. 1st ed. Blessinger Patrick, Anchan John P., editors. Routledge; London: 2015. [(accessed on 1 November 2022)]. Available online: https://www.routledge.com/Democratizing-Higher-Education-International-Comparative-Perspectives/Blessinger-Anchan/p/book/9781138020955 [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloom Benjamin Samuel., editor. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain. Longmans; New York: 1956. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourgeois-Bougrine Samira. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2022. Design Thinking. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourgeois-Bougrine Samira, Bonnardel Nathalie, Burkhardt Jean-Marie, Thornhill-Miller Branden, Pahlavan Farzaneh, Buisine Stéphanie, Guegan Jérôme, Pichot Nicolas, Lubart Todd. Immersive Virtual Environments’ Impact on Individual and Collective Creativity: A Review of Recent Research. European Psychologist. 2022; 27 :237–53. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000481. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourke Sharon L., Cooper Simon, Lam Louisa, McKenna Lisa. Undergraduate Health Professional Students’ Team Communication in Simulated Emergency Settings: A Scoping Review. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2021; 60 :42–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2021.07.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brookfield Stephen D. Assessing Critical Thinking. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 1997; 75 :17–29. doi: 10.1002/ace.7502. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burkhardt Jean-Marie, Détienne Françoise, Hébert Anne-Marie, Perron Laurence. Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2009. Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg: 2009. Assessing the ‘Quality of Collaboration’ in Technology-Mediated Design Situations with Several Dimensions; pp. 157–60. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Camarda Anaëlle, Bouhours Lison, Osmont Anaïs, Masson Pascal Le, Weil Benoît, Borst Grégoire, Cassotti Mathieu. Opposite Effect of Social Evaluation on Creative Idea Generation in Early and Middle Adolescents. Creativity Research Journal. 2021; 33 :399–410. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2021.1902174. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cannon-Bowers Janis, Tannenbaum Scott I., Salas Eduardo, Volpe Catherine E. Defining team competencies and establishing team training requirements. In: Guzzo Richard A., Salas Eduardo., editors. Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations. Jossey-Bass; San Francisco: 1995. pp. 333–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Care Esther, Scoular Claire, Griffin Patrick. Assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving in Education Environments. Applied Measurement in Education. 2016; 29 :250–64. doi: 10.1080/08957347.2016.1209204. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Care Esther, Kim Helyn, Vista Alvin, Anderson Kate. Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment. Brookings Institution; Washington, DC: 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carmichael Erst, Farrell Helen. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Online Resources in Developing Student Critical Thinking: Review of Literature and Case Study of a Critical Thinking Online Site. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 2012; 9 :38–55. doi: 10.53761/1.9.1.4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carson Shelley H., Peterson Jordan B., Higgins Daniel M. Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal. 2005; 17 :37–50. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey Betty J., Getz Sarah, Galvan Adriana. The Adolescent Brain. Developmental Review: DR. 2008; 28 :62–77. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassotti Mathieu, Camarda Anaëlle, Poirel Nicolas, Houdé Olivier, Agogué Marine. Fixation Effect in Creative Ideas Generation: Opposite Impacts of Example in Children and Adults. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2016; 19 :146–52. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chameroy Fabienne, Veran Lucien. Immatérialité de La Qualité et Effet Des Labels Sur Le Consentement à Payer. Management International. 2014; 18 :32–44. doi: 10.7202/1025088ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiu Fa-Chung. Improving Your Creative Potential without Awareness: Overinclusive Thinking Training. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2015; 15 :1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.11.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chulvi Vicente, Mulet Elena, Chakrabarti Amaresh, López-Mesa Belinda, González-Cruz Carmen. Comparison of the Degree of Creativity in the Design Outcomes Using Different Design Methods. Journal of Engineering Design. 2012; 23 :241–69. doi: 10.1080/09544828.2011.624501. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cinque Maria. ‘Lost in Translation’. Soft Skills Development in European Countries. Tuning Journal for Higher Education. 2016; 3 :389–427. doi: 10.18543/tjhe-3(2)-2016pp389-427. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cömert Musa, Zill Jördis Maria, Christalle Eva, Dirmaier Jörg, Härter Martin, Scholl Isabelle. Assessing Communication Skills of Medical Students in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) - A Systematic Review of Rating Scales. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11 :e0152717. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152717. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corazza Giovanni Emanuele. Potential Originality and Effectiveness: The Dynamic Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 2016; 28 :258–67. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corazza Giovanni Emanuele, Darbellay Frédéric, Lubart Todd, Panciroli Chiara. Developing Intelligence and Creativity in Education: Insights from the Space–Time Continuum. In: Lemmetty Soila, Collin Kaija, Glăveanu Vlad, Forsman Panu., editors. Creativity and Learning. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2021. pp. 69–87. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cotter Katherine N., Beghetto Ronald A., Kaufman James C. Creativity in the Classroom: Advice for Best Practices. In: Lubart Todd, Botella Marion, Bourgeois-Bougrine Samira, Caroff Xavier, Guégan Jérôme, Mouchiroud Christohe, Nelson Julien, Zenasni Franck., editors. Homo Creativus. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2022. pp. 249–64. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Curtis J. Randall, Back Anthony L., Ford Dee W., Downey Lois, Shannon Sarah E., Doorenbos Ardith Z., Kross Erin K., Reinke Lynn F., Feemster Laura C., Edlund Barbara, et al. Effect of Communication Skills Training for Residents and Nurse Practitioners on Quality of Communication with Patients with Serious Illness: A Randomized Trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2013; 310 :2271. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282081. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D’Alimonte Laura, McLaney Elizabeth, Prospero Lisa Di. Best Practices on Team Communication: Interprofessional Practice in Oncology. Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care. 2019; 13 :69–74. doi: 10.1097/SPC.0000000000000412. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Freitas Sara. Learning in Immersive Worlds: A Review of Game-Based Learning. JISC; Bristol: 2006. [(accessed on 1 November 2022)]. Available online: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearninginnovation/gamingreport_v3.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Détienne Françoise, Baker Michael, Burkhardt Jean-Marie. Perspectives on Quality of Collaboration in Design. CoDesign. 2012; 8 :197–99. doi: 10.1080/15710882.2012.742350. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diedrich Jennifer, Jauk Emanuel, Silvia Paul J., Gredlein Jeffrey M., Neubauer Aljoscha C., Benedek Mathias. Assessment of Real-Life Creativity: The Inventory of Creative Activities and Achievements (ICAA) Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2018; 12 :304–16. doi: 10.1037/aca0000137. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doyle Denise. Creativity in the Twenty First Century. Edited by Anna Hui and Christian Wagner. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2021. Creative and Collaborative Practices in Virtual Immersive Environments; pp. 3–19. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drisko James W. Competencies and Their Assessment. Journal of Social Work Education. 2014; 50 :414–26. doi: 10.1080/10437797.2014.917927. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dul Jan, Ceylan Canan. Work Environments for Employee Creativity. Ergonomics. 2011; 54 :12–20. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2010.542833. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dumitru Daniela, Bigu Dragos, Elen Jan, Ahern Aoife, McNally Ciaran, O’Sullivan John. A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions. UTAD; Vila Real: 2018. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: http://repositorio.utad.pt/handle/10348/8320 [ Google Scholar ]
• Edelman Jonathan, Owoyele Babajide, Santuber Joaquin. Design Thinking in Education. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2022. Beyond Brainstorming: Introducing Medgi, an Effective, Research-Based Method for Structured Concept Development; pp. 209–32. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Etilé Fabrice, Teyssier Sabrina. Signaling Corporate Social Responsibility: Third-Party Certification versus Brands: Signaling CSR: Third-Party Certification versus Brands. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 2016; 118 :397–432. doi: 10.1111/sjoe.12150. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans Carla. Measuring Student Success Skills: A Review of the Literature on Collaboration. National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment; Dover: 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione Peter Arthur. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test–College Level. Technical Report# 1. Experimental Validation and Content Validity. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]; 1990a Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED327549.pdf
• Facione Peter Arthur. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations. ERIC, Institute of Education Sciences; Washington, DC: 1990b. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. pp. 1–112. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED315423 [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione Peter Arthur. Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment. 2011; 2007 :1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faidley Joel. Ph.D. dissertation. East Tennessee State University; Johnson City, TN, USA: 2018. Comparison of Learning Outcomes from Online and Face-to-Face Accounting Courses. [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman Hershey H. Cognitive Biases That Interfere with Critical Thinking and Scientific Reasoning: A Course Module. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2017:1–60. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2958800. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fryer-Edwards Kelly, Arnold Robert M., Baile Walter, Tulsky James A., Petracca Frances, Back Anthony. Reflective Teaching Practices: An Approach to Teaching Communication Skills in a Small-Group Setting. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2006; 81 :638–44. doi: 10.1097/01.ACM.0000232414.43142.45. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glăveanu Vlad Petre. Rewriting the Language of Creativity: The Five A’s Framework. Review of General Psychology: Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association. 2013; 17 :69–81. doi: 10.1037/a0029528. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glăveanu Vlad Petre. The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading. Creativity Theories Research Applications. 2014; 1 :10–32. doi: 10.15290/ctra.2014.01.01.02. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldenberg Olga, Wiley Jennifer. Quality, Conformity, and Conflict: Questioning the Assumptions of Osborn’s Brainstorming Technique. The Journal of Problem Solving. 2011; 3 :96–118. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1093. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graesser Arthur C., Sabatini John P., Li Haiying. Educational Psychology Is Evolving to Accommodate Technology, Multiple Disciplines, and Twenty-First-Century Skills. Annual Review of Psychology. 2022; 73 :547–74. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-113042. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graesser Arthur C., Fiore Stephen M., Greiff Samuel, Andrews-Todd Jessica, Foltz Peter W., Hesse Friedrich W. Advancing the Science of Collaborative Problem Solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2018; 19 :59–92. doi: 10.1177/1529100618808244. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grassmann Susanne. The pragmatics of word learning. In: Matthews Danielle., editor. Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition. John Benjamins Publishing Company; Amsterdam: 2014. pp. 139–60. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hager Keri, St Hill Catherine, Prunuske Jacob, Swanoski Michael, Anderson Grant, Lutfiyya May Nawal. Development of an Interprofessional and Interdisciplinary Collaborative Research Practice for Clinical Faculty. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2016; 30 :265–67. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2015.1092951. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F. Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring. The American Psychologist. 1998; 53 :449–55. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Dunn Dana S. Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems. Journal of Intelligence. 2021; 9 :22. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9020022. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanover Research A Crosswalk of 21st Century Skills. 2012. [(accessed on 15 August 2022)]. Available online: http://www.hanoverresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/A-Crosswalk-of-21st-Century-Skills-Membership.pdf
• Hathaway Julia R., Tarini Beth A., Banerjee Sushmita, Smolkin Caroline O., Koos Jessica A., Pati Susmita. Healthcare Team Communication Training in the United States: A Scoping Review. Health Communication. 2022:1–26. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2022.2036439. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hesse Friedrich, Care Esther, Buder Juergen, Sassenberg Kai, Griffin Patrick. A Framework for Teachable Collaborative Problem Solving Skills. In: Griffin Patrick, Care Esther., editors. Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Springer Netherlands; Dordrecht: 2015. pp. 37–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hitchcock David. Critical Thinking. In: Edward Nouri Zalta., editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition) Stanford University; Stanford: 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Houdé Olivier. Inhibition and cognitive development: Object, number, categorization, and reasoning. Cognitive Development. 2000; 15 :63–73. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00015-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Houdé Olivier, Borst Grégoire. Measuring inhibitory control in children and adults: Brain imaging and mental chronometry. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014; 5 :616. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00616. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huber Christopher R., Kuncel Nathan R. Does College Teach Critical Thinking? A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2016; 86 :431–68. doi: 10.3102/0034654315605917. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huizinga Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Elements in Culture. Routledge; London: 1949. [ Google Scholar ]
• Humphrey Neil, Curran Andrew, Morris Elisabeth, Farrell Peter, Woods Kevin. Emotional Intelligence and Education: A Critical Review. Educational Psychology. 2007; 27 :235–54. doi: 10.1080/01443410601066735. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• International Institute for Competency Development 21st Century Skills 4Cs Labelization. 2021. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: https://icd-hr21.org/offers/21st-century-competencies/
• Jackson Denise. Business Graduate Performance in Oral Communication Skills and Strategies for Improvement. The International Journal of Management Education. 2014; 12 :22–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2013.08.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jahn Gabriele, Schramm Matthias, Spiller Achim. The Reliability of Certification: Quality Labels as a Consumer Policy Tool. Journal of Consumer Policy. 2005; 28 :53–73. doi: 10.1007/s10603-004-7298-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jauk Emanuel, Benedek Mathias, Neubauer Aljoscha C. The Road to Creative Achievement: A Latent Variable Model of Ability and Personality Predictors. European Journal of Personality. 2014; 28 :95–105. doi: 10.1002/per.1941. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joie-La Marle Chantal, Parmentier François, Coltel Morgane, Lubart Todd, Borteyrou Xavier. A Systematic Review of Soft Skills Taxonomies: Descriptive and Conceptual Work. 2022. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: [ CrossRef ]
• Jones Stanley E., LeBaron Curtis D. Research on the Relationship between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication: Emerging Integrations. The Journal of Communication. 2002; 52 :499–521. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02559.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaendler Celia, Wiedmann Michael, Leuders Timo, Rummel Nikol, Spada Hans. Monitoring Student Interaction during Collaborative Learning: Design and Evaluation of a Training Program for Pre-Service Teachers. Psychology Learning & Teaching. 2016; 15 :44–64. doi: 10.1177/1475725716638010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman Daniel. A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality. The American Psychologist. 2003; 58 :697–720. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan; New York: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karl Katherine A., Peluchette Joy V., Aghakhani Navid. Virtual Work Meetings during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Good, Bad, and Ugly. Small Group Research. 2022; 53 :343–65. doi: 10.1177/10464964211015286. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keefer Kateryna V., Parker James D. A., Saklofske Donald H. The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2018. Three Decades of Emotional Intelligence Research: Perennial Issues, Emerging Trends, and Lessons Learned in Education: Introduction to Emotional Intelligence in Education; pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kemp Nenagh, Grieve Rachel. Face-to-Face or Face-to-Screen? Undergraduates’ Opinions and Test Performance in Classroom vs. Online Learning. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014; 5 :1278. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimery Kathryn, McCord Mary. Third-Party Assurances: Mapping the Road to Trust in E-retailing. The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application. 2002; 4 :63–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohn Nicholas W., Smith Steven M. Collaborative Fixation: Effects of Others’ Ideas on Brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2011; 25 :359–71. doi: 10.1002/acp.1699. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kowaltowski Doris C. C. K., Bianchi Giovana, de Paiva Valéria Teixeira. Methods That May Stimulate Creativity and Their Use in Architectural Design Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2010; 20 :453–76. doi: 10.1007/s10798-009-9102-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruijver Irma P. M., Kerkstra Ada, Francke Anneke L., Bensing Jozien M., van de Wiel Harry B. M. Evaluation of Communication Training Programs in Nursing Care: A Review of the Literature. Patient Education and Counseling. 2000; 39 :129–45. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00096-8. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lai Emily R. Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Research Reports. 2011; 6 :40–41. doi: 10.25148/lawrev.11.2.3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamri Jérémy, Lubart Todd. Creativity and Its’ Relationships with 21st Century Skills in Job Performance. Kindai Management Review. 2021; 9 :75–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamri Jérémy, Barabel Michel, Meier Olivier, Lubart Todd. Le Défi Des Soft Skills: Comment les Développer au XXIe Siècle? Dunod; Paris: 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Landa Rebecca J. Assessment of Social Communication Skills in Preschoolers: Assessing Social Communication Skills in Children. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 2005; 11 :247–52. doi: 10.1002/mrdd.20079. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee Sang M., Choi Jeongil, Lee Sang-Gun. The impact of a third-party assurance seal in customer purchasing intention. Journal of Internet Commerce. 2004; 3 :33–51. doi: 10.1300/J179v03n02_03. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis Arthur, Smith David. Defining Higher Order Thinking. Theory into Practice. 1993; 32 :131–37. doi: 10.1080/00405849309543588. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu Ou Lydia, Frankel Lois, Roohr Katrina Crotts. Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Current State and Directions for next-Generation Assessment: Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education. ETS Research Report Series. 2014; 2014 :1–23. doi: 10.1002/ets2.12009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart Todd. The 7 C’s of Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2017; 51 :293–96. doi: 10.1002/jocb.190. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart Todd, Thornhill-Miller Branden. Creativity: An Overview of the 7C’s of Creative Thought. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing. 2019 doi: 10.17885/HEIUP.470.C6678. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart Todd, Barbot Baptiste, Besançon Maud. Creative Potential: Assessment Issues and the EPoC Battery/Potencial Creativo: Temas de Evaluación y Batería EPoC. Estudios de Psicologia. 2019; 40 :540–62. doi: 10.1080/02109395.2019.1656462. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart Todd, Zenasni Franck, Barbot Baptiste. Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal of Talent Development and Creativity. 2013; 1 :41–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart Tubart, Thornhill-Miller Branden. Creativity in Law: Legal Professions and the Creative Profiler Approach. In: Masson Antoine, Robinson Gavin., editors. Mapping Legal Innovation: Trends and Perspectives. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2021. pp. 1–19. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubin Jeffrey, Hendrick Stephan, Thornhill-Miller Branden, Mercier Maxence, Lubart Todd. Creativity in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Forthcoming.
• Lucas Bill. Why We Need to Stop Talking about Twenty-First Century Skills. Centre for Strategic Education; Melbourne: 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas Bill. Creative Thinking in Schools across the World. The Global Institute of Creative Thinking; London: 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas Bill, Claxton Guy. Wider Skills for Learning: What Are They, How Can They Be Cultivated, How Could They Be Measured and Why Are They Important for Innovation? NESTA; London: 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malaby Thomas M. Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games. Games and Culture. 2007; 2 :95–113. doi: 10.1177/1555412007299434. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marin Lisa M., Halpern Diane F. Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2011; 6 :1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathieu John E., Hollenbeck John R., van Knippenberg Daan, Ilgen Daniel R. A Century of Work Teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2017; 102 :452–67. doi: 10.1037/apl0000128. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthews Danielle. Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 2014 doi: 10.1075/tilar.10. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald Skye, Gowland Alison, Randall Rebekah, Fisher Alana, Osborne-Crowley Katie, Honan Cynthia. Cognitive Factors Underpinning Poor Expressive Communication Skills after Traumatic Brain Injury: Theory of Mind or Executive Function? Neuropsychology. 2014; 28 :801–11. doi: 10.1037/neu0000089. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore Brooke Noel, Parker Richard. Critical Thinking. 20th ed. McGraw-Hill Education; New York: 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morreale Sherwyn P., Valenzano Joseph M., Bauer Janessa A. Why Communication Education Is Important: A Third Study on the Centrality of the Discipline’s Content and Pedagogy. Communication Education. 2017; 66 :402–22. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2016.1265136. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mourad Maha. Quality Assurance as a Driver of Information Management Strategy: Stakeholders’ Perspectives in Higher Education. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2017; 30 :779–94. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-06-2016-0104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Education Association . Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society: An Educator’s Guide to the “Four Cs”. National Education Association; Alexandria: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nouri Jalal, Åkerfeldt Anna, Fors Uno, Selander Staffan. Assessing Collaborative Problem Solving Skills in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments—The PISA Framework and Modes of Communication. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET) 2017; 12 :163. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v12i04.6737. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Carroll Veronica, Owens Melissa, Sy Michael, El-Awaisi Alla, Xyrichis Andreas, Leigh Jacqueline, Nagraj Shobhana, Huber Marion, Hutchings Maggie, McFadyen Angus. Top Tips for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice Research: A Guide for Students and Early Career Researchers. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2021; 35 :328–33. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2020.1777092. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving. OECD Publishing; Paris: 2017. PISA 2015 collaborative problem-solving framework. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . Framework for the Assessment of Creative Thinking in PISA 2021: Third Draft. OECD; Paris: 2019a. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2021-creative-thinking-framework.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . Future of Education and Skills 2030: A Series of Concept Notes. OECD Learning Compass; Paris: 2019b. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborn A. F. Applied Imagination. Charles Scribner’s Sons; New York: 1953. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parkinson Thomas L. The Role of Seals and Certifications of Approval in Consumer Decision-Making. The Journal of Consumer Affairs. 1975; 9 :1–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.1975.tb00545.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Partnership for 21st Century Skills . 21st Century Skills Education and Competitiveness: A Resource and Policy Guide. Partnership for 21st Century Skills; Tuscon: 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pasquinelli Elena, Bronner Gérald. Éduquer à l’esprit critique. Bases théoriques et indications pratiques pour l’enseignement et la formation. Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de la JEUNESSE et des Sports; Paris: 2021. Rapport du Conseil Scientifique de l’Éducation Nationale. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pasquinelli Elena, Farina Mathieu, Bedel Audrey, Casati Roberto. Naturalizing Critical Thinking: Consequences for Education, Blueprint for Future Research in Cognitive Science. Mind, Brain and Education: The Official Journal of the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society. 2021; 15 :168–76. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12286. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul Richard, Elder Linda. Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education. 2006; 30 :34–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus Paul B., Yang Huei-Chuan. Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2000; 82 :76–87. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2888. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus Paul B., Kenworthy Jared B. Effective brainstorming. In: Paulus Paul B., Nijstad Bernard A., editors. The Oxford Handbook of Group Creativity and Innovation. Oxford University Press; New York: 2019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus Paul B., Dzindolet Mary T. Social Influence Processes in Group Brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 64 :575–86. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.575. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus Paul B., Brown Vincent R. Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social-Motivational Perspective of Brainstorming: Cognitive-Social-Motivational View of Brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2007; 1 :248–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peddle Monica, Bearman Margaret, Radomski Natalie, Mckenna Lisa, Nestel Debra. What Non-Technical Skills Competencies Are Addressed by Australian Standards Documents for Health Professionals Who Work in Secondary and Tertiary Clinical Settings? A Qualitative Comparative Analysis. BMJ Open. 2018; 8 :e020799. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020799. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peña-López Ismaël. PISA 2015 Results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving. PISA, OECD Publishing; Paris: 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popil Inna. Promotion of Critical Thinking by Using Case Studies as Teaching Method. Nurse Education Today. 2011; 31 :204–7. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2010.06.002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pornpitakpan Chanthika. The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2004; 34 :243–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Possin Kevin. Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score. Informal Logic. 2014; 34 :393–416. doi: 10.22329/il.v34i4.4141. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor Robert W., Dutta Addie. Skill Acquisition and Human Performance. Sage Publications, Inc.; Thousand Oaks: 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Putman Vicky L., Paulus Paul B. Brainstorming, Brainstorming Rules and Decision Making. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2009; 43 :29–40. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01304.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reiman Joey. Success: The Original Handbook. Longstreet Press; Atlanta: 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ren Xuezhu, Tong Yan, Peng Peng, Wang Tengfei. Critical Thinking Predicts Academic Performance beyond General Cognitive Ability: Evidence from Adults and Children. Intelligence. 2020; 82 :101487. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Renard Marie-Christine. Quality Certification, Regulation and Power in Fair Trade. Journal of Rural Studies. 2005; 21 :419–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Restout Emilie. Labels RSE: Un décryptage des entreprises labellisées en France. Goodwill Management. 2020. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: https://goodwill-management.com/labels-rse-decryptage-entreprises-labellisees/
• Rhodes Mel. An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan. 1961; 42 :305–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rider Elizabeth A., Keefer Constance H. Communication Skills Competencies: Definitions and a Teaching Toolbox: Communication. Medical Education. 2006; 40 :624–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02500.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riemer Marc J. Communication Skills for the 21st Century Engineer. Global Journal of Engineering Education. 2007; 11 :89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rietzschel Eric F., Nijstad Bernard A., Stroebe Wolfgang. Productivity Is Not Enough: A Comparison of Interactive and Nominal Brainstorming Groups on Idea Generation and Selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2006; 42 :244–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross David. Why the Four Cs Will Become the Foundation of Human-AI Interface. 2018. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: https://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/03/04/why-the-4cs-will-become-the-foundation-of-human-ai-interface/
• Rothermich Kathrin. Social Communication Across the Lifespan: The Influence of Empathy [Preprint] SocArXiv. 2020 doi: 10.31235/osf.io/adgmy. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusdin Norazlin Mohd, Ali Siti Rahaimah. Practice of Fostering 4Cs Skills in Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2019; 9 :1021–35. doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i6/6063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rychen Dominique Simone, Hersch Salganik Laura., editors. Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society. Hogrefe and Huber; Cambridge: 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sahin Mehmet Can. Instructional Design Principles for 21st Century Learning Skills. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2009; 1 :1464–68. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.258. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salas Eduardo, Stagl Kevin C., Burke C. Shawn. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; Chichester: 2004. 25 Years of Team Effectiveness in Organizations: Research Themes and Emerging Needs; pp. 47–91. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salas Eduardo, Shuffler Marissa L., Thayer Amanda L., Bedwell Wendy L., Lazzara Elizabeth H. Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide. Human Resource Management. 2015; 54 :599–622. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21628. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmi Jamil. The Tertiary Education Imperative: Knowledge, Skills and Values for Development. Springer; Cham: 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Samani Sanaz Ahmadpoor, Rasid Siti Zaleha Binti Abdul, bt Sofian Saudah. A Workplace to Support Creativity. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems. 2014; 13 :414–20. doi: 10.7232/iems.2014.13.4.414. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saroyan Alenoush. Fostering Creativity and Critical Thinking in University Teaching and Learning: Considerations for Academics and Their Professional Learning. OECD; Paris: 2022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sasmita Jumiati, Suki Norazah Mohd. Young consumers’ insights on brand equity: Effects of brand association, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and brand image. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 2015; 43 :276–92. doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-02-2014-0024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel Claudia, Woermann Ulrich, Shaha Maya, Rethans Jan-Joost, van der Vleuten Cees. Effects of Communication Training on Real Practice Performance: A Role-Play Module versus a Standardized Patient Module. The Journal of Nursing Education. 2012; 51 :16–22. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20111116-02. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schleicher Andreas. Why Creativity and Creative Teaching and Learning Matter Today and for Tomorrow’s World. GloCT in Collaboration with OECD CERI; Paris: 2022. Creativity in Education Summit 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider Bertrand, Sharma Kshitij, Cuendet Sebastien, Zufferey Guillaume, Dillenbourg Pierre, Pea Roy. Leveraging Mobile Eye-Trackers to Capture Joint Visual Attention in Co-Located Collaborative Learning Groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2018; 13 :241–61. doi: 10.1007/s11412-018-9281-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schultz David M. Eloquent Science: A course to improve scientific and communication skills; Paper presented at the 19th Symposium on Education; Altanta, GA, USA. January 18–21; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scialabba George. Mindplay. Harvard Magazine. 1984; 16 :19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott Ginamarie, Leritz Lyle E., Mumford Michael D. The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal. 2004; 16 :361–88. doi: 10.1080/10400410409534549. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sigafoos Jeff, Schlosser Ralf W., Green Vanessa A., O’Reilly Mark, Lancioni Giulio E. Communication and Social Skills Assessment. In: Matson Johnny L., editor. Clinical Assessment and Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorders. Elsevier; Amsterdam: 2008. pp. 165–92. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simonton Dean Keith. Creativity from a Historiometric Perspective. In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1999. pp. 116–34. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh Pallavi, Bala Hillol, Dey Bidit Lal, Filieri Raffaele. Enforced Remote Working: The Impact of Digital Platform-Induced Stress and Remote Working Experience on Technology Exhaustion and Subjective Wellbeing. Journal of Business Research. 2022; 151 :269–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.002. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spada Hans, Meier Anne, Rummel Nikol, Hauser Sabine. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Learning 2005: The next 10 Years!—CSCL’05, Taipei, Taiwan, May 30–June 4. Association for Computational Linguistics; Morristown: 2005. A New Method to Assess the Quality of Collaborative Process in CSCL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spitzberg Brian H. Methods of interpersonal skill assessment. In: Greene John O., Burleson Brant R., editors. The Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Mahwah: 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg Robert. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Creativity: Three Is Better than One. Educational Psychologist. 1986; 21 :175–90. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2103_2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg Robert J., Funke Joachim. The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction. Heidelberg University Publishing (heiUP); Heidelberg: 2019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sursock Andrée. Quality assurance and rankings: Some European lessons. In: Hazelkorn Ellen, Mihut Georgiana., editors. Research Handbook on University Rankings. Edward Elgar Publishing; Cheltenham: 2021. pp. 185–96. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sursock Andrée, Vettori Oliver. Qualitätskultur. Ein Blick in Die Gelebte Praxis der Hochschulen. Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation; Vienna: 2017. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Quo vadis, quality culture? Theses from different perspectives; pp. 13–18. Available online: https://www.aq.ac.at/de/ueber-uns/publikationen/sonstige-publikationen.php [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutter Éric. Certification et Labellisation: Un Problème de Confiance. Bref Panorama de La Situation Actuelle. Documentaliste-Sciences de l Information. 2005; 42 :284–90. doi: 10.3917/docsi.424.0284. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taddei François. Training Creative and Collaborative Knowledge-Builders: A Major Challenge for 21st Century Education. OCDE; Paris: 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas Keith, Lok Beatrice. Teaching Critical Thinking: An Operational Framework. In: Davies Martin, Barnett Ronald., editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan US; New York: 2015. pp. 93–105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson Jeri. Measuring Student Success Skills: A Review of the Literature on Complex Communication. National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment; Dover: 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorndahl Kathrine L., Stentoft Diana. Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking and Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Scoping Review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 14. 2020 doi: 10.14434/ijpbl.v14i1.28773. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornhill-Miller Branden. ‘Crea-Critical-Collab-ication’: A Dynamic Interactionist Model of the 4Cs (Creativity, Critical Thinking, Collaboration and Communication) 2021. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: http://thornhill-miller.com/newWordpress/index.php/current-research/
• Thornhill-Miller Branden, Dupont Jean-Marc. Virtual Reality and the Enhancement of Creativity and Innovation: Underrecognized Potential Among Converging Technologies? Journal for Cognitive Education and Psychology. 2016; 15 :102–21. doi: 10.1891/1945-8959.15.1.102. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornhill-Miller Branden, Millican Peter. The Common-Core/Diversity Dilemma: Revisions of Humean Thought, New Empirical Research, and the Limits of Rational Religious Belief. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 2015; 7 :1–49. doi: 10.24204/ejpr.v7i1.128. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomasello Michael. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press; Cambridge: 2005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uribe-Enciso Olga Lucía, Uribe-Enciso Diana Sofía, Vargas-Daza María Del Pilar. Pensamiento Crítico y Su Importancia En La Educación: Algunas Reflexiones. Rastros Rostros. 2017; 19 doi: 10.16925/ra.v19i34.2144. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Vleuten Cees, van den Eertwegh Valerie, Giroldi Esther. Assessment of Communication Skills. Patient Education and Counseling. 2019; 102 :2110–13. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.07.007. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Klink Marcel R., Boon Jo. Competencies: The triumph of a fuzzy concept. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management. 2003; 3 :125–37. doi: 10.1504/IJHRDM.2003.002415. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Laar Ester, Van Deursen Alexander J. A. M., Van Dijk Jan A. G. M., de Haan Jos. The Relation between 21st-Century Skills and Digital Skills: A Systematic Literature Review. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 72 :577–88. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Rosmalen Peter, Boyle Elizabeth A., Nadolski Rob, van der Baaren John, Fernández-Manjón Baltasar, MacArthur Ewan, Pennanen Tiina, Manea Madalina, Star Kam. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2014. Acquiring 21st Century Skills: Gaining Insight into the Design and Applicability of a Serious Game with 4C-ID; pp. 327–34. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vincent-Lancrin Stéphan, González-Sancho Carlos, Bouckaert Mathias, de Luca Federico, Fernández-Barrerra Meritxell, Jacotin Gwénaël, Urgel Joaquin, Vidal Quentin. Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. OECD Publishing; Paris: 2019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Voogt Joke, Roblin Natalie Pareja. A Comparative Analysis of International Frameworks for 21st Century Competences: Implications for National Curriculum Policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2012; 44 :299–321. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2012.668938. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waizenegger Lena, McKenna Brad, Cai Wenjie, Bendz Taino. An Affordance Perspective of Team Collaboration and Enforced Working from Home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems: An Official Journal of the Operational Research Society. 2020; 29 :429–42. doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2020.1800417. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson Goodwin. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Psychological Corporation; San Antonio: 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson Goodwin, Glaser Edwin M. Technical Manual and User’s Guide. Pearson; Kansas City: 2010. Watson-Glaser TM II critical thinking appraisal. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weick Karl E. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1993; 38 :628–52. doi: 10.2307/2393339. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West Richard F., Toplak Maggie E., Stanovich Keith E. Heuristics and Biases as Measures of Critical Thinking: Associations with Cognitive Ability and Thinking Dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008; 100 :930–41. doi: 10.1037/a0012842. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitmore Paul G. What are soft skills; Paper presented at the CONARC Soft Skills Conference; Fort Bliss, TX, USA. December 12–13; 1972. pp. 12–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willingham Daniel T. Critical Thinking: Why Is It so Hard to Teach? Arts Education Policy Review. 2008; 109 :21–32. doi: 10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson Sarah Beth, Varma-Nelson Pratibha. Small Groups, Significant Impact: A Review of Peer-Led Team Learning Research with Implications for STEM Education Researchers and Faculty. Journal of Chemical Education. 2016; 93 :1686–702. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00862. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winterton Jonathan, Deist Françoise Delamare-Le, Stringfellow Emma. Typology of Knowledge, Skills and Competences: Clarification of the Concept and Prototype. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; Luxembourg: 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum . New Vision for Education: Unlocking the Potential of Technology. World Economic Forum; Geneva: 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum The Future of Jobs Report 2020. 2020. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020
• World Health Organization . Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice. World Health Organization; Geneva: 2010. No. WHO/HRH/HPN/10.3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yue Meng, Zhang Meng, Zhang Chunmei, Jin Changde. The Effectiveness of Concept Mapping on Development of Critical Thinking in Nursing Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nurse Education Today. 2017; 52 :87–94. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.02.018. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zielke Stephan, Dobbelstein Thomas. Customers’ Willingness to Purchase New Store Brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 2007; 16 :112–21. doi: 10.1108/10610420710739982. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zlatić Lidija, Bjekić Dragana, Marinković Snežana, Bojović Milevica. Development of Teacher Communication Competence. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 116 :606–10. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.265. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7.2 Critical Thinking

Imagine someone asked you to share the best way to approach a colleague about a behaviour that is bothering them. What would you say? How did you come to your response? If you asked and someone told you their answer, what would you think or feel about their response? How did you come to the reaction you had to their response? Recalling the role of perception from an earlier chapter, we know that our communication is always shaped by a perspective we hold based on our experiences. What happens when you don’t know the answer or you don’t like the option someone else provided? How do you re-approach the question to come up with a response? When searching for information on how to answer a question, how do we select the best information? Communication competence is achieved by the ability to pay critical attention to how information is being perceived, selected, and communicated by ourselves and others. This is especially challenging in increasingly diverse, complex, and information-filled environments.

So, what are our strategies? In reality, there are many different strategies to critically attend to the messages we send and receive. In this section, we will explore a three-strategy approach: critical listening , critical thinking , and critical ignoring .

In the scenario above in which a co-worker asks you to share the best way to approach a colleague about a behaviour that is bothering them, what would your immediate response be? Your immediate response might be an effective solution, but that’s not what we’re trying to figure out. Whatever your immediate response was, we want to learn to employ strategies to actively seek other possible solutions and explore them in depth. Your immediate response to the question may also indicate your own bias, which is what we want to avoid when choosing and communicating a response. Bias is “an outlook … based on a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgement and/or an instance of such prejudice” (Merriam-Webster, 2023a). Perhaps you consciously recall personal experiences of how you’ve approached co-workers in the past, and your immediate response has been shaped by those experiences. Your response is biased because it is based on personal experience. Sometimes we are consciously aware of our bias when we communicate; however, implicit bias can also exist. Implicit bias is “a bias or prejudice that is present but not consciously held or recognized” (Merriam-Webster, 2023b). Shaping our response according to our experiences is natural and helps us make decisions quickly. At the same time, relying only on our own experiences limits us to the options we already know.

If competent communication is our goal, competent communicators can understand, choose from, and perform a wide range of behaviours (Adler et al., 2021, pp. 16–19). Knowing about conscious and implicit bias, we can start to listen to ourselves and others communicate and possibly become consciously aware. Listening to all communication can help us become more reasoned communicators and allow us to connect better with others as we acknowledge diverse perspectives alongside our own. Bias can turn into reason when more information is gathered, other possible solutions are identified, and all the information is analyzed to determine a reasoned response or action.

Ultimately, using strategies to critically attend to information helps us to do the following:

• Challenge our assumptions
• Avoid information overload
• Avoid the communication of biased or irrelevant information
• Develop an understanding of and empathy for different perspectives
• Explore options to make an informed decision
• Connect with diverse audiences.

Strategy 1: Critical Listening

Many different ways of listening are described in literature. Three listening types are commonly discussed:

• Informational listening
• Comprehensive and evaluative listening
• Empathic listening

Each type of listening serves a different purpose, can be used in isolation or simultaneously, and can help us perceive, select and/or evaluate information to use orally or in writing. Each of the listening styles can be used when attending to external information being given to us and can also serve as an introspective approach to listening to ourselves.

Informational listening involves gathering new information and facts, then identifying key points. This is followed by recording the information so that we can access it later by committing it to memory and/or taking physical notes.

Comprehensive and evaluative listening is a combination of listening styles that does not attempt to decide if information is right or wrong. Instead, this listening style determines the main message the information is trying to send and how similar or different the information is to our existing knowledge and beliefs. It is through this listening style that we decide what we have learned. This process is an active approach that uses the following steps;

• Seeks to understand and organize the information gathered; uses paraphrasing and questioning communication skills
• Seeks to align the new information with what we already know or believe

Empathic listening is an active listening style that seeks to identify and understand the feelings and emotions behind the information being presented. You may ask questions, gently requesting that the speaker discuss their feelings and emotions. You will also use paraphrasing, and seek clarification to help understand whether you have truly heard the other person’s perspective. This listening style helps to create connection and trust between the listener and speaker.

Consider the following scenario: Your workplace team is trying to decide whether cellphones should be banned whenever interactions with clients take place. The discussion has been raised several times and there are many different opinions and perspectives on the question.

When you ask yourself the question, listen to your own reaction and internal communication. When you imagine this discussion taking place with your workplace team, imagine the range of opinions and perspectives. When you imagine yourself doing any kind of research to gather information about the topic, imagine the information you might find.

How would you use each of the listening styles above? Imagine the possible information you might gather from each listening style. Imagine the possible emotions and feelings that may need to be managed. What might be the benefits and challenges from using each listening style?

Gathering information is usually the first step in any situation that requires critically attending to information, but it doesn’t end there, and you may revisit the critical listening strategy at any point in your approach. Nonetheless, after gathering information, you’ll need to do something with it, and there may be a lot of information to sort through. This is where the next two strategies come into play.

Strategy 2: Critical Thinking

The concept of critical thinking does not have a single definition; instead, definitions range from simple to complex but capture a common theme of analyzing information to gain a better understanding.

Here are a few definitions to consider:

• Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2019).
• For some, critical thinking has a lot to do with understanding one’s own perspective and those of others.
• Critical thinking is the mental process involved in processing information for the purpose of problem solving, decision making, and thinking critically (Drew, 2023).
• Critical thinking is the means of assessing the accuracy, authenticity, plausibility, or sufficiency of all information (Beyer 1995).
• Critical thinking is developing the ability to think in alignment with the original idea or different from the original idea.

Not surprisingly, several critical-thinking models or frameworks are commonly used. Each approaches the process of analyzing and understanding information in a different way and for a different purpose. Some examples of critical-thinking models are listed in the table below.

Table 7.1. Examples of Critical-Thinking Models or Frameworks

Consider the previous scenario where your workplace team is trying to decide whether cellphones should be banned whenever interactions with clients take place. The discussion has been raised several times, and there are many different opinions and perspectives on the question. Choose one or two of the critical-thinking models in the table above to explore and click on the links. Use the steps in each model to answer the question “Should cellphones be banned whenever interactions with clients take place?”

In their own unique way, each model will ask you to gather more information from sources of information such as books, articles, or other people. You will then compare and analyze the information and perspectives you gather, considering possible courses of action and their possible outcomes and impacts. This gathering, sorting, and analyzing of information is essential to making a final decision based on reason instead of personal bias. However, as you may have already felt, the process can be overwhelming if there are a lot of facts, perspectives, and resulting options and consequences. We can understand why personal bias becomes the more attractive and easily accessible option.

Strategy 3: Critical Ignoring

The third and find strategy in moving towards communication competence, critical ignoring , helps us navigate the sea of information and decide what to keep and what to discard. As you consider your own response and that of others to the question “Should cellphones be banned whenever interactions with clients take place?” you may think of some strong opinionated responses that might be communicated or find some compelling evidence for or against the issue when you research the topic. The degree to which you feel overwhelmed by the information indicates your natural capacity for taking in information, and you may have already started to ignore some of the information you have come across.

This means you are already engaging in critical ignoring , which is choosing what to ignore, learning how to resist misleading information, and deciding where to invest your attention (Kozyreva et al., 2023). You may now be asking how critical ignoring is not biased. Critical ignoring is not biased because the choice of what information is ignored is based on assessing the quality of the information and is not based on personal opinions and perspectives. Note that although critical ignoring is designed for online sources of information, it is possible to apply the same approach to human sources of information.

The following three steps are involved in critical ignoring:

• Self-nudging: This is ignoring temptations by removing them. For example, you know that a particular website or social media platform tends to post a lot of information that grabs your attention but isn’t usually helpful because of its lack of objective facts and supporting evidence. You turn off notifications from these sources or remove them. Then you turn your attention to the high-quality sources of information that usually do provide information that stands up to reason. Self-nudging provides a sense of control, enabling you to access the best sources of information in diverse and complex environments.
• Lateral reading: This is determining how trustworthy a source and its information is by investigating the background of the website and author, and by comparing the information across a wide variety of sources. For example, you click on an article with an attention-grabbing title that is connected to a problem you’ve recently been discussing with colleagues. The information sounds excellent and helpful, but how to be sure? Investigating the author of the article reveals that they have credentials and experience related to the topic. A close look at the organization that runs the website reveals that they are selling one of the products mentioned in the article, which casts doubt on the quality of the information. Last but not least, you search for other articles on the same topic, and almost all the articles from different sources agree with the information presented in the original article. You assess the article’s information to be of reasonable quality and forward it to your colleagues to consider. Lateral reading is initially time consuming, but with practice, it can develop into a quick and easy method of investing in the highest-quality information.
• Do not feed the trolls—ignoring malicious actors: This involves learning how to ignore the people who spread misinformation or harass others using multiple platforms, or those who create debate or argument where there is none to be had. Because online statements can be emotionally charged, deliberately personal, or polarizing, we as humans tend to have just as emotional a response, and it is difficult not to react or try to defend the cause or individual being attacked. “Feeding the trolls” by directly engaging with them is tempting but ultimately has the same effect as feeding ourselves a good breakfast—it provides the necessary fuel for growth and regeneration. Instead of feeding the trolls, do not respond directly, block and report them to the platform where they are making statements, and then seek support from your close social group or professionals.

(Kozyreva et al., 2023)

Consider the previous scenario where your workplace team is trying to decide whether cellphones should be banned whenever interactions with clients take place. If you followed the first two steps, critical listening and critical thinking , you now have a lot of information to sort through. There may be many different opinions and perspectives on the question, and perhaps you found a few published articles. Next comes the third and final step, critical ignoring , to narrow down the information that really helps to answer the question.

As you reflect on the information you gather when exploring any topic or question, this three-strategy approach will help you manage the information and come to a reasonable course of action.

Relating Theory to Real Life

• Consider the following questions (Stevenson, 2023) and choose one that you would like to use to work through the three-step critical-thinking strategy you’ve read about on this page:
• Does humanity have the right to colonize other planets?
• Should we aim to rehabilitate prisoners or should we just punish them for their crimes?
• Would public health care be better than private?
• Should more be done to protect children on social media?

2. Use the critical listening, critical thinking, and critical ignoring three-step strategy.

• What response to the original question did you come up with?
• List and describe at least three key points that helped determine your final response as a result of using the three-step strategy.

Attribution

Unless otherwise indicated, material on this page has been copied and adapted from the following resource:

Department of Communication Studies. (n.d.). Communicating to connect: Interpersonal communication for today. Austin Community College. https://sites.google.com/austincc.edu/interpersonaloer/title-page , licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 , except where otherwise noted.

Adler, R. B., Rolls, J. A., & Proctor, R., II. (2021). LOOK: Looking out, looking in (4th ed.). Cengage Canada. (Original work published 2017)

Apedaile, S., & NorQuest College Centre for Intercultural Education. (2015). The Something’s up! cycle . https://www.norquest.ca/NorquestCollege/media/pdf/about/resources/intercultural-resources-for-educators/the-somethings-up-cycle.pdf

Beyer, B. K. (1995).  Critical thinking. Phi Kappa Delta Educational Foundation.

Crockett, L. (2021, September 29). The most useful critical thinking mental models to know about . Future Focused Learning. https://blog.futurefocusedlearning.net/useful-critical-thinking-mental-models

Drew, C. (2023, May 10). The 4 types of critical thinking skills – explained! HelpfulProfessor.com. https://helpfulprofessor.com/thinking-skills/

The Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2019). Defining critical thinking . https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Hammond, J., Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Smart choices: PROACT technique . Harvard Business School Press. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/jobs/training/initiatives/skills-success/tools/problem-solved-employees-learners.html#h2.04

Kozyreva, A., Wineburg, S., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2023). Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32 (1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221121570

Merriam-Webster. (2023a). Bias. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary . https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias

Merriam-Webster. (2023b). Implicit bias. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary . https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/implicit%20bias

Plymouth University. (2010). Critical thinking . Learning Development with Plymouth University. https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/1/1710/Critical_Thinking.pdf

Stevenson, T. (2023, April 13). 80 ethical questions to ask yourself and others . Questions About Everything. https://questionsabouteverything.com/ethical-questions/#Looking_For_More_Questions

Vanderpool, A., & Robinson, T. A. (2017, November 29). Critical thinking: Multiple models for teaching and learning (abridged) . Teaching With Writing: The WIC Newsletter (Spring 2023). https://blogs.oregonstate.edu/wicnews/2017/11/29/critical-thinking-multiple-models-teaching-learning/#:~:text=Beyer’s%20evaluative%20thinking%20model&text=Thus%2C%20critical%20(or%2C%20to,(Beyer%201995%2C%2010

Introduction to Communications Copyright © 2023 by NorQuest College is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Productivity
• Thoughtful learning

9 characteristics of critical thinking (and how you can develop them)

It's no secret that critical thinking is essential for growth and success. Yet many people aren't quite sure what it means — it sounds like being a critic or cynical, traits that many people want to avoid.

However, thinking critically isn't about being negative. On the contrary, effective critical thinkers possess many positive traits. Attributes like curiosity, compassion, and communication are among the top commonalities that critical thinkers share, and the good news is that we can all learn to develop these capabilities.

This article will discuss some of the principal characteristics of critical thinking and how developing these qualities can help you improve your decision-making and problem-solving skills. With a bit of self-reflection and practice, you'll be well on your way to making better decisions, solving complex problems, and achieving success across all areas of your life.

What is critical thinking?

Scholarly works on critical thinking propose many ways of interpreting the concept ( at least 17 in one reference! ), making it challenging to pinpoint one exact definition. In general, critical thinking refers to rational, goal-directed thought through logical arguments and reasoning. We use critical thinking to objectively assess and evaluate information to form reasonable judgments.

Critical thinking has its roots in ancient Greece. The philosopher Socrates is credited with being one of the first to encourage his students to think critically about their beliefs and ideas. Socrates believed that by encouraging people to question their assumptions, they would be able to see the flaws in their reasoning and improve their thought processes.

Today, critical thinking skills are considered vital for success in academia and everyday life. One of the defining " 21st-century skills ," critical thinking is integral to problem-solving, decision making, and goal setting.

Why is it necessary to develop critical thinking skills?

Critical thinking skills help us learn new information, understand complex concepts, and make better decisions. The ability to be objective and reasonable is an asset that can enhance personal and professional relationships.

The U.S. Department of Labor reports critical thinking is among the top desired skills in the workplace. The ability to develop a properly thought-out solution in a reasonable amount of time is highly valued by employers. Companies want employees who can solve problems independently and work well in a team. A desirable employee can evaluate situations critically and creatively, collaborate with others, and make sound judgments.

Critical thinking is an essential component of academic study as well. Critical thinking skills are vital to learners because they allow students to build on their prior knowledge and construct new understandings. This will enable learners to expand their knowledge and experience across various subjects.

Despite its importance, though, critical thinking is not something that we develop naturally or casually. Even though critical thinking is considered an essential learning outcome in many universities, only 45% of college students in a well-known study reported that their skills had improved after two years of classes.

9 characteristics of critical thinking

Clearly, improving our ability to think critically will require some self-improvement work. As lifelong learners, we can use this opportunity for self-reflection to identify where we can improve our thinking processes.

Strong critical thinkers possess a common set of personality traits, habits, and dispositions. Being aware of these attributes and putting them into action can help us develop a strong foundation for critical thinking. These essential characteristics of critical thinking can be used as a toolkit for applying specific thinking processes to any given situation.

Curiosity is one of the most significant characteristics of critical thinking. Research has shown that a state of curiosity drives us to continually seek new information . This inquisitiveness supports critical thinking as we need to constantly expand our knowledge to make well-informed decisions.

Curiosity also facilitates critical thinking because it encourages us to question our thoughts and mental models, the filters we use to understand the world. This is essential to avoid critical thinking barriers like biases and misconceptions. Challenging our beliefs and getting curious about all sides of an issue will help us have an open mind during the critical thinking process.

Actionable Tip: Choose to be curious. When you ask “why,” you learn about things around you and clarify ambiguities. Google anything you are curious about, read new books, and play with a child. Kids have a natural curiosity that can be inspiring.

Pique your curiosity

ABLE is the next-level all-in-one knowledge acquisition and productivity app for avid learners and curious minds.

2. Analytical

Investigation is a crucial component of critical thinking, so it's important to be analytical. Analytical thinking involves breaking down complex ideas into their simplest forms . The first step when tackling a problem or making a decision is to analyze information and consider it in smaller pieces. Then, we use critical thinking by gathering additional information before getting to a judgment or solution.

Being analytical is helpful for critical thinking because it allows us to look at data in detail. When examining an issue from various perspectives, we should pay close attention to these details to arrive at a decision based on facts. Taking these steps is crucial to making good decisions.

Actionable Tip: Become aware of your daily surroundings. Examine how things work — breaking things down into steps will encourage analysis. You can also play brain and puzzle games. These provide an enjoyable way to stimulate analytical thinking.

3. Introspective

Critical thinkers are typically introspective. Introspection is a process of examining our own thoughts and feelings. We do this as a form of metacognition, or thinking about thinking. Researchers believe that we can improve our problem-solving skills by using metacognition to analyze our reasoning processes .

Being introspective is essential to critical thinking because it helps us be self-aware. Self-awareness encourages us to acknowledge and face our own biases, prejudices, and selfish tendencies. If we know our assumptions, we can question them and suspend judgment until we have all the facts.

Actionable Tip: Start a journal. Keep track of your thoughts, feelings, and opinions throughout the day, especially when faced with difficult decisions. Look for patterns. You can avoid common thought fallacies by being aware of them.

4. Able to make inferences

Another characteristic of critical thinking is the ability to make inferences, which are logical conclusions based on reviewing the facts, events, and ideas available. Analyzing the available information and observing patterns and trends will help you find relationships and make informed decisions based on what is likely to happen.

The ability to distinguish assumptions from inferences is crucial to critical thinking. We decide something is true by inference because another thing is also true, but we decide something by assumption because of what we believe or think we know. While both assumptions and inferences can be valid or invalid, inferences are more rational because data support them.

Actionable Tip: Keep an eye on your choices and patterns during the day, noticing when you infer. Practice applying the Inference Equation — I observe + I already know = So now I am thinking — to help distinguish when you infer or assume.

5. Observant

Observation skills are also a key part of critical thinking. Observation is more than just looking — it involves arranging, combining, and classifying information through all five senses to build understanding. People with keen observation skills notice small details and catch slight changes in their surroundings.

Observation is one of the first skills we learn as children , and it is critical for problem-solving. Being observant allows us to collect more information about a situation and use that information to make better decisions and solve problems. Further, it facilitates seeing things from different perspectives and finding alternative solutions.

Actionable Tip: Limit your use of devices, and be mindful of your surroundings. Notice and name one thing for each of your five senses when you enter a new environment or even a familiar one. Being aware of what you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch allows you to fully experience the moment and it develops your ability to observe your surroundings.

6. Open-minded and compassionate

Open-minded and compassionate people are good critical thinkers. Being open-minded means considering new ideas and perspectives, even if they conflict with your own. This allows you to examine different sides of an issue without immediately dismissing them. Likewise, compassionate people can empathize with others, even if they disagree. When you understand another person's point of view, you can find common ground and understanding.

Critical thinking requires an open mind when analyzing opposing arguments and compassion when listening to the perspective of others. By exploring different viewpoints and seeking to understand others' perspectives, critical thinkers can gain a more well-rounded understanding of an issue. Using this deeper understanding, we can make better decisions and solve more complex problems.

Actionable Tip: Cultivate open-mindedness and compassion by regularly exposing yourself to new ideas and views. Read books on unfamiliar topics, listen to podcasts with diverse opinions, or talk with people from different backgrounds.

7. Able to determine relevance

The ability to assess relevance is an essential characteristic of critical thinking. Relevance is defined as being logically connected and significant to the subject. When a fact or statement is essential to a topic, it can be deemed relevant.

Relevance plays a vital role in many stages of the critical thinking process . It's especially crucial to identify the most pertinent facts before evaluating an argument. Despite being accurate and seemingly meaningful, a point may not matter much to your subject. Your criteria and standards are equally relevant, as you can't make a sound decision with irrelevant guidelines.

Actionable Tip: When you're in a conversation, pay attention to how each statement relates to what you're talking about. It's surprising how often we stray from the point with irrelevant information. Asking yourself, "How does that relate to the topic?" can help you spot unrelated issues.

Critical thinking requires willingness. Some scholars argue that the "willingness to inquire" is the most fundamental characteristic of critical thinking , which encompasses all the others. Being willing goes hand in hand with other traits, like being flexible and humble. Flexible thinkers are willing to adapt their thinking to new evidence or arguments. Those who are humble are willing to acknowledge their faults and recognize their limitations.

It's essential for critical thinking that we have an open mind and are willing to challenge the status quo. The willingness to question assumptions, consider multiple perspectives, and think outside the box allows critical thinkers to reach new and necessary conclusions.

Actionable Tip: Cultivate willingness by adopting a growth mindset. See challenges as learning opportunities. Celebrate others' accomplishments, and get curious about what led to their success.

9. Effective communicators

Being a good critical thinker requires effective communication. Effective critical thinkers know that communication is imperative when solving problems. They can articulate their goals and concerns clearly while recognizing others' perspectives. Critical thinking requires people to be able to listen to each other's opinions and share their experiences respectfully to find the best solutions.

A good communicator is also an attentive and active listener. Listening actively goes beyond simply hearing what someone says. Being engaged in the discussion involves:

• Listening to what they say
• Being present
• Asking questions that clarify their position

Actively listening is crucial for critical thinking because it helps us understand other people's perspectives.

Actionable Tip: The next time you speak with a friend, family member, or even a complete stranger, take the time to genuinely listen to what they're saying. It may surprise you how much you can learn about others — and about yourself — when you take the time to listen carefully.

The nine traits above represent just a few of the most common characteristics of critical thinking. By developing or strengthening these characteristics, you can enhance your capacity for critical thinking.

Get to the core of critical thinking

Critical thinking is essential for success in every aspect of life, from personal relationships to professional careers. By developing your critical thinking skills , you can challenge the status quo and gain a new perspective on the world around you. You can start improving your critical thinking skills today by determining which characteristics of critical thinking you need to work on and using the actionable tips to strengthen them. With practice, you can become a great critical thinker.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this article. Feel free to share, recommend and connect 🙏

Connect with me on Twitter 👉   https://twitter.com/iamborisv

And follow Able's journey on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meet_able

And subscribe to our newsletter to read more valuable articles before it gets published on our blog.

Now we're building a Discord community of like-minded people, and we would be honoured and delighted to see you there.

Erin E. Rupp

Read more posts by this author

3 critical thinking strategies to enhance your problem-solving skills

5 remedies for poor time management (and how to know if you need them).

What is abstract thinking? 10 activities to improve your abstract thinking skills

5 examples of cognitive learning theory (and how you can use them)

0 results found.

• Aegis Alpha SA
• We build in public

Building with passion in

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• PubMed/Medline
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education.

1. Introduction

“21st century skills”, “soft skills”, and the “4cs”, 2. the 4cs, assessment, and support for development, 2.1. creativity, 2.1.1. individual assessment of creativity, 2.1.2. institutional and environmental support for development of creativity, 2.2. critical thinking, 2.2.1. individual assessment of critical thinking, 2.2.2. institutional and environmental support for development of critical thinking skills, 2.3. communication, 2.3.1. individual assessment of communication, 2.3.2. institutional and environmental support for development of communication skills, 2.4. collaboration, 2.4.1. individual assessment of collaboration, 2.4.2. institutional and environmental support for development of collaboration and collaborative skills, 3. labelization: valorization of the 4cs and assessing support for their development, 3.1. labeling as a means of trust and differentiation, 3.2. influence on choice and adoption of goods and services, 3.3. process of labelizing products and services, 3.4. labelization of 21st century skills, 4. the international institute for competency development’s 21st century competencies 4cs assessment framework for institutions and programs, 4.1. evaluation grid for creativity, 4.2. evaluation grid for critical thinking, 4.3. evaluation grid for collaboration, 4.4. evaluation grid for communication, 5. assessing the 4cs in informal educational contexts: the example of games, 5.1. the 4cs in informal educational contexts, 5.2. 4cs evaluation framework for games, 6. discussion and conclusions, 6.1. interrelationships between the 4cs and a new model for use in pedagogy and policy promotion, 6.2. limitations and future work, 6.3. conclusion: labelization of the 4cs and the future of education and work, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Persson. 2015. Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research 85: 275–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• AbuSeileek, Ali Farhan. 2012. The Effect of Computer-Assisted Cooperative Learning Methods and Group Size on the EFL Learners’ Achievement in Communication Skills. Computers & Education 58: 231–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahern, Aoife, Caroline Dominguez, Ciaran McNally, John J. O’Sullivan, and Daniela Pedrosa. 2019. A Literature Review of Critical Thinking in Engineering Education. Studies in Higher Education 44: 816–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ainsworth, Shaaron E., and Irene-Angelica Chounta. 2021. The roles of representation in computer-supported collaborative learning. In International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning . Edited by Ulrike Cress, Carolyn Rosé, Alyssa Friend Wise and Jun Oshima. Cham: Springer, pp. 353–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alsaleh, Nada J. 2020. Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Literature Review. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 19: 21–39. Available online: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1239945.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
• Al-Samarraie, Hosam, and Shuhaila Hurmuzan. 2018. A Review of Brainstorming Techniques in Higher Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity 27: 78–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amabile, Teresa M. 1982. Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43: 997–1013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amron, Manajemen Pemasaran. 2018. The influence of brand image, brand trust, product quality, and price on the consumer’s buying decision of MPV cars. European Scientific Journal 14: 228–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ananiadoui, Katerina, and Magdalean Claro. 2009. 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries . OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bailin, Sharon. 1988. Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity . Dordrecht: Springer. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bandyopadhyay, Subir, and Jana Szostek. 2019. Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking: Assessing Critical Thinking of Business Students Using Multiple Measures. Journal of Education for Business 94: 259–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barber, Herbert F. 1992. Developing Strategic Leadership: The US Army War College Experience. Journal of Management Development 11: 4–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barnett, Ronald. 2015. A Curriculum for Critical Being. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education . New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 63–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bateson, Patrick, and Paul Martin. 2013. Play, Playfulness, Creativity and Innovation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Batey, Mark. 2012. The Measurement of Creativity: From Definitional Consensus to the Introduction of a New Heuristic Framework. Creativity Research Journal 24: 55–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Battelle for Kids. 2022. Framework for 21st Century Learning Definitions. Available online: http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework_DefinitionsBFK.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
• Bellaera, Lauren, Yana Weinstein-Jones, Sonia Ilie, and Sara T. Baker. 2021. Critical Thinking in Practice: The Priorities and Practices of Instructors Teaching in Higher Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity 41: 100856. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blessinger, Patrick, and John P. Anchan. 2015. Democratizing Higher Education: International Comparative Perspectives , 1st ed. Edited by Patrick Blessinger and John P. Anchan. London: Routledge. Available online: https://www.routledge.com/Democratizing-Higher-Education-International-Comparative-Perspectives/Blessinger-Anchan/p/book/9781138020955 (accessed on 1 November 2022).
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, ed. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain . New York: Longmans. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourgeois-Bougrine, Samira. 2022. Design Thinking. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible . Cham: Springer International Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bourgeois-Bougrine, Samira, Nathalie Bonnardel, Jean-Marie Burkhardt, Branden Thornhill-Miller, Farzaneh Pahlavan, Stéphanie Buisine, Jérôme Guegan, Nicolas Pichot, and Todd Lubart. 2022. Immersive Virtual Environments’ Impact on Individual and Collective Creativity: A Review of Recent Research. European Psychologist 27: 237–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bourke, Sharon L., Simon Cooper, Louisa Lam, and Lisa McKenna. 2021. Undergraduate Health Professional Students’ Team Communication in Simulated Emergency Settings: A Scoping Review. Clinical Simulation in Nursing 60: 42–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brookfield, Stephen D. 1997. Assessing Critical Thinking. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 75: 17–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burkhardt, Jean-Marie, Françoise Détienne, Anne-Marie Hébert, and Laurence Perron. 2009. Assessing the ‘Quality of Collaboration’ in Technology-Mediated Design Situations with Several Dimensions. In Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2009 . Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 157–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Camarda, Anaëlle, Lison Bouhours, Anaïs Osmont, Pascal Le Masson, Benoît Weil, Grégoire Borst, and Mathieu Cassotti. 2021. Opposite Effect of Social Evaluation on Creative Idea Generation in Early and Middle Adolescents. Creativity Research Journal 33: 399–410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cannon-Bowers, Janis, Scott I. Tannenbaum, Eduardo Salas, and Catherine E. Volpe. 1995. Defining team competencies and establishing team training requirements. In Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations . Edited by Richard A. Guzzo and Eduardo Salas. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 333–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Care, Esther, Claire Scoular, and Patrick Griffin. 2016. Assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving in Education Environments. Applied Measurement in Education 29: 250–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Care, Esther, Helyn Kim, Alvin Vista, and Kate Anderson. 2018. Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carmichael, Erst, and Helen Farrell. 2012. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Online Resources in Developing Student Critical Thinking: Review of Literature and Case Study of a Critical Thinking Online Site. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 9: 38–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carson, Shelley H., Jordan B. Peterson, and Daniel M. Higgins. 2005. Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal 17: 37–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casey, Betty J., Sarah Getz, and Adriana Galvan. 2008. The Adolescent Brain. Developmental Review: DR 28: 62–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cassotti, Mathieu, Anaëlle Camarda, Nicolas Poirel, Olivier Houdé, and Marine Agogué. 2016. Fixation Effect in Creative Ideas Generation: Opposite Impacts of Example in Children and Adults. Thinking Skills and Creativity 19: 146–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chameroy, Fabienne, and Lucien Veran. 2014. Immatérialité de La Qualité et Effet Des Labels Sur Le Consentement à Payer. Management International 18: 32–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Chiu, Fa-Chung. 2015. Improving Your Creative Potential without Awareness: Overinclusive Thinking Training. Thinking Skills and Creativity 15: 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chulvi, Vicente, Elena Mulet, Amaresh Chakrabarti, Belinda López-Mesa, and Carmen González-Cruz. 2012. Comparison of the Degree of Creativity in the Design Outcomes Using Different Design Methods. Journal of Engineering Design 23: 241–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cinque, Maria. 2016. ‘Lost in Translation’. Soft Skills Development in European Countries. Tuning Journal for Higher Education 3: 389–427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cömert, Musa, Jördis Maria Zill, Eva Christalle, Jörg Dirmaier, Martin Härter, and Isabelle Scholl. 2016. Assessing Communication Skills of Medical Students in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) - A Systematic Review of Rating Scales. PLoS ONE 11: e0152717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corazza, Giovanni Emanuele. 2016. Potential Originality and Effectiveness: The Dynamic Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal 28: 258–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Corazza, Giovanni Emanuele, Frédéric Darbellay, Todd Lubart, and Chiara Panciroli. 2021. Developing Intelligence and Creativity in Education: Insights from the Space–Time Continuum. In Creativity and Learning . Edited by Soila Lemmetty, Kaija Collin, Vlad Glăveanu and Panu Forsman. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 69–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cotter, Katherine N., Ronald A. Beghetto, and James C. Kaufman. 2022. Creativity in the Classroom: Advice for Best Practices. In Homo Creativus . Edited by Todd Lubart, Marion Botella, Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine, Xavier Caroff, Jérôme Guégan, Christohe Mouchiroud, Julien Nelson and Franck Zenasni. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 249–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Curtis, J. Randall, Anthony L. Back, Dee W. Ford, Lois Downey, Sarah E. Shannon, Ardith Z. Doorenbos, Erin K. Kross, Lynn F. Reinke, Laura C. Feemster, Barbara Edlund, and et al. 2013. Effect of Communication Skills Training for Residents and Nurse Practitioners on Quality of Communication with Patients with Serious Illness: A Randomized Trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 310: 2271. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Alimonte, Laura, Elizabeth McLaney, and Lisa Di Prospero. 2019. Best Practices on Team Communication: Interprofessional Practice in Oncology. Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care 13: 69–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Freitas, Sara. 2006. Learning in Immersive Worlds: A Review of Game-Based Learning . Bristol: JISC. Available online: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearninginnovation/gamingreport_v3.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
• Détienne, Françoise, Michael Baker, and Jean-Marie Burkhardt. 2012. Perspectives on Quality of Collaboration in Design. CoDesign 8: 197–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Diedrich, Jennifer, Emanuel Jauk, Paul J. Silvia, Jeffrey M. Gredlein, Aljoscha C. Neubauer, and Mathias Benedek. 2018. Assessment of Real-Life Creativity: The Inventory of Creative Activities and Achievements (ICAA). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 12: 304–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Doyle, Denise. 2021. Creative and Collaborative Practices in Virtual Immersive Environments. In Creativity in the Twenty First Century. Edited by Anna Hui and Christian Wagner . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 3–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Drisko, James W. 2014. Competencies and Their Assessment. Journal of Social Work Education 50: 414–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dul, Jan, and Canan Ceylan. 2011. Work Environments for Employee Creativity. Ergonomics 54: 12–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dumitru, Daniela, Dragos Bigu, Jan Elen, Aoife Ahern, Ciaran McNally, and John O’Sullivan. 2018. A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions . Vila Real: UTAD. Available online: http://repositorio.utad.pt/handle/10348/8320 (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Edelman, Jonathan, Babajide Owoyele, and Joaquin Santuber. 2022. Beyond Brainstorming: Introducing Medgi, an Effective, Research-Based Method for Structured Concept Development. In Design Thinking in Education . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 209–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Etilé, Fabrice, and Sabrina Teyssier. 2016. Signaling Corporate Social Responsibility: Third-Party Certification versus Brands: Signaling CSR: Third-Party Certification versus Brands. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 118: 397–432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evans, Carla. 2020. Measuring Student Success Skills: A Review of the Literature on Collaboration . Dover: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione, Peter Arthur. 1990a. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test–College Level. Technical Report# 1. Experimental Validation and Content Validity. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED327549.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Facione, Peter Arthur. 1990b. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations ; Washington, DC: ERIC, Institute of Education Sciences, pp. 1–112. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED315423 (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Facione, Peter Arthur. 2011. Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment 2007: 1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faidley, Joel. 2018. Comparison of Learning Outcomes from Online and Face-to-Face Accounting Courses. Ph.D. dissertation, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman, Hershey H. 2017. Cognitive Biases That Interfere with Critical Thinking and Scientific Reasoning: A Course Module. SSRN Electronic Journal , 1–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fryer-Edwards, Kelly, Robert M. Arnold, Walter Baile, James A. Tulsky, Frances Petracca, and Anthony Back. 2006. Reflective Teaching Practices: An Approach to Teaching Communication Skills in a Small-Group Setting. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 81: 638–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glăveanu, Vlad Petre. 2013. Rewriting the Language of Creativity: The Five A’s Framework. Review of General Psychology: Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association 17: 69–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glăveanu, Vlad Petre. 2014. The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading. Creativity Theories Research Applications 1: 10–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Goldenberg, Olga, and Jennifer Wiley. 2011. Quality, Conformity, and Conflict: Questioning the Assumptions of Osborn’s Brainstorming Technique. The Journal of Problem Solving 3: 96–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Graesser, Arthur C., John P. Sabatini, and Haiying Li. 2022. Educational Psychology Is Evolving to Accommodate Technology, Multiple Disciplines, and Twenty-First-Century Skills. Annual Review of Psychology 73: 547–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Graesser, Arthur C., Stephen M. Fiore, Samuel Greiff, Jessica Andrews-Todd, Peter W. Foltz, and Friedrich W. Hesse. 2018. Advancing the Science of Collaborative Problem Solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 19: 59–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Grassmann, Susanne. 2014. The pragmatics of word learning. In Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition . Edited by Danielle Matthews. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 139–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hager, Keri, Catherine St Hill, Jacob Prunuske, Michael Swanoski, Grant Anderson, and May Nawal Lutfiyya. 2016. Development of an Interprofessional and Interdisciplinary Collaborative Research Practice for Clinical Faculty. Journal of Interprofessional Care 30: 265–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Halpern, Diane F. 1998. Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring. The American Psychologist 53: 449–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Halpern, Diane F., and Dana S. Dunn. 2021. Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems. Journal of Intelligence 9: 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hanover Research. 2012. A Crosswalk of 21st Century Skills. Available online: http://www.hanoverresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/A-Crosswalk-of-21st-Century-Skills-Membership.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2022).
• Hathaway, Julia R., Beth A. Tarini, Sushmita Banerjee, Caroline O. Smolkin, Jessica A. Koos, and Susmita Pati. 2022. Healthcare Team Communication Training in the United States: A Scoping Review. Health Communication , 1–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hesse, Friedrich, Esther Care, Juergen Buder, Kai Sassenberg, and Patrick Griffin. 2015. A Framework for Teachable Collaborative Problem Solving Skills. In Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills . Edited by Patrick Griffin and Esther Care. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 37–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hitchcock, David. 2020. Critical Thinking. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition) . Edited by Nouri Zalta Edward. Stanford: Stanford University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Houdé, Olivier. 2000. Inhibition and cognitive development: Object, number, categorization, and reasoning. Cognitive Development 15: 63–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Houdé, Olivier, and Grégoire Borst. 2014. Measuring inhibitory control in children and adults: Brain imaging and mental chronometry. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 616. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Huber, Christopher R., and Nathan R. Kuncel. 2016. Does College Teach Critical Thinking? A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research 86: 431–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huizinga, Johan. 1949. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Elements in Culture . London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Humphrey, Neil, Andrew Curran, Elisabeth Morris, Peter Farrell, and Kevin Woods. 2007. Emotional Intelligence and Education: A Critical Review. Educational Psychology 27: 235–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• International Institute for Competency Development. 2021. 21st Century Skills 4Cs Labelization. Available online: https://icd-hr21.org/offers/21st-century-competencies/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Jackson, Denise. 2014. Business Graduate Performance in Oral Communication Skills and Strategies for Improvement. The International Journal of Management Education 12: 22–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jahn, Gabriele, Matthias Schramm, and Achim Spiller. 2005. The Reliability of Certification: Quality Labels as a Consumer Policy Tool. Journal of Consumer Policy 28: 53–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jauk, Emanuel, Mathias Benedek, and Aljoscha C. Neubauer. 2014. The Road to Creative Achievement: A Latent Variable Model of Ability and Personality Predictors. European Journal of Personality 28: 95–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joie-La Marle, Chantal, François Parmentier, Morgane Coltel, Todd Lubart, and Xavier Borteyrou. 2022. A Systematic Review of Soft Skills Taxonomies: Descriptive and Conceptual Work. Available online: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mszgj (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Jones, Stanley E., and Curtis D. LeBaron. 2002. Research on the Relationship between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication: Emerging Integrations. The Journal of Communication 52: 499–521. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaendler, Celia, Michael Wiedmann, Timo Leuders, Nikol Rummel, and Hans Spada. 2016. Monitoring Student Interaction during Collaborative Learning: Design and Evaluation of a Training Program for Pre-Service Teachers. Psychology Learning & Teaching 15: 44–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kahneman, Daniel. 2003. A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality. The American Psychologist 58: 697–720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow . New York: Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karl, Katherine A., Joy V. Peluchette, and Navid Aghakhani. 2022. Virtual Work Meetings during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Good, Bad, and Ugly. Small Group Research 53: 343–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Keefer, Kateryna V., James D. A. Parker, and Donald H. Saklofske. 2018. Three Decades of Emotional Intelligence Research: Perennial Issues, Emerging Trends, and Lessons Learned in Education: Introduction to Emotional Intelligence in Education. In The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kemp, Nenagh, and Rachel Grieve. 2014. Face-to-Face or Face-to-Screen? Undergraduates’ Opinions and Test Performance in Classroom vs. Online Learning. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kimery, Kathryn, and Mary McCord. 2002. Third-Party Assurances: Mapping the Road to Trust in E-retailing. The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 4: 63–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohn, Nicholas W., and Steven M. Smith. 2011. Collaborative Fixation: Effects of Others’ Ideas on Brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology 25: 359–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kowaltowski, Doris C. C. K., Giovana Bianchi, and Valéria Teixeira de Paiva. 2010. Methods That May Stimulate Creativity and Their Use in Architectural Design Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 20: 453–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kruijver, Irma P. M., Ada Kerkstra, Anneke L. Francke, Jozien M. Bensing, and Harry B. M. van de Wiel. 2000. Evaluation of Communication Training Programs in Nursing Care: A Review of the Literature. Patient Education and Counseling 39: 129–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Lai, Emily R. 2011. Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Research Reports 6: 40–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lamri, Jérémy, and Todd Lubart. 2021. Creativity and Its’ Relationships with 21st Century Skills in Job Performance. Kindai Management Review 9: 75–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamri, Jérémy, Michel Barabel, Olivier Meier, and Todd Lubart. 2022. Le Défi Des Soft Skills: Comment les Développer au XXIe Siècle? Paris: Dunod. [ Google Scholar ]
• Landa, Rebecca J. 2005. Assessment of Social Communication Skills in Preschoolers: Assessing Social Communication Skills in Children. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 11: 247–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, Sang M., Jeongil Choi, and Sang-Gun Lee. 2004. The impact of a third-party assurance seal in customer purchasing intention. Journal of Internet Commerce 3: 33–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lewis, Arthur, and David Smith. 1993. Defining Higher Order Thinking. Theory into Practice 32: 131–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Ou Lydia, Lois Frankel, and Katrina Crotts Roohr. 2014. Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Current State and Directions for next-Generation Assessment: Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education. ETS Research Report Series 2014: 1–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubart, Todd. 2017. The 7 C’s of Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior 51: 293–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubart, Todd, and Branden Thornhill-Miller. 2019. Creativity: An Overview of the 7C’s of Creative Thought. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubart, Todd, Baptiste Barbot, and Maud Besançon. 2019. Creative Potential: Assessment Issues and the EPoC Battery/Potencial Creativo: Temas de Evaluación y Batería EPoC. Estudios de Psicologia 40: 540–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubart, Todd, Franck Zenasni, and Baptiste Barbot. 2013. Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal of Talent Development and Creativity 1: 41–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart, Tubart, and Branden Thornhill-Miller. 2021. Creativity in Law: Legal Professions and the Creative Profiler Approach. In Mapping Legal Innovation: Trends and Perspectives . Edited by Antoine Masson and Gavin Robinson. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubin, Jeffrey, Stephan Hendrick, Branden Thornhill-Miller, Maxence Mercier, and Todd Lubart. Forthcoming. Creativity in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy.
• Lucas, Bill. 2019. Why We Need to Stop Talking about Twenty-First Century Skills . Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas, Bill. 2022. Creative Thinking in Schools across the World . London: The Global Institute of Creative Thinking. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas, Bill, and Guy Claxton. 2009. Wider Skills for Learning: What Are They, How Can They Be Cultivated, How Could They Be Measured and Why Are They Important for Innovation? London: NESTA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malaby, Thomas M. 2007. Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games. Games and Culture 2: 95–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Marin, Lisa M., and Diane F. Halpern. 2011. Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity 6: 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mathieu, John E., John R. Hollenbeck, Daan van Knippenberg, and Daniel R. Ilgen. 2017. A Century of Work Teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The Journal of Applied Psychology 102: 452–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matthews, Danielle. 2014. Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McDonald, Skye, Alison Gowland, Rebekah Randall, Alana Fisher, Katie Osborne-Crowley, and Cynthia Honan. 2014. Cognitive Factors Underpinning Poor Expressive Communication Skills after Traumatic Brain Injury: Theory of Mind or Executive Function? Neuropsychology 28: 801–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moore, Brooke Noel, and Richard Parker. 2016. Critical Thinking , 20th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morreale, Sherwyn P., Joseph M. Valenzano, and Janessa A. Bauer. 2017. Why Communication Education Is Important: A Third Study on the Centrality of the Discipline’s Content and Pedagogy. Communication Education 66: 402–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mourad, Maha. 2017. Quality Assurance as a Driver of Information Management Strategy: Stakeholders’ Perspectives in Higher Education. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 30: 779–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• National Education Association. 2011. Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society: An Educator’s Guide to the “Four Cs” . Alexandria: National Education Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nouri, Jalal, Anna Åkerfeldt, Uno Fors, and Staffan Selander. 2017. Assessing Collaborative Problem Solving Skills in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments—The PISA Framework and Modes of Communication. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET) 12: 163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• O’Carroll, Veronica, Melissa Owens, Michael Sy, Alla El-Awaisi, Andreas Xyrichis, Jacqueline Leigh, Shobhana Nagraj, Marion Huber, Maggie Hutchings, and Angus McFadyen. 2021. Top Tips for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice Research: A Guide for Students and Early Career Researchers. Journal of Interprofessional Care 35: 328–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OECD. 2017. PISA 2015 collaborative problem-solving framework. In PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving . Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OECD. 2019a. Framework for the Assessment of Creative Thinking in PISA 2021: Third Draft . Paris: OECD. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2021-creative-thinking-framework.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• OECD. 2019b. Future of Education and Skills 2030: A Series of Concept Notes . Paris: OECD Learning Compass. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Osborn, A. F. 1953. Applied Imagination . New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parkinson, Thomas L. 1975. The Role of Seals and Certifications of Approval in Consumer Decision-Making. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 9: 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2008. 21st Century Skills Education and Competitiveness: A Resource and Policy Guide . Tuscon: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pasquinelli, Elena, and Gérald Bronner. 2021. Éduquer à l’esprit critique. Bases théoriques et indications pratiques pour l’enseignement et la formation ; Rapport du Conseil Scientifique de l’Éducation Nationale. Paris: Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de la JEUNESSE et des Sports.
• Pasquinelli, Elena, Mathieu Farina, Audrey Bedel, and Roberto Casati. 2021. Naturalizing Critical Thinking: Consequences for Education, Blueprint for Future Research in Cognitive Science. Mind, Brain and Education: The Official Journal of the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society 15: 168–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paul, Richard, and Linda Elder. 2006. Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education 30: 34–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus, Paul B., and Huei-Chuan Yang. 2000. Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82: 76–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paulus, Paul B., and Jared B. Kenworthy. 2019. Effective brainstorming. In The Oxford Handbook of Group Creativity and Innovation . Edited by Paul B. Paulus and Bernard A. Nijstad. New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paulus, Paul B., and Mary T. Dzindolet. 1993. Social Influence Processes in Group Brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64: 575–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paulus, Paul B., and Vincent R. Brown. 2007. Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social-Motivational Perspective of Brainstorming: Cognitive-Social-Motivational View of Brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1: 248–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peddle, Monica, Margaret Bearman, Natalie Radomski, Lisa Mckenna, and Debra Nestel. 2018. What Non-Technical Skills Competencies Are Addressed by Australian Standards Documents for Health Professionals Who Work in Secondary and Tertiary Clinical Settings? A Qualitative Comparative Analysis. BMJ Open 8: e020799. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Peña-López, Ismaël. 2017. PISA 2015 Results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving . Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popil, Inna. 2011. Promotion of Critical Thinking by Using Case Studies as Teaching Method. Nurse Education Today 31: 204–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pornpitakpan, Chanthika. 2004. The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34: 243–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Possin, Kevin. 2014. Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score. Informal Logic 34: 393–416. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Proctor, Robert W., and Addie Dutta. 1995. Skill Acquisition and Human Performance . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Putman, Vicky L., and Paul B. Paulus. 2009. Brainstorming, Brainstorming Rules and Decision Making. The Journal of Creative Behavior 43: 29–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reiman, Joey. 1992. Success: The Original Handbook . Atlanta: Longstreet Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ren, Xuezhu, Yan Tong, Peng Peng, and Tengfei Wang. 2020. Critical Thinking Predicts Academic Performance beyond General Cognitive Ability: Evidence from Adults and Children. Intelligence 82: 101487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Renard, Marie-Christine. 2005. Quality Certification, Regulation and Power in Fair Trade. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 419–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Restout, Emilie. 2020. Labels RSE: Un décryptage des entreprises labellisées en France. Goodwill Management . Available online: https://goodwill-management.com/labels-rse-decryptage-entreprises-labellisees/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Rhodes, Mel. 1961. An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan 42: 305–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rider, Elizabeth A., and Constance H. Keefer. 2006. Communication Skills Competencies: Definitions and a Teaching Toolbox: Communication. Medical Education 40: 624–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Riemer, Marc J. 2007. Communication Skills for the 21st Century Engineer. Global Journal of Engineering Education 11: 89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rietzschel, Eric F., Bernard A. Nijstad, and Wolfgang Stroebe. 2006. Productivity Is Not Enough: A Comparison of Interactive and Nominal Brainstorming Groups on Idea Generation and Selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42: 244–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ross, David. 2018. Why the Four Cs Will Become the Foundation of Human-AI Interface. Available online: https://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/03/04/why-the-4cs-will-become-the-foundation-of-human-ai-interface/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Rothermich, Kathrin. 2020. Social Communication Across the Lifespan: The Influence of Empathy [Preprint]. SocArXiv . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rusdin, Norazlin Mohd, and Siti Rahaimah Ali. 2019. Practice of Fostering 4Cs Skills in Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 9: 1021–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Rychen, Dominique Simone, and Salganik Laura Hersch, eds. 2003. Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society . Cambridge: Hogrefe and Huber. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sahin, Mehmet Can. 2009. Instructional Design Principles for 21st Century Learning Skills. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences 1: 1464–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Salas, Eduardo, Kevin C. Stagl, and C. Shawn Burke. 2004. 25 Years of Team Effectiveness in Organizations: Research Themes and Emerging Needs. In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 47–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salas, Eduardo, Marissa L. Shuffler, Amanda L. Thayer, Wendy L. Bedwell, and Elizabeth H. Lazzara. 2015. Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide. Human Resource Management 54: 599–622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salmi, Jamil. 2017. The Tertiary Education Imperative: Knowledge, Skills and Values for Development . Cham: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Samani, Sanaz Ahmadpoor, Siti Zaleha Binti Abdul Rasid, and Saudah bt Sofian. 2014. A Workplace to Support Creativity. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems 13: 414–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Saroyan, Alenoush. 2022. Fostering Creativity and Critical Thinking in University Teaching and Learning: Considerations for Academics and Their Professional Learning . Paris: OECD. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sasmita, Jumiati, and Norazah Mohd Suki. 2015. Young consumers’ insights on brand equity: Effects of brand association, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and brand image. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 43: 276–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schlegel, Claudia, Ulrich Woermann, Maya Shaha, Jan-Joost Rethans, and Cees van der Vleuten. 2012. Effects of Communication Training on Real Practice Performance: A Role-Play Module versus a Standardized Patient Module. The Journal of Nursing Education 51: 16–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schleicher, Andreas. 2022. Why Creativity and Creative Teaching and Learning Matter Today and for Tomorrow’s World . Creativity in Education Summit 2022. Paris: GloCT in Collaboration with OECD CERI. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider, Bertrand, Kshitij Sharma, Sebastien Cuendet, Guillaume Zufferey, Pierre Dillenbourg, and Roy Pea. 2018. Leveraging Mobile Eye-Trackers to Capture Joint Visual Attention in Co-Located Collaborative Learning Groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 13: 241–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schultz, David M. 2010. Eloquent Science: A course to improve scientific and communication skills. Paper presented at the 19th Symposium on Education, Altanta, GA, USA, January 18–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scialabba, George. 1984. Mindplay. Harvard Magazine 16: 19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott, Ginamarie, Lyle E. Leritz, and Michael D. Mumford. 2004. The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal 16: 361–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sigafoos, Jeff, Ralf W. Schlosser, Vanessa A. Green, Mark O’Reilly, and Giulio E. Lancioni. 2008. Communication and Social Skills Assessment. In Clinical Assessment and Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorders . Edited by Johnny L. Matson. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 165–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simonton, Dean Keith. 1999. Creativity from a Historiometric Perspective. In Handbook of Creativity . Edited by Robert J. Sternberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 116–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, Pallavi, Hillol Bala, Bidit Lal Dey, and Raffaele Filieri. 2022. Enforced Remote Working: The Impact of Digital Platform-Induced Stress and Remote Working Experience on Technology Exhaustion and Subjective Wellbeing. Journal of Business Research 151: 269–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Spada, Hans, Anne Meier, Nikol Rummel, and Sabine Hauser. 2005. A New Method to Assess the Quality of Collaborative Process in CSCL. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Learning 2005: The next 10 Years!—CSCL’05, Taipei, Taiwan, May 30–June 4 . Morristown: Association for Computational Linguistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spitzberg, Brian H. 2003. Methods of interpersonal skill assessment. In The Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills . Edited by John O. Greene and Brant R. Burleson. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg, Robert. 1986. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Creativity: Three Is Better than One. Educational Psychologist 21: 175–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sternberg, Robert J., and Joachim Funke. 2019. The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction . Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing (heiUP). [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sursock, Andrée. 2021. Quality assurance and rankings: Some European lessons. In Research Handbook on University Rankings . Edited by Ellen Hazelkorn and Georgiana Mihut. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 185–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sursock, Andrée, and Oliver Vettori. 2017. Quo vadis, quality culture? Theses from different perspectives. In Qualitätskultur. Ein Blick in Die Gelebte Praxis der Hochschulen . Vienna: Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation, pp. 13–18. Available online: https://www.aq.ac.at/de/ueber-uns/publikationen/sonstige-publikationen.php (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Sutter, Éric. 2005. Certification et Labellisation: Un Problème de Confiance. Bref Panorama de La Situation Actuelle. Documentaliste-Sciences de l Information 42: 284–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Taddei, François. 2009. Training Creative and Collaborative Knowledge-Builders: A Major Challenge for 21st Century Education . Paris: OCDE. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas, Keith, and Beatrice Lok. 2015. Teaching Critical Thinking: An Operational Framework. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education . Edited by Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 93–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thompson, Jeri. 2020. Measuring Student Success Skills: A Review of the Literature on Complex Communication . Dover: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorndahl, Kathrine L., and Diana Stentoft. 2020. Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking and Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Scoping Review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 14 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thornhill-Miller, Branden. 2021. ‘Crea-Critical-Collab-ication’: A Dynamic Interactionist Model of the 4Cs (Creativity, Critical Thinking, Collaboration and Communication). Available online: http://thornhill-miller.com/newWordpress/index.php/current-research/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Thornhill-Miller, Branden, and Jean-Marc Dupont. 2016. Virtual Reality and the Enhancement of Creativity and Innovation: Underrecognized Potential Among Converging Technologies? Journal for Cognitive Education and Psychology 15: 102–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thornhill-Miller, Branden, and Peter Millican. 2015. The Common-Core/Diversity Dilemma: Revisions of Humean Thought, New Empirical Research, and the Limits of Rational Religious Belief. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7: 1–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tomasello, Michael. 2005. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uribe-Enciso, Olga Lucía, Diana Sofía Uribe-Enciso, and María Del Pilar Vargas-Daza. 2017. Pensamiento Crítico y Su Importancia En La Educación: Algunas Reflexiones. Rastros Rostros 19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• van der Vleuten, Cees, Valerie van den Eertwegh, and Esther Giroldi. 2019. Assessment of Communication Skills. Patient Education and Counseling 102: 2110–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Klink, Marcel R., and Jo Boon. 2003. Competencies: The triumph of a fuzzy concept. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management 3: 125–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Laar, Ester, Alexander J. A. M. Van Deursen, Jan A. G. M. Van Dijk, and Jos de Haan. 2017. The Relation between 21st-Century Skills and Digital Skills: A Systematic Literature Review. Computers in Human Behavior 72: 577–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Rosmalen, Peter, Elizabeth A. Boyle, Rob Nadolski, John van der Baaren, Baltasar Fernández-Manjón, Ewan MacArthur, Tiina Pennanen, Madalina Manea, and Kam Star. 2014. Acquiring 21st Century Skills: Gaining Insight into the Design and Applicability of a Serious Game with 4C-ID. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 327–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal. 2019. Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School . Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Voogt, Joke, and Natalie Pareja Roblin. 2012. A Comparative Analysis of International Frameworks for 21st Century Competences: Implications for National Curriculum Policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies 44: 299–321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Waizenegger, Lena, Brad McKenna, Wenjie Cai, and Taino Bendz. 2020. An Affordance Perspective of Team Collaboration and Enforced Working from Home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems: An Official Journal of the Operational Research Society 29: 429–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Watson, Goodwin. 1980. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal . San Antonio: Psychological Corporation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edwin M. Glaser. 2010. Watson-Glaser TM II critical thinking appraisal. In Technical Manual and User’s Guide . Kansas City: Pearson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weick, Karl E. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 628–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• West, Richard F., Maggie E. Toplak, and Keith E. Stanovich. 2008. Heuristics and Biases as Measures of Critical Thinking: Associations with Cognitive Ability and Thinking Dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology 100: 930–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Whitmore, Paul G. 1972. What are soft skills. Paper presented at the CONARC Soft Skills Conference, Fort Bliss, TX, USA, December 12–13; pp. 12–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willingham, Daniel T. 2008. Critical Thinking: Why Is It so Hard to Teach? Arts Education Policy Review 109: 21–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilson, Sarah Beth, and Pratibha Varma-Nelson. 2016. Small Groups, Significant Impact: A Review of Peer-Led Team Learning Research with Implications for STEM Education Researchers and Faculty. Journal of Chemical Education 93: 1686–702. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Winterton, Jonathan, Françoise Delamare-Le Deist, and Emma Stringfellow. 2006. Typology of Knowledge, Skills and Competences: Clarification of the Concept and Prototype . Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum. 2015. New Vision for Education: Unlocking the Potential of Technology . Geneva: World Economic Forum. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum. 2020. The Future of Jobs Report 2020. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020 (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• World Health Organization. 2010. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice . No. WHO/HRH/HPN/10.3. Geneva: World Health Organization. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yue, Meng, Meng Zhang, Chunmei Zhang, and Changde Jin. 2017. The Effectiveness of Concept Mapping on Development of Critical Thinking in Nursing Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nurse Education Today 52: 87–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zielke, Stephan, and Thomas Dobbelstein. 2007. Customers’ Willingness to Purchase New Store Brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management 16: 112–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zlatić, Lidija, Dragana Bjekić, Snežana Marinković, and Milevica Bojović. 2014. Development of Teacher Communication Competence. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences 116: 606–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Thornhill-Miller, B.; Camarda, A.; Mercier, M.; Burkhardt, J.-M.; Morisseau, T.; Bourgeois-Bougrine, S.; Vinchon, F.; El Hayek, S.; Augereau-Landais, M.; Mourey, F.; et al. Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education. J. Intell. 2023 , 11 , 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

Thornhill-Miller B, Camarda A, Mercier M, Burkhardt J-M, Morisseau T, Bourgeois-Bougrine S, Vinchon F, El Hayek S, Augereau-Landais M, Mourey F, et al. Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education. Journal of Intelligence . 2023; 11(3):54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

Thornhill-Miller, Branden, Anaëlle Camarda, Maxence Mercier, Jean-Marie Burkhardt, Tiffany Morisseau, Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine, Florent Vinchon, Stephanie El Hayek, Myriam Augereau-Landais, Florence Mourey, and et al. 2023. "Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education" Journal of Intelligence 11, no. 3: 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Psycholinguistics - New Advances and Real-World Applications

Critical Communicative Competence: The Interplay of Cognitive Flexibility, Language Awareness, and Cultural Awareness

Submitted: 16 October 2023 Reviewed: 06 November 2023 Published: 18 December 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1003880

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

Psycholinguistics - New Advances and Real-World Applications

Xiaoming Jiang

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

62 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

Changing living and communicative contexts have resulted in individuals assuming multiple and variable identities and facing diverse discursive and linguistic practices. Therefore, in the last decades, critical communicative competence has been established as an essential framework for addressing contemporary challenges. In the chapter, critical communicative competence is analytically explored through fundamental characteristics of critical thinking and a key competence as a complex interplay of cognitive, emotional-evaluative, and actional dimensions, implied on each of three interrelated components of communicative competence: cognitive, linguistic, and contextual. In the cognitive domain, multicultural and multimedia contexts demand cognitive flexibility in schemas and strategies. Critical linguistic awareness is essential in the linguistic domain as it enables a speaker to recognise the constructive and interpretative nature of language. In the contextual domain, critical cultural awareness is a tool for understanding how speakers’ choices are influenced by their culture and context. Despite the analytical approach, dimensions and components are considered interrelated and interdependent, and only in interaction, leading to more responsible and sensitive communication.

• critical thinking
• critical communicative competence
• cognitive flexibility
• language awareness
• cultural awareness

Author Information

Jerca vogel *.

• Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenija

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Various and changing living and communicative contexts, which today’s societies and individuals encounter due to population fluctuations, social changes, and technological development, have led to the instability of living, professional, and interest environments. As a result, individuals assume numerous and more variable identities than before and, when entering communicative situations in different environments, confront a broader range of discursive and linguistic practices. This process is reflected in re-questioning traditional concepts of languages and cultures, language varieties and discursive patterns, and the relationships between speakers. Consequently, the communicative demands imposed by new circumstances on individuals and society have also affected the understanding of communicative competence. Therefore, besides the relationship between language and reference, questioning how language reflects the real or imagined world, and the relationship between language and the individual, examining how individuals shape their perceptions of reality based on language, the focus has been placed primarily on the relationship between language and culture/society. Therefore, the essential question has become how text functions in context, with text understood as any linguistic realisation and context as the broadest sociocultural framework in which an individual operates linguistically, demanding a continuous search for knowledge, the development of new skills, and the formation of stances [ 1 ].

Due to these new circumstances, as in Ref. [ 2 ] asserts, the functional concept of communicative competence, which could be broadly defined as the ability to understand and use information from texts and to create appropriate and effective texts [ 3 ,  4 ], has faced numerous criticisms in Australia since the early 1990s. Sociologists have warned that such a model encourages competitive individualism; post-structuralists and feminist theorists have argued that the emphasis on the individual or personal perspective diminishes the understanding of how discourse shapes social relations; systemic functional linguists have cautioned that due to the emphasis on “experience,” personal growth, and literary narrative, students from the most vulnerable groups do not acquire sufficient explicit knowledge of how typical genres, which are expressions of intellectual and political power, work, and they do not acquire strategies for producing them; cultural and media studies have pointed out the systematic omission of visual texts, texts in new media, and texts in new work environments [ 2 ]. Therefore, critical communicative competence has been established as the theoretical framework that allows addressing the challenges of contemporary times.

2. From functional towards critical communicative competence

Critical communicative competence is not a homogenous concept. It is defined more narrowly or broadly, emphasising different dimensions and components in various disciplines and geographical areas with different historical and cultural backgrounds [ 5 ]. Therefore, in defining it, we will start from the fundamental concepts of critical thinking and competence.

2.1 Critical thinking in communication

As reference [ 6 ] noted, critical thinking is a broad and relatively abstract concept. The author [ 7 ] categorises its definitions into two groups, aligning with two perspectives on critical communication. The first group, primarily derived from philosophy and rhetoric, views critical thinking narrowly as the skill of analysing, evaluating, and constructing arguments. Therefore, critical thinking emphasises the ability to apply criteria, self-correction or critical reflection of one’s thought process, and sensitivity to context [ 6 ]. Similarly, the author [ 8 ] suggests that one of the most common narrowing concepts of critical communicative competence is its equation with the critical evaluation of information. For instance, in Singapore [ 2 ], where critical thinking was at the centre of educational reform as early as 1997, it is commonly associated with innovative and creative thinking and entrepreneurship but less with social and ethical issues.

The second group of definitions, stemming from a broader theory of knowledge and learning, views critical thinking as not just the skill of analysing, evaluating, and constructing arguments but also as a set of mental processes, problem-solving strategies, and creativity [ 6 ]. This group defines critical thinking as a permanent characteristic of an individual that incentivises him to approach activities with thoughtful scepticism aimed at deciding what to believe and how to act [ 9 ]. The authors of this group additionally emphasise intentionality and goal orientation, exploring assumptions, recognising hidden values, evaluating evidence, assessing the validity of conclusions, identifying and being aware of one’s own errors in thinking and listening [ 6 , 10 ], as well as overcoming egocentrism, omniscience, omnipotence, and invulnerability [ 11 ].

Definitions of communicative competence based on this understanding of criticality are thus no longer considered simply as the ability to participate in existing linguistic practice [ 6 , 8 ] but expand the concept of communicative competence, emphasising that an individual’s experience is historically shaped within specific power relations [ 8 ].

Therefore, the central consideration is focused on questions about the author‘s intent, the ideologies presented through the text, the societal role conveyed to the reader, and the values and viewpoints advocated or opposed [ 8 ]. Nevertheless, these approaches, while not denying the relations of social, cultural, and economic power that are expressed in texts, are focused on individual usage [ 2 ]. In Ref., the author [ 2 ] attributes the individual perspective to the fact that it arises from a psychological and psycholinguistic definition of communicative competence as an individual process rather than an activity embedded in a broader social context. Consequently, this perspective does not encompass those aspects of criticality that stress that communication is linked to social power and that critical communicative competence involves a critical attitude towards society and its beliefs.

Comparatively, the characteristics of uncritical and critical communication highlighted in the discussions can be illustrated in Table 1 .

Characteristics of non-critical and critical communication.

Motivation for critical communication stems from an awareness that it leads to deeper understanding, prevents and resolves misunderstandings and conflicts, and enables creative transfer and problem-solving.

Sensitivity to the sociocultural context of all participants in a communicative event and the acceptance of others’ perspectives, even if they differ significantly from our own.

Understanding the complexity of language and communication, acknowledging that in addition to its cognitive dimension, communication possesses an emotional or affective (relational) dimension. The speaker and the listener do not enter emotionally, interest-wise, or value-neutral.

Evaluation based on well-defined criteria requires general, sociocultural, and linguistic knowledge.

Metacognition is the ability to reflect critically or self-reflect on one’s thought process.

In Ref. [ 4 ], Sternberg adds ethics and social responsibility, signifying an awareness that speech acts have consequences that speakers have to take responsibility for and that they strive to use language for the benefit of all.

2.2 Dimensions of critical communicative competence

In addition to equating critical communication with critical evaluation of information and discourse, another narrowing in understanding critical communication, according to reference [ 8 ], is that it is mainly placed at the cognitive level. Namely, limiting critical communication solely to the cognitive domain fails to explain some essential characteristics, such as the motivation for critical communication, positive attitudes towards it, awareness of its emotional dimension, and readiness for the ethical realisation of discourses and sociocultural language uses that are deemed justified. Such an approach also excludes the inclination to reject expressions that convey social relations that are not accepted. Therefore, another significant aspect in the definition of critical communicative competence is which dimensions constitute it, how they are interrelated and how they interact in communication.

The most widely accepted definition of key competencies has been formulated by reference [ 12 ], who defines them as complex systems of knowledge, beliefs, and action tendencies that are built on well-organised knowledge, fundamental skills (strategies), generalised attitudes, and cognitive styles [ 12 ]. Thus, competence is defined as a complex composition of three dimensions: cognitive (knowledge, skills, cognitive styles, and experience), emotional-evaluative (attitudes and beliefs), and actional (i.e. readiness to act by one’s own beliefs).

A somewhat different perspective on competence can be discerned from the definitions that served as the basis for understanding communicative competence in language teaching. In Ref. [ 13 ], it is defined as the ability of speakers to communicate or use language knowledge in accordance with various psychological, social, and linguistic circumstances. In his definition, the cognitive dimension is primarily associated with skills and less with knowledge, while, on the other hand, he claimed that it is essential not to separate cognitive from non-cognitive (affective and volitional) factors [ 13 , 14 ]. Compared to reference [ 13 ], in Ref. [ 15 ], competence is understood as a synthesis of knowledge and skills required for communication. Thus, they expanded the understanding of the cognitive dimension while neglecting the emotional dimension.

On the opposite, the documents of the European Commission follow Weinert’s holistic understanding of competence [ 16 ], as The European Reference Framework: Key Competences for Lifelong Learning defines key competencies as combinations of knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to a specific context that individuals need for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion, and employment [ 17 ]. Critical thinking, creativity, initiative, problem-solving, risk assessment, decision-making, and constructive emotional management are essential in developing and implementing all key competencies [ 17 ].

Similarly, the difference between a one-dimensional and a multi-dimensional view of communicative competence is reflected in the analytical definition of its components. All the mentioned models emphasise two central components: linguistic (grammatical and textual) and contextual (pragmatic or sociolinguistic) competence, attributing them to the cognitive dimension since they emphasise the skills required for their performance and, to some extent, knowledge. Linguistic and contextual components are complemented with components related to cognitive processes. Canale and Swain, and Bachman talk about strategic competence, which Canale and Swain [ 15 ] understand as an organiser, and Bachman, following reference [ 18 ], understands it as a processor or a web of cognitive abilities that enable the use of linguistic and non-linguistic data to understand text formation. Some other models consider cognitive competence either as the ability to organise data [ 17 , 19 ] or as factual knowledge of the world [ 20 , 21 , 22 ], and both relate them to skills required to perform established procedures in predictable contexts.

Because the three core components: cognitive, linguistic, and contextual, are primarily understood and analysed from a cognitive perspective, some authors try to incorporate non-cognitive dimensions into analytical models as additional components. References [ 19 , 22 ], for instance, discuss the motivation for communication. At the same time, reference [ 17 ] includes a “positive attitude towards understanding in one’s mother tongue” and a “willingness to engage in critical and constructive dialogue, respect for aesthetic qualities, and a desire to achieve them, commitment or interest in communicating with others” as distinctive competencies.

Nevertheless, based on the essential characteristics of critical thinking, we must view these dimensions as interrelated and interacting throughout the communication process and include them in essential competencies rather than separating them. In doing so, we will rely on Weinert’s definition of competence and the areas of criticality defined by Barnett (as cited in [ 23 ]) as (1) propositions, ideas, and theories, especially in connection with systematic knowledge; (2) the individual’s inner world, where criticality is expressed through critical self-reflection; and (3) the external world, where critical thinking is expressed through critical action.

The cognitive dimension refers to all elements that answer the question of what we can do, what we know, and how we reflect and improve our actions based on knowledge, experience, and beliefs. It encompasses cognitive, pragmatic, and language skills and strategies that enable the application of these skills while considering broader cognitive, language, and communication patterns and specific situations. It also includes metaknowledge or knowledge about the world in general and specific topics, language, its rules, genres and systems, sociocultural relations, linguistic diversity, and communication principles. On the other hand, it involves metacognition on one’s own or others’ language activities, the influence of emotions, biases, preferences, and values, and the appropriateness of evaluation criteria, enabling self-correction or improvement, knowledge transfer to new contexts, independent acquisition of new knowledge, and problem-solving.

The emotional or evaluative dimension concerns the general emotional orientation and emotional and value-based attitudes towards the subject (“world”), the way it is presented, the circumstances, as well as language in general and its diversity, by which it becomes an expression of individual or collective identity and a carrier of social power. A positive attitude does not mean uncritical acceptance of familiar practices and stances but rather a critical attitude towards established patterns, stereotypes, and prejudices and a willingness to embrace diversity. This attitude is closely linked to an individual’s knowledge of language and communication, experience, and the ability for knowledge- and experience-based reflection. Its goal is not only to recognise or raise awareness of one’s or others’ attitudes, as can be inferred from selected linguistic means, but also to reflect on the legitimacy of such attitudes from an ethical perspective [ 24 ].

From the perspective of the actional dimension, within the concept of critical communication, actions are initiated not only by motivational elements that predominantly prevail in a functional communication model but also stem from individuals’ needs, desires, and wishes. Equally important is the moral aspect, which implies a willingness to act responsibly and justly by ethical, social, cultural, and personal norms. A critical speaker strives to promote linguistic practices that they consider ethical and constructive and to change those that express unacceptable relationships [ 24 , 25 ].

Critical communicative competence can thus be defined as a level of communicative competence that enhances functional and cultural communicative competence with critical thinking. Participants in communication are sensitive to the individual and the sociocultural context; they consider the emotional and evaluative dimensions and are aware of the need for evaluation based on credible criteria, transcending emotional biases, prejudices, and established perspectives. They also self-reflect on their communication (metacognition) and consider their ethical and social responsibility for their communicative actions.

3. Complexity of critical communicative competence

Critical communication is a multi-dimensional activity embedded in the relationship between the real world, language, and society/culture. The cognitive, emotional-evaluative, and actional dimensions are interrelated and realised through three core competencies: cognitive, linguistic, and contextual, as illustrated in Figure 1 , where the circular diagram depicts the interconnections of core competencies, and arrows represent the realisation of dimensions in each of them.

Interconnections of dimensions and core competencies of critical communicative competence.

3.1 Cognitive component

Within the cognitive domain, according to reference [ 19 ], the processes of conceptual and logical organisation, as well as the storage of knowledge and experiences, are vital in connecting these knowledge and experiences into new networks, especially when dealing with problem-solving or new communicative circumstances. In this context, cognitive linguistics [ 26 ] and the theory of the psychology of communication [ 27 ] emphasise that language is not an autonomous phenomenon involving unique, specialised cognitive processes; instead, it is determined by the same cognitive processes found in other non-linguistic domains: memory, conceptualisation, logical reasoning, and perception [ 26 ]. This implies that cognitive abilities can be discussed on two levels: general cognitive processes and communicative competencies, through which these processes are enacted in specific ways for understanding and producing texts.

3.1.1 Cognitive processes in communication

General cognitive abilities related to communication, as defined by Ule Nastran [ 27 ], fall under the broader concept of perception. Perception encompasses information’s reception and selection, categorisation and organisation, and primary interpretation. When selecting information to focus on, we are primarily guided by distinguishing essential pieces of information from unimportant ones, ignoring specific messages, and adapting them to our existing cognitive apparatus, typification, and stereotyping. Therefore, the most crucial cognitive process is categorisation based on the principle of similarity or proximity into categories (concepts, representations). These categories are placed within cognitive schemas, determining our prior expectations [ 27 ].

While categories could be defined as individual concepts or representations, cognitive schemas are the organisation of knowledge about a particular person, object, situation, event, or the relationship between categories [ 27 ]. Schemas determine the characteristics attributed to individual concepts and what we consider accurate, as well as allow us to draw conclusions, explore assumptions and hidden values, assess the validity of conclusions, and extend our understanding and interpretation beyond directly given information. General categories and schemas may contain numerous subcategories based on sample cases, enabling flexible interpretation and, consequently, modifying initial categories (compare [ 27 , 28 , 29 ]).

From a communicative perspective, Brown [ 30 ] identified not only expectations related to schematic knowledge about specific topics but also those stemming from schematic knowledge about textual genres and their typical context (expected speaker, audience, time, place). Individuals form this knowledge based on their language usage experience and, during communication, invoke the entire discursive event, such as a lecture, and its typical microelements, like an introduction with the announcement of the topic and the presentation of the lecture’s structure (see also [ 28 ]).

Similarly, Hart [ 26 ] defines fundamental cognitive processes and links them with discursive strategies for their realisation. The comprehensive understanding that stems from a schema or scenario with which a speaker has associated a particular scene or event is associated with the structural configuration of the text. Comparing experiences enables framing, enabling the speaker/listener to assume which actors and processes will be given greater importance, how metaphorical meanings and symbols should be understood, and how connotations are assigned to words or texts. The ability to direct attention is the basis for identification ; that is, the speaker chooses which aspects (features) of a given situation/scene to include in the presentation and how to place them in relation to each other. Finally, the positioning depends on our chosen perspective or our placement in space, time, and a particular role [ 26 ]. Thus, it defines the sociocultural context from which we will operate.

3.1.2 Cognitive flexibility as a distinctive characteristic of critical cognitive competence

Rost [ 29 ] points out that schemas are not only used for interpreting texts but also for generating or retrieving them. In this process, we summarise and refresh the content by preserving the schematic framework while often modifying specific details, omitting them, or adding new ones to align our understanding with our culturally determined knowledge. From a critical perspective, it is essential to be aware that different cognitive strategies can, in specific contexts, be linked to the emotional-evaluative dimension. For instance, new information may be suppressed if it is unpleasant, threatening, or conflict with our environment, and thus undermines our belief in our inner strength and integration. At the same time, overly generalised, stereotypical categories can develop, into which all units of a particular general category are classified, regardless of their individuality or other sample cases. Such overly generalised categories are stereotypes [ 27 ], which include positive or negative attitudes towards the category [ 27 ].

Therefore, from the perspective of critical communication, in today’s multicultural society, cognitive flexibility is crucial in all cognitive processes. This is particularly important in categorisation, where static and unchanging schemas can lead to generalisations and evaluations based solely on one’s own cultural background and values. Instead, schemas should be open to variations and transitions, allowing for flexibility and consideration of different perspectives and sociocultural contexts. Compared to functional communication, critical communication has changed the fundamental orientation of participants towards the text and each other. In functional reading, the reader’s orientation is harmonised with the text, primarily seeking understanding. In critical reading, the readers are oriented towards the text; their primary purpose is to interpret and evaluate it [ 31 ]. Recognising excessive generalisation, stereotypes, and prejudices and avoiding their use requires him to change perspectives, reflect on implications and place the data in a meaningful context to analyse attitudes and positions from two aspects: textual and communicative [ 31 ].

Regarding communicative strategies, flexibility becomes a fundamental requirement, mainly due to digital communication, which is significantly influenced by multimedia and interactivity. This interaction affects the structure of communicative events, participants’ roles, and the interweaving of intentions, discourses, genres, and perspectives [ 32 ].

3.2 Linguistic competence

Traditionally, definitions of communicative competence have focused on linguistic processes. These include the formation of the literal meaning of sentences, which links processes of perception and attention direction, decoding words (i.e. recognising words in sound or writing), associating words with reference, constructing the propositional meaning of sentences based on the rules of a given language, and shaping the literal meaning of a text. The latter involves placing sentences within a textual framework and complementing them with data from the co-text using cohesion and coherence, logical reasoning based on given data, and new information [ 22 , 23 , 29 , 33 ].

3.2.1 Constructional nature of linguistic activity

Despite discussing linguistic skills, they cannot be observed separated from the cognitive or contextual component. For example, besides cognitive effects in word recognition, Rost [ 29 ] and Kranjc [ 33 ] emphasise that understanding words does not stop at recognising a word and connecting it to a concept but must also be linked to a specific reference. Due to the polysemous nature of most words, we must decide which of a word’s multiple meanings is realised in a particular sentence based on the context or world knowledge. This can communicate the creator’s experience, evaluation, and identity, which the reader may recognise, accept, or not [ 34 ].

Similarly, constructing propositional meaning is not limited to understanding words and their grammatical connections. It extends beyond that. As Lurija [ 35 ] pointed out, polysemy can be present in most sentences, even though we usually understand them without difficulty based on our linguistic knowledge. Complications arise in complex grammatical constructions requiring substantial transformations, such as nominalisation, prepositional phrases used to express relations between abstract concepts. On the other hand, a sentence’s propositional meaning is only part of what the author had in mind. Therefore, readers logically infer the unspoken. In addition, pragmatics has shifted attention from literal towards communicated meaning, as texts are always received within a specific speech situation, which is inferred based on textual and sociolinguistic schemas [ 34 ].

According to Hart [ 26 ] notes, it is essential to recognise that linguistic encoding is always a construction because the same situation, event, entity, or relationship can be represented in different ways by choosing linguistic elements. Namely, linguistic activity involves continuously choosing linguistic elements [ 36 ], which do not always occur at a conscious level, especially in a first language. Therefore, it is reflected and thoughtful choices that can improve an individual’s communicative ability. Thus, conscious choices can enhance an individual’s communicative competence. Effective language selection depends on the awareness of linguistic choice possibilities, knowledge of the language system, the ability to use various strategies, and considerations of contextual factors, especially the audience [ 37 ].

Critical linguistic awareness contributes significantly to developing critical communicative competence as it incentivises multi-dimensional activity at the linguistic level and considers the interplay of linguistic processes with cognitive and contextual aspects [ 37 ].

3.2.2 Critical linguistic awareness as a tool for realising critical linguistic competence

The concept of linguistic awareness has been formed in the past few decades, initially referring to the relationship between language use and linguistic knowledge. Donmall, as cited in Ref. [ 38 ], defined it as an individual’s sensitivity to language and awareness of its nature and role in human life, while in Ref. [ 39 ], it is defined as individuals’ ability to reflect on, and match, intuitively spoken and written utterances with their knowledge of the language. This tacit knowledge, as stated in Ref. [ 39 ], can be made explicit through outward expression ranging from spontaneous self-correction to explicit reflection on the production of utterances. A broader perspective on linguistic awareness was presented by Lier [ 40 ], defining it as the understanding of human linguistic activity and the role of language in thinking, learning, and social life, as well as an awareness of the power and control language affords and the complex relationship between language and culture. While his definition emphasised the cognitive dimension of language, it also incorporated the social and cultural dimensions by highlighting the role of language in social life.

However, even such an understanding of linguistic awareness does not facilitate a critical perspective on language in its sociocultural function. As Ochs [ 41 ] suggests, for an individual’s competent participation in a social group, it is essential to understand how people construct social situations with language and other symbolic tools. In every community, members convey social information using typical communicative and language forms. Therefore, grammar and vocabulary enable participants to recognise the social situation in which communication occurs.

Svalberg [ 42 ] thus concludes that the contemporary notion of linguistic awareness, as it has evolved in the last two decades, is not merely intellectual and passive. The development of linguistic awareness fosters engagement with the language, which can be intellectual, focusing on patterns, emotional, emphasising attitudes, or socio-political, where the emphasis is on effective communication and interaction as social action [ 42 ]. Similarly, other researchers have identified components of linguistic awareness. In Ref. [ 43 ], authors, for example, describe five domains of linguistic awareness: affective or emotional, social, the domain of power, cognitive, and performance. According to their definitions, the affective or emotional domain pertains to the relationship between the communicator’s feelings and cognitive processes. They associate the social domain mainly with the influences of a contemporary, globalising society where issues often stem from ethnic diversity. The domain of power considers language as a tool for manipulation, thus including an awareness of hidden meanings, unspoken assumptions, and rhetorical “traps” characteristic of holders of social power. The cognitive domain encompasses the relationship between language and thinking or cognitive processes, assuming metalinguistic awareness, reflection, analysis, and the students’ metacognition about their communication and thinking. The performance domain is mainly related to language use and communicative strategies.

The cognitive (intellectual) component of linguistic awareness primarily refers to how we use language, our linguistic skills, metalinguistic knowledge, and our ability to reflect on our own or others’ language use.

The emotional or evaluative aspect relates firstly to one’s general emotional and evaluative attitude towards language as a means of communication in a specific speech situation, towards language as a vehicle of societal power, and towards individual linguistic elements, which can be either negative or positive [ 44 ]. This attitude is closely linked to knowledge about language and communication and the ability to reflect on them. However, critical communication goes beyond merely recognising the attitude based on the text; it also raises questions about whether such an attitude is justified and ethical.

The actional dimension means that the individual strives to embody those aspects and characteristics of the linguistic activity or elements to which they hold a positive attitude and attempts to prevent those to which they hold a negative attitude.

As claimed by Clark and Ivanić [ 45 ] and as it is evident from the analytical representation of linguistic competence, it is impossible to think critically about linguistic elements without relating them to how they are used in a particular context or independently of social relationships.

3.3 Contextual component

Changes in the concept of communicative competence are closely related to the understanding of context and contextual determinants. Despite, as stated by Kramsch [ 46 ], that context was always at the core of communicative language learning, it was reduced in the 1970s and 1980s to one-to-one verbal interactions and perceived as static and objective. Conversely, the 1990s brought back the importance of context on a much larger cultural scale. At the same time, psycholinguistics and cognitive linguistics define context as a mental structure because we continuously categorise the world around us and ourselves in ways that are socially and culturally determined [ 47 ]. As a result, the discussion of communicative competence now leans more towards a socially oriented perspective, upgrading the previously dominant cognitive and individual views of language use and learning [ 48 ].

3.3.1 Relationship between language and culture

Discussing the embeddedness of linguistic activity into a broader sociocultural context, Lemke [ 49 ] emphasised that individuals in their social environment acquire organisational patterns of language use, reflecting established social power and solidarity relationships. In each speech act, a speaker indicates the role they have assumed and their place within the social system through the choice of linguistic varieties. Sociolinguistic competence is realised through the speaker’s choices of genres, discursive practices, and communicative patterns. It also involves an understanding of how the social context is expressed, an evaluation of the appropriateness of these choices, and a willingness to either maintain or alter conventions. However, critical competence requires more than mere knowledge and unreflective positive or negative attitudes. It necessitates reflecting on the value systems and social relationships inherent in communicative patterns, and assessing whether the social power dynamics expressed through language are ethically justifiable.

From a linguistic perspective, the chosen linguistic elements can reflect values, attitudes, beliefs, stereotypes, and even prejudices we express as bearers of a particular identity. Additionally, an acknowledgement of interactivity and inseparability of cognitive, linguistic, and cultural competence in critical communication has changed the understanding of the relationship between neutral and metaphorical expression.

While understanding the established relations between language and society certainly shapes expectations and influences prevailing choices, it cannot explain why an individual chooses, modifies, or even discards them despite being aware of the conventions. This question can only be answered by considering the specific circumstances in which the speaker and listener enter with their ideas about the world, their roles, their perceptions of each other, and their relationships [ 52 ]. As emphasised by Ule Nastran [ 27 ], the selection and understanding of patterns can only be interpreted through an individual’s pragmatic competence, that is, the interpretation of sociolinguistic and stylistic frameworks based on their knowledge of social conventions and systemic possibilities, as well as considering personal experiences, especially one’s viewpoints, motivation, values, beliefs.

The critical speaker will not adopt established patterns uncritically but will be aware that they express their identity through all their language activities. Therefore, they will analyse the relationship between the language they have chosen or will choose and the specific circumstances and try to empathise with the perspective of others.

3.3.2 Critical cultural awareness as a tool for realising critical contextual competence

The cognitive dimension of cultural awareness refers to how we use language for identification and the knowledge, thoughts, ideas, judgements, and evaluations of a specific (micro)culture, its linguistic expressions, the identity aspect of language, and sociolinguistic principles.

The emotional-evaluative dimension is related primarily to language as a bearer of social power. It involves a positive disposition towards one’s own and others’ social group and language, including intra-cultural language variants (registers) as an expression of social micro-groups.

From the perspective of the activity dimension, they seek to promote intercultural tolerant, argumentative, and emphatic communication while challenging egocentric, non-tolerant, exclusive, and hateful speech.

Critical communicative competence requires rhetorical sensitivity, the ability to adapt communication style to intentions or to others’ communicative patterns [ 27 , 53 ]. “Rhetorically sensitive individuals are more flexible in communication and attempt to balance their interests with those of others. They assume whether a particular form of communication is appropriate, when they can say something and when they cannot, while not concealing their fundamental ideas and genuine emotions” [ 27 ].

4. Conclusion

Recognising (social) criticality as an essential trait of communicative competence is, first and foremost, a response to the processes of globalisation and a reflection of the demand for developing “intercultural and inter-ethnical understanding and respect for communication diversity…” [ 54 ]. Simultaneously, the understanding of interculturality, on both inter- and intra-linguistic levels, has contributed to acknowledging the diversity of an individual’s language identities and the identity dimension of every language activity. This approach has brought attention to the relationship between language and culture, a perspective that Porter and Samovar summarised as “What we are talking about, how we are saying it, how we are seeing it, our inclination or disinclination, how we are thinking and what we are thinking about, are influenced by our culture” [ 55 ]. Consequently, Larre [ 56 ] suggests that language serves as a bridge between the sociocultural context and an individual’s mental activity. It is a cognitive tool individuals employ to make sense of the world, which is why language, culture, and thinking cannot be viewed from a singular perspective.

A critical speaker no longer perceives language merely as a means of communication but recognises it as a system of synonymic or antonymic, same- or different-functional elements that enable the speaker to refer to and comment on the content or context, as well as a mean for express, maintain or change social relations. Therefore, they regarded communication not only as a cognitive but also as an emotional process, where every speech act has consequences and demands responsibility.

• 1. O’Byrne WI. What is critical literacy in education?. 2018. Available from: https://wiobyrne.com/critical-literacy/ . [Accessed: Feb 07, 2020]
• 2. Luke A. Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. 2005; 43 :448-461. DOI: 10.1598/JAAL.43.5.1. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43487602 [Accessed: Jan 19, 2020]
• 3. Vendramin V. Konceptualizacije pismenosti in razgradnja nekaterih s tem povezanih mitologij. Šolsko Polje. 2005; 16 (1-2):71-82
• 4. Vogel J. Kritična sporazumevalna zmožnost – osrednji koncept sodobnega pouka prvega jezika. Jezik in Slovstvo. 2021; 1 :3-16
• 5. Luke A, Baker CD. Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy: An introduction. In: Baker CD, Luke A, editors. Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy. Amsterdam, The Netherlands and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins; 1991. pp. xi–xxi
• 6. Rupnik Vec T, Kompare A. Kritično Mišljenje v Šoli. Ljubljana: Zavod RS Za Šolstvo; 2006
• 7. O’Rourke M. UI critical thinking handbook. 2005. Available from: https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/crit_think/ [Accessed: Oct 07, 2023]
• 8. O’Byrne WI. What is critical literacy in education? 2018. Available from: https://wiobyrne.com/critical-literacy/ [Accessed: Feb 10, 2023]
• 9. Halonen JS. Demystifying critical thinking. The Teaching of Psyhology. 1995; 1 :75-81. DOI: 10.1207/s15328023top2202_4
• 10. Myers DG. Psychology. 7th ed. New York: Worth Publishers; 2003
• 11. Sternberg RJ. Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psyhologist. 2001; 4 :227-245. DOI: 10.1207/S15326985EP3604_2
• 12. Weinert FE. Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In: Rychen DS, Salganik LH, editors. Defining and Selecting Key Competencies. Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers; 2001. pp. 45-65
• 13. Hymes D. On communicative comptence. In: Pride JB, Holmes J, editors. Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books; 1972. pp. 269-293
• 14. Štefanc D. Kompetence Kot Temelj Kurikularnega Načrtovanja v Obveznem Splošnem Izobraževanju. Ljubljana: Filozofska Fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani; 2009
• 15. Canale M, Swain M. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1980; 1 :1-47
• 16. Ivšek L. Konceptualizacija Sporazumevalne Zmožnosti v Slovenščini Kot Ključne Kompetence. Ljubljana: Filozofska Fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani; 2014
• 17. European Reference Framework. Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2007
• 18. Ferbežar I. Merjenje in merljivost v jeziku. Na stičišču jezikoslovja in psihologije: Nekaj razmislekov. Slavistična Revija. 1999; 4 :418-436
• 19. Ulrich W. Didaktik Der Deutschen Sprache. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag; 2001
• 20. Skupni evropski jezikovni okvir. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo RS Za Šolstvo in Šport, Urad Za Razvoj Šolstva; 2011
• 21. Bešter Turk M. Sporazumevalna zmožnost – eden izmed temeljnih ciljev pouka slovenščine. Jezik in Slovstvo. 2011; 3-4 :111-130
• 22. Bešter Turk M, Križaj M. Jezikovni Pouk: Čemu, Kaj in Kako? Ljubljana: Rokus Klett; 2018
• 23. Byram M. Language awareness and (critical) cultural awareness – Relationships, comparisons and contrasts. Language Awareness. 2012; 1-2 :5-13. DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2011.639186
• 24. Vogel J. Understanding language awareness in the first language teaching in Slovenia as a “traditional monocultural” society. Journal of Language and Cultural Education. 2015; 2 :35-50. DOI: 10.1515/jolace-2015-0011
• 25. Gomezel Mikolič V. Povezanost narodne in jezikovne zavesti. Jezik in Slovstvo. 1999/2000; 1 :173-185
• 26. Hart C. Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. Bloomsbury Academic; 2016
• 27. Ule Nastran M. Psihologija Komuniciranja. Ljubljana: Fakulteta Za Družbene Vede; 2005
• 28. Vogel J. Neposredno razvijanje poslušanja z razumevanjem in vrednotenjem pri pouku; 2002
• 29. Rost M. Introducing Listening. London: Penguin Books; 1994
• 30. Brown G. Speakers, Listeners, and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995
• 31. Wheeler LK. Critical reading of an essay’s argument. 2018. Available from: https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/reading_basic.html [Accessed: Apr. 11, 2022]
• 32. Vogel J. Mladi in sporazumevanje v digitalnem svetu. In: Vogel J, editor. Slovenski Jezik, Literatura, Kultura In Digitalni Svet(ovi). 59. Seminar Slovenskega Jezika, Literature In Kulture. 2023. pp. 29-38
• 33. Kranjc S. Skladnja Otroškega Govora od Prvega do Tretjega Leta. Ljubljana: Filozofska Fakulteta; 1998
• 34. Kunst Gnamuš O. Govorno Dejanje – Družbeno Dejanje. Ljubljana: Pedagoški Inštitut; 1984
• 35. Lurija AR. Osnovi Neurolingvistike. Beograd: Nolit; 1982
• 36. Verscheuren J. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold; 1999
• 37. Grosman M. Kakšne pismenosti potrebujemo za 21. stoletje. Sodobna Pedagogika. 2010; 1 :16-26
• 38. Menacker T. Active critical language awareness: an innovative approach to language pedagogy. 1998. Available from: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~crookes/menacker.html [Accessed: Jan 20, 2020]
• 39. Masny D. Language learning and linguistic awareness: The relationship between proficiency and acceptability judgements in L2 1. In: James C, Garrett P, Candlin CN, editors. Language Awareness in the Classroom. 1st ed. Routledge; 1991. DOI: 10.4324/9781315845524
• 40. van Lier L. Introducing Language Awareness. London: Penguin English; 1995
• 41. Ochs E. Becoming a speaker of culture. In: Kramsch C, editor. Language Acquisition and Language Socialization. London, New York: Continuum; 2003. pp. 99-120
• 42. Svalberg AML. Engagement with language: Interrogating a construct. Language Awareness. 2009; 3-4 :242-258. DOI: 10.1080/[number_3]
• 43. James C, Garrett P, editors. Language Awareness in the Classroom. New York: Longman; 1992
• 44. Ule Nastran M. Sodobne Identitete v Vrtincu Diskurzov. Ljubljana: Znanstveno in Publicistično Središče; 2000
• 45. Clark R, Ivanić R. Consciousness-raising about the writing process. In: Garrett P, James C, editors. Language Awareness in the Classroom. London: Longman; 1991
• 46. Kramsch C, editor. Language Acquisition and Language Socialization. Ecological Perspectives. London, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group; 2003
• 47. Bergoč S. Slovenščina Med Balkanom in Evropo. Koper: Univerzitetna Založba Annales; 2010
• 48. Larsen Freeman D. Language acquisition and language use from chaos/complexity theory perspective. In: Kramsch C, editor. Language Acquisition and Language Socialization. Ecological Perspectives. Continuum International Publishing Group; 2003. pp. 33-46
• 49. Lemke JL. Language development and identity: Multiple timescales in the social ecology of learning. In: Krmsch C, editor. Language Acquisition and Language Socialization. Ecological Perspectives. Continuum International Publishing Group; 2003. pp. 68-96
• 50. Gibbs RW. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994
• 51. van Leeuwen T. Introducing Social Semiotics. London in New York: Routledge; 2005
• 52. Vogel J. Jezikovna kulturna zavesti pri pouku maternega/prvega jezika. Jezik in Slovstvo. 2014; 4 :3-14
• 53. Littlejohn SW. Theories of Human Communication. Belmont/CA: Wadsworth Publ. Co.; 1992
• 54. Hornberger NH, McKay SL. Sociolinguistics and Language Education. Multilingual Matters; 2010
• 55. Samovar LA, Porter RE, McDaniel ER. Communication between cultures. 1991
• 56. Larre S. English as a Second Dialect: A Handbook for Teachers. Victoria: University of Victoria; 1991. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1828/2842 [Accessed: Mar. 18, 2018]

© The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Psycholinguistics.

Edited by Xiaoming Jiang

Published: 13 March 2024

By Jean Mathieu Tsoumou

59 downloads

By Jaelani Jaelani and Ziadah Ziadah

47 downloads

By Oksana Chaika

114 downloads

IntechOpen Author/Editor? To get your discount, log in .

Discounts available on purchase of multiple copies. View rates

Local taxes (VAT) are calculated in later steps, if applicable.

Support: [email protected]

• Campus Life
• ...a student.
• ...a veteran.
• ...an alum.
• ...a parent.
• ...faculty or staff.
• Class Schedule
• Crisis Resources
• People Finder
• Change Password

UTC RAVE Alert

Critical thinking and problem-solving, jump to: , what is critical thinking, characteristics of critical thinking, why teach critical thinking.

• Teaching Strategies to Help Promote Critical Thinking Skills

References and Resources

When examining the vast literature on critical thinking, various definitions of critical thinking emerge. Here are some samples:

• "Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action" (Scriven, 1996).
• "Most formal definitions characterize critical thinking as the intentional application of rational, higher order thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis, problem recognition and problem solving, inference, and evaluation" (Angelo, 1995, p. 6).
• "Critical thinking is thinking that assesses itself" (Center for Critical Thinking, 1996b).
• "Critical thinking is the ability to think about one's thinking in such a way as 1. To recognize its strengths and weaknesses and, as a result, 2. To recast the thinking in improved form" (Center for Critical Thinking, 1996c).

Perhaps the simplest definition is offered by Beyer (1995) : "Critical thinking... means making reasoned judgments" (p. 8). Basically, Beyer sees critical thinking as using criteria to judge the quality of something, from cooking to a conclusion of a research paper. In essence, critical thinking is a disciplined manner of thought that a person uses to assess the validity of something (statements, news stories, arguments, research, etc.).

Back        

Wade (1995) identifies eight characteristics of critical thinking. Critical thinking involves asking questions, defining a problem, examining evidence, analyzing assumptions and biases, avoiding emotional reasoning, avoiding oversimplification, considering other interpretations, and tolerating ambiguity. Dealing with ambiguity is also seen by Strohm & Baukus (1995) as an essential part of critical thinking, "Ambiguity and doubt serve a critical-thinking function and are a necessary and even a productive part of the process" (p. 56).

Another characteristic of critical thinking identified by many sources is metacognition. Metacognition is thinking about one's own thinking. More specifically, "metacognition is being aware of one's thinking as one performs specific tasks and then using this awareness to control what one is doing" (Jones & Ratcliff, 1993, p. 10 ).

In the book, Critical Thinking, Beyer elaborately explains what he sees as essential aspects of critical thinking. These are:

• Dispositions: Critical thinkers are skeptical, open-minded, value fair-mindedness, respect evidence and reasoning, respect clarity and precision, look at different points of view, and will change positions when reason leads them to do so.
• Criteria: To think critically, must apply criteria. Need to have conditions that must be met for something to be judged as believable. Although the argument can be made that each subject area has different criteria, some standards apply to all subjects. "... an assertion must... be based on relevant, accurate facts; based on credible sources; precise; unbiased; free from logical fallacies; logically consistent; and strongly reasoned" (p. 12).
• Argument: Is a statement or proposition with supporting evidence. Critical thinking involves identifying, evaluating, and constructing arguments.
• Reasoning: The ability to infer a conclusion from one or multiple premises. To do so requires examining logical relationships among statements or data.
• Point of View: The way one views the world, which shapes one's construction of meaning. In a search for understanding, critical thinkers view phenomena from many different points of view.
• Procedures for Applying Criteria: Other types of thinking use a general procedure. Critical thinking makes use of many procedures. These procedures include asking questions, making judgments, and identifying assumptions.

Oliver & Utermohlen (1995) see students as too often being passive receptors of information. Through technology, the amount of information available today is massive. This information explosion is likely to continue in the future. Students need a guide to weed through the information and not just passively accept it. Students need to "develop and effectively apply critical thinking skills to their academic studies, to the complex problems that they will face, and to the critical choices they will be forced to make as a result of the information explosion and other rapid technological changes" (Oliver & Utermohlen, p. 1 ).

As mentioned in the section, Characteristics of Critical Thinking , critical thinking involves questioning. It is important to teach students how to ask good questions, to think critically, in order to continue the advancement of the very fields we are teaching. "Every field stays alive only to the extent that fresh questions are generated and taken seriously" (Center for Critical Thinking, 1996a ).

Beyer sees the teaching of critical thinking as important to the very state of our nation. He argues that to live successfully in a democracy, people must be able to think critically in order to make sound decisions about personal and civic affairs. If students learn to think critically, then they can use good thinking as the guide by which they live their lives.

Teaching Strategies to Help Promote Critical Thinking

The 1995, Volume 22, issue 1, of the journal, Teaching of Psychology , is devoted to the teaching critical thinking. Most of the strategies included in this section come from the various articles that compose this issue.

• CATS (Classroom Assessment Techniques): Angelo stresses the use of ongoing classroom assessment as a way to monitor and facilitate students' critical thinking. An example of a CAT is to ask students to write a "Minute Paper" responding to questions such as "What was the most important thing you learned in today's class? What question related to this session remains uppermost in your mind?" The teacher selects some of the papers and prepares responses for the next class meeting.
• Cooperative Learning Strategies: Cooper (1995) argues that putting students in group learning situations is the best way to foster critical thinking. "In properly structured cooperative learning environments, students perform more of the active, critical thinking with continuous support and feedback from other students and the teacher" (p. 8).
• Case Study /Discussion Method: McDade (1995) describes this method as the teacher presenting a case (or story) to the class without a conclusion. Using prepared questions, the teacher then leads students through a discussion, allowing students to construct a conclusion for the case.
• Using Questions: King (1995) identifies ways of using questions in the classroom:
• Reciprocal Peer Questioning: Following lecture, the teacher displays a list of question stems (such as, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of...). Students must write questions about the lecture material. In small groups, the students ask each other the questions. Then, the whole class discusses some of the questions from each small group.
• Reader's Questions: Require students to write questions on assigned reading and turn them in at the beginning of class. Select a few of the questions as the impetus for class discussion.
• Conference Style Learning: The teacher does not "teach" the class in the sense of lecturing. The teacher is a facilitator of a conference. Students must thoroughly read all required material before class. Assigned readings should be in the zone of proximal development. That is, readings should be able to be understood by students, but also challenging. The class consists of the students asking questions of each other and discussing these questions. The teacher does not remain passive, but rather, helps "direct and mold discussions by posing strategic questions and helping students build on each others' ideas" (Underwood & Wald, 1995, p. 18 ).
• Use Writing Assignments: Wade sees the use of writing as fundamental to developing critical thinking skills. "With written assignments, an instructor can encourage the development of dialectic reasoning by requiring students to argue both [or more] sides of an issue" (p. 24).
• Written dialogues: Give students written dialogues to analyze. In small groups, students must identify the different viewpoints of each participant in the dialogue. Must look for biases, presence or exclusion of important evidence, alternative interpretations, misstatement of facts, and errors in reasoning. Each group must decide which view is the most reasonable. After coming to a conclusion, each group acts out their dialogue and explains their analysis of it.
• Spontaneous Group Dialogue: One group of students are assigned roles to play in a discussion (such as leader, information giver, opinion seeker, and disagreer). Four observer groups are formed with the functions of determining what roles are being played by whom, identifying biases and errors in thinking, evaluating reasoning skills, and examining ethical implications of the content.
• Ambiguity: Strohm & Baukus advocate producing much ambiguity in the classroom. Don't give students clear cut material. Give them conflicting information that they must think their way through.
• Angelo, T. A. (1995). Beginning the dialogue: Thoughts on promoting critical thinking: Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 6-7.
• Beyer, B. K. (1995). Critical thinking. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
• Center for Critical Thinking (1996a). The role of questions in thinking, teaching, and learning. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univlibrary/library.nclk
• Center for Critical Thinking (1996b). Structures for student self-assessment. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univclass/trc.nclk
• Center for Critical Thinking (1996c). Three definitions of critical thinking [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univlibrary/library.nclk
• Cooper, J. L. (1995). Cooperative learning and critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 7-8.
• Jones, E. A. & Ratcliff, G. (1993). Critical thinking skills for college students. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, University Park, PA. (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED 358 772)
• King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the curriculum: Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22 (1) , 13-17.
• McDade, S. A. (1995). Case study pedagogy to advance critical thinking. Teaching Psychology, 22(1), 9-10.
• Oliver, H. & Utermohlen, R. (1995). An innovative teaching strategy: Using critical thinking to give students a guide to the future.(Eric Document Reproduction Services No. 389 702)
• Robertson, J. F. & Rane-Szostak, D. (1996). Using dialogues to develop critical thinking skills: A practical approach. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(7), 552-556.
• Scriven, M. & Paul, R. (1996). Defining critical thinking: A draft statement for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univlibrary/library.nclk
• Strohm, S. M., & Baukus, R. A. (1995). Strategies for fostering critical thinking skills. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 50 (1), 55-62.
• Underwood, M. K., & Wald, R. L. (1995). Conference-style learning: A method for fostering critical thinking with heart. Teaching Psychology, 22(1), 17-21.
• Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 24-28.

Other Reading

• Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, & active learning in the classroom. Jossey-Bass.
• Bernstein, D. A. (1995). A negotiation model for teaching critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 22-24.
• Carlson, E. R. (1995). Evaluating the credibility of sources. A missing link in the teaching of critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 39-41.
• Facione, P. A., Sanchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 44(1), 1-25.
• Halpern, D. F., & Nummedal, S. G. (1995). Closing thoughts about helping students improve how they think. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 82-83.
• Isbell, D. (1995). Teaching writing and research as inseparable: A faculty-librarian teaching team. Reference Services Review, 23(4), 51-62.
• Jones, J. M. & Safrit, R. D. (1994). Developing critical thinking skills in adult learners through innovative distance learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on the practice of adult education and social development. Jinan, China. (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED 373 159)
• Sanchez, M. A. (1995). Using critical-thinking principles as a guide to college-level instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 72-74.
• Spicer, K. L. & Hanks, W. E. (1995). Multiple measures of critical thinking skills and predisposition in assessment of critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX. (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED 391 185)
• Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995). Influences affecting the development of students' critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36(1), 23-39.

On the Internet

• Carr, K. S. (1990). How can we teach critical thinking. Eric Digest. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://ericps.ed.uiuc.edu/eece/pubs/digests/1990/carr90.html
• The Center for Critical Thinking (1996). Home Page. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/
• Ennis, Bob (No date). Critical thinking. [On-line], April 4, 1997. Available HTTP: http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/for442/ct.htm
• Montclair State University (1995). Curriculum resource center. Critical thinking resources: An annotated bibliography. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.montclair.edu/Pages/CRC/Bibliographies/CriticalThinking.html
• No author, No date. Critical Thinking is ... [On-line], April 4, 1997. Available HTTP: http://library.usask.ca/ustudy/critical/
• Sheridan, Marcia (No date). Internet education topics hotlink page. [On-line], April 4, 1997. Available HTTP: http://sun1.iusb.edu/~msherida/topics/critical.html

Walker Center for Teaching and Learning

• 433 Library
• Dept 4354
• 615 McCallie Ave
•   423-425-4188

Critical Thinking & Communication

Critical thinking and communication are closely related. If you aren’t able to think critically about problems, information, and obstacles as they relate to your relationships, the media you consume, and the conversations you have, you are set up to fail. If you can’t think critically, communication won’t be as good as it possibly can be. Good critical thinking directly influences the quality and nature of the messages you send, the conversations you have, the decisions you make, and the overall quality of your communication interactions.

Critical thinking helps communication improve. Good communication influences critical thinking.

“Critical Thinking” means getting beyond just the surface-level questions about a topic or subject during a conversation or discussion. Think of critical thinking as interrogating and investigating an idea, a current state, or a potential solution on the merits of its rigor and its usefulness. If you can’t “think critically” well, you’re quite simply at a disadvantage when you communicate. There is a steamroller of disinformation out there, tricky people everywhere, and there are important decisions all over the place! Better critical thinking helps you to analyze problems more adeptly, helps to create better connections with people, and achieves more positive, productive outcomes.

Critical thinking is an active process. You have to make a willful, conscious decision to engage in it. It’s a skill that needs to be exercised and practiced. It doesn’t just happen automatically. You have to put your critical thinking hat on and leave it on, almost quite literally. It can protect and shield you from all the bad ideas that are out there.

So what does better critical thinking get us? So what?  

What Does Critical Thinking Get Us?

Critical thinking, done in good faith, results in better outputs (ideas, conversations, relationships). Critical thinking leads to better communication outcomes. This goes both for you individually, for pairs of people, and for collective groups. It’s our human gift to be able to more rigorously interrogate ideas, thoroughly vet outcomes, and collaborate with people to create better outcomes. More critical thinking simply cannot be bad.

Critical thinking isn’t required only about big, obvious problems either. Of course, we should think critically collectively about the large problems that face us (Police Reform, for example). That’s obvious. Similarly, of course, it’s in your interest to think critically about problems and challenges, say, at your job. But we’re constantly faced with an array of problems, large and small. These problems happen at large scales with problems that are beyond any one person and they are the more simple sorts of relational problems that can be solved between two people with just slightly more close, dedicated effort.

So, how can we think critically, better?

Critical Thinking Explained

Critical thinking is essentially a purposeful process of asking questions. We can start by thinking of questions in standard categories: Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How. Some questions to ask yourself to stimulate critical thinking:

Who         … benefits from this?

                … is harmed?

                … makes the decision?

                … is directly affected? In what ways?

                … if anyone, would be a good person to consult?

What         … are the strengths/weaknesses?

                … is another perspective or a good alternative?

                … would be a counterargument?

                … is most important/least important?

                … is blocking us?

                … can we do to make a positive change?

Where      … could we learn from others?

                … can we get more information?

                … to improve?

                … could we get help?

                … will this idea take us?

When       … will we know we’ve succeeded?

                … can we expect to see change?

                … should we ask for help?

                … could this cause a problem?

                … should we revisit this issue to assess?

Why         … do we think this is a problem?

                … is this relevant to me (or us)?

                … is this the best solution for now?

                … has it been this way for so long?

                … have we allowed this to happen?

How          … does this benefit me, us, or others?

                … does this harm me, us, or others?

                … does this change things?

                … do we know the truth about this?

You can ask those you’re communicating with — or yourself — any of these questions or any combination of them. You can also come up with similar questions! These are just a guide to help get you started. There’s no limit to the amount or quality of good questions you can ask. Sprinkle these into your conversations and discussions as appropriate.

These questions, while decent inspiration, are quite stiff. “When should we revisit this issue to assess?” sounds halting and jerky. You’re not a robot, are you? Don’t ask it like that! Try to sound human. Say something like “Hey, uh, everybody? When can we follow up on this in a week or so to uhh, you know, check we’re doing alright?” You know, how people talk.  

The Shape of Critical Thinking

Good critical thinking interrogates an idea or problem purposefully, whether that is individually or together. Hopefully, this is done in the spirit of making progress. In practice, what critical thinking looks like can vary. There’s no one way to perform critical thinking to be proper, thorough, or fair.

What’s more, is that critical thinking isn’t just for relationships and the problems we face in them. Critical thinking is, at an even broader level, often about our human relationships with information: as we consume it, as we interact with it (and people spewing it off), and as we sift through the bombardments of information, advertisements, and messages that constantly pelt us like radioactive symbolic fallout. Critical thinking is your built-in BS detector.

Critical thinking is a tool for life. Use that brain evolution gave you! We should all strive to be better critical thinkers. Question things: authority, motive, tactics, perspective. Question it all, especially those in power and people trying to sell you things.  

A Few Words About Emotions

Critical thinking isn’t a purely rational process. There is no such thing as a purely rational process. Beware those trumpeting their “rationality,” and their humanity has likely been corrupted. Emotions are real and powerful. They are relevant and even central when you’re hashing out difficult problems with people. Interrogating others (and yourself) can be emotionally challenging. That’s ok. That’s exactly part of the process of communicating and part of critical thinking. Try to embrace and express authentic emotions appropriately, knowing full well that what’s “appropriate” is always shifting and political . Emotive expressions, when listened to, are evidence of systemic problems that lie beneath. Strive to be flexible and open to the authentic expressions of others. You can’t tell people in pain to suppress emotions.  

Critical thinking is hard. We don’t do it enough. It’s easy to *not* do it because you have to actively engage  in its practice. The residuals of evolution are pulling you in the other direction. Your monkey brain wants shortcuts, but you have to fight against this. Critical thinking improves communication. Good communication influences critical thinking. The relationship is reciprocal.

Hashing out an idea with someone, and critical thinking with them, is bond-forming. When you can rigorously vet and work out an idea or problem with another person, regardless of the size type, or shape of that problem, you are forming a bond with them. You are connecting. You are making something better. Engage in it. Surrender to the process. Get in there and mix it up.

1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

I. what is c ritical t hinking [1].

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe.  It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following:

• Understand the logical connections between ideas.
• Identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.
• Detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning.
• Solve problems systematically.
• Identify the relevance and importance of ideas.
• Reflect on the justification of one’s own beliefs and values.

Critical thinking is not simply a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. Critical thinkers are able to deduce consequences from what they know, make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform themselves.

Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can also use critical thinking to enhance work processes and improve social institutions.

Some people believe that critical thinking hinders creativity because critical thinking requires following the rules of logic and rationality, whereas creativity might require breaking those rules. This is a misconception. Critical thinking is quite compatible with thinking “out-of-the-box,” challenging consensus views, and pursuing less popular approaches. If anything, critical thinking is an essential part of creativity because we need critical thinking to evaluate and improve our creative ideas.

II. The I mportance of C ritical T hinking

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. The ability to think clearly and rationally is important whatever we choose to do. If you work in education, research, finance, management or the legal profession, then critical thinking is obviously important. But critical thinking skills are not restricted to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and solve problems systematically is an asset for any career.

Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy.  The global knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual skills, and the ability to analyze information and integrate diverse sources of knowledge in solving problems. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking skills, and is very important in the fast-changing workplace.

Critical thinking enhances language and presentation skills. Thinking clearly and systematically can improve the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyze the logical structure of texts, critical thinking also improves comprehension abilities.

Critical thinking promotes creativity. To come up with a creative solution to a problem involves not just having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being generated are useful and relevant to the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in evaluating new ideas, selecting the best ones and modifying them if necessary.

Critical thinking is crucial for self-reflection. In order to live a meaningful life and to structure our lives accordingly, we need to justify and reflect on our values and decisions. Critical thinking provides the tools for this process of self-evaluation.

Good critical thinking is the foundation of science and democracy. Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.

Critical thinking is a   metacognitive skill . What this means is that it is a higher-level cognitive skill that involves thinking about thinking. We have to be aware of the good principles of reasoning, and be reflective about our own reasoning. In addition, we often need to make a conscious effort to improve ourselves, avoid biases, and maintain objectivity. This is notoriously hard to do. We are all able to think but to think well often requires a long period of training. The mastery of critical thinking is similar to the mastery of many other skills. There are three important components: theory, practice, and attitude.

III. Improv ing O ur T hinking S kills

If we want to think correctly, we need to follow the correct rules of reasoning. Knowledge of theory includes knowledge of these rules. These are the basic principles of critical thinking, such as the laws of logic, and the methods of scientific reasoning, etc.

Also, it would be useful to know something about what not to do if we want to reason correctly. This means we should have some basic knowledge of the mistakes that people make. First, this requires some knowledge of typical fallacies. Second, psychologists have discovered persistent biases and limitations in human reasoning. An awareness of these empirical findings will alert us to potential problems.

However, merely knowing the principles that distinguish good and bad reasoning is not enough. We might study in the classroom about how to swim, and learn about the basic theory, such as the fact that one should not breathe underwater. But unless we can apply such theoretical knowledge through constant practice, we might not actually be able to swim.

Similarly, to be good at critical thinking skills it is necessary to internalize the theoretical principles so that we can actually apply them in daily life. There are at least two ways to do this. One is to perform lots of quality exercises. These exercises don’t just include practicing in the classroom or receiving tutorials; they also include engaging in discussions and debates with other people in our daily lives, where the principles of critical thinking can be applied. The second method is to think more deeply about the principles that we have acquired. In the human mind, memory and understanding are acquired through making connections between ideas.

Good critical thinking skills require more than just knowledge and practice. Persistent practice can bring about improvements only if one has the right kind of motivation and attitude. The following attitudes are not uncommon, but they are obstacles to critical thinking:

• I prefer being given the correct answers rather than figuring them out myself.
• I don’t like to think a lot about my decisions as I rely only on gut feelings.
• I don’t usually review the mistakes I have made.
• I don’t like to be criticized.

To improve our thinking we have to recognize the importance of reflecting on the reasons for belief and action. We should also be willing to engage in debate, break old habits, and deal with linguistic complexities and abstract concepts.

The  California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory  is a psychological test that is used to measure whether people are disposed to think critically. It measures the seven different thinking habits listed below, and it is useful to ask ourselves to what extent they describe the way we think:

• Truth-Seeking—Do you try to understand how things really are? Are you interested in finding out the truth?
• Open-Mindedness—How receptive are you to new ideas, even when you do not intuitively agree with them? Do you give new concepts a fair hearing?
• Analyticity—Do you try to understand the reasons behind things? Do you act impulsively or do you evaluate the pros and cons of your decisions?
• Systematicity—Are you systematic in your thinking? Do you break down a complex problem into parts?
• Confidence in Reasoning—Do you always defer to other people? How confident are you in your own judgment? Do you have reasons for your confidence? Do you have a way to evaluate your own thinking?
• Inquisitiveness—Are you curious about unfamiliar topics and resolving complicated problems? Will you chase down an answer until you find it?
• Maturity of Judgment—Do you jump to conclusions? Do you try to see things from different perspectives? Do you take other people’s experiences into account?

Finally, as mentioned earlier, psychologists have discovered over the years that human reasoning can be easily affected by a variety of cognitive biases. For example, people tend to be over-confident of their abilities and focus too much on evidence that supports their pre-existing opinions. We should be alert to these biases in our attitudes towards our own thinking.

IV. Defining Critical Thinking

There are many different definitions of critical thinking. Here we list some of the well-known ones. You might notice that they all emphasize the importance of clarity and rationality. Here we will look at some well-known definitions in chronological order.

1) Many people trace the importance of critical thinking in education to the early twentieth-century American philosopher John Dewey. But Dewey did not make very extensive use of the term “critical thinking.” Instead, in his book  How We Think (1910), he argued for the importance of what he called “reflective thinking”:

…[when] the ground or basis for a belief is deliberately sought and its adequacy to support the belief examined. This process is called reflective thought; it alone is truly educative in value…

Active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought.

There is however one passage from How We Think where Dewey explicitly uses the term “critical thinking”:

The essence of critical thinking is suspended judgment; and the essence of this suspense is inquiry to determine the nature of the problem before proceeding to attempts at its solution. This, more than any other thing, transforms mere inference into tested inference, suggested conclusions into proof.

2) The  Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal  (1980) is a well-known psychological test of critical thinking ability. The authors of this test define critical thinking as:

…a composite of attitudes, knowledge and skills. This composite includes: (1) attitudes of inquiry that involve an ability to recognize the existence of problems and an acceptance of the general need for evidence in support of what is asserted to be true; (2) knowledge of the nature of valid inferences, abstractions, and generalizations in which the weight or accuracy of different kinds of evidence are logically determined; and (3) skills in employing and applying the above attitudes and knowledge.

3) A very well-known and influential definition of critical thinking comes from philosopher and professor Robert Ennis in his work “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities” (1987):

Critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.

4) The following definition comes from a statement written in 1987 by the philosophers Michael Scriven and Richard Paul for the  National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (link), an organization promoting critical thinking in the US:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference.

The following excerpt from Peter A. Facione’s “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction” (1990) is quoted from a report written for the American Philosophical Association:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fairminded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society.

V. Two F eatures of C ritical T hinking

A. how not what .

Critical thinking is concerned not with what you believe, but rather how or why you believe it. Most classes, such as those on biology or chemistry, teach you what to believe about a subject matter. In contrast, critical thinking is not particularly interested in what the world is, in fact, like. Rather, critical thinking will teach you how to form beliefs and how to think. It is interested in the type of reasoning you use when you form your beliefs, and concerns itself with whether you have good reasons to believe what you believe. Therefore, this class isn’t a class on the psychology of reasoning, which brings us to the second important feature of critical thinking.

B. Ought N ot Is ( or Normative N ot Descriptive )

There is a difference between normative and descriptive theories. Descriptive theories, such as those provided by physics, provide a picture of how the world factually behaves and operates. In contrast, normative theories, such as those provided by ethics or political philosophy, provide a picture of how the world should be. Rather than ask question such as why something is the way it is, normative theories ask how something should be. In this course, we will be interested in normative theories that govern our thinking and reasoning. Therefore, we will not be interested in how we actually reason, but rather focus on how we ought to reason.

In the introduction to this course we considered a selection task with cards that must be flipped in order to check the validity of a rule. We noted that many people fail to identify all the cards required to check the rule. This is how people do in fact reason (descriptive). We then noted that you must flip over two cards. This is how people ought to reason (normative).

• Section I-IV are taken from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/ and are in use under the creative commons license. Some modifications have been made to the original content. ↵

Critical Thinking Copyright © 2019 by Brian Kim is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Brain Power

11 characteristics of a critical thinker.

One of the most valued skills to have in life is the ability to think critically. It’s valued by many employers as it allows someone to sift through information and discriminate between what’s useful and what’s less useful.

Overall, it’s our ability to analyze information and for us to make a reasonable judgement call. [1] But what exactly does that entail? What characteristics of a critical thinker do we need to focus on?

It’s important to know this because a critical thinker has a specific set of characteristics and mindset. After all, a critical thinker isn’t all about gathering information. They’re analyzing it and using it to make decisions and fix problems.

If you want to evaluate your critical thinking, it’s easy. Since this is considered a skill, you can turn to skill tests in this area. Consider the Critical Thinking Test  or Wabisabi Learning’s Critical Thinking Assessment,  which covers 6 categories: Questioning abilities, Use of information, Keeping an open mind, Drawing conclusions, Communication & collaboration, and Self-awareness.

But one other alternative is comparing your current skill set with the characteristics that I’ll provide below. Now, there are several skills that form the characteristics of a critical thinker, but so long as you are comparing the appropriate skill to the other, you should be able to develop yourself further in this area.

Here you will find 11 characteristics of a critical thinker:

1. Having Curiosity

If you want to be an effective critical thinker, you need to be curious about your surroundings and of the world. Those who are curious begin the learning process as they first ask a question and begin looking for the answer.

But the thing is they do this for a wide range of topics rather than in one niche area. So it’s also fair to say that they have a healthy curiosity about the world and people as well. They have an appreciation and even fascination for cultures, different beliefs and views that differ from their own but also are aligned with theirs.

2. Being Compassionate

Critical thinking isn’t all about having a lot of intelligence. While it’s important to have those skills, it’s important to remember that we’re still human, and we have emotional and instinctual aspects.

The world today is already full of judgement and segregation, so you’re not helping much if you only focus on the information and parsing it.

Remember, everyone has a story that made them into who they are. We’ve all gone through challenges and trials that have shaped our lives into what we are today. Critical thinkers know this and celebrate the uniqueness of everyone.

3. Having High Awareness

Awareness also plays an important role. This characteristic allows us to know when to use critical thinking.

The more you are aware of everything, the more you begin to see the opportunities to apply these skills. For all of this to happen, you need to be tuned in to the world and be present.

Critical thinkers also have a healthy skepticism. They don’t take things at face value. They will fall onto other skills. Whether it’s asking questions – showing curiosity – or something else.

This characteristic forms the foundation of problem-solving skills as a critical thinker.

4. Being Decisive

Often times, problems that call for critical thinking also demand that we take quick and decisive action. Critical thinking is about weighing our options and imagining the potential outcomes from the decisions, and how fast they can be set in motion.

To do this, set aside your own fears when making decisions. Sometimes, you have to accept the fact that you’re not going to have all the information you need. Accepting not every decision is the best is important.

5. Having Total Honesty

Honesty is a good policy as they say but, it’s key as a critical thinker too.

Moral integrity, ethical consideration and the actions that we take are all hallmark characteristics of critical thinkers. And it all stems from them being honest.

Honesty also extends to how we look at ourselves and embrace who we are. It requires managing our emotions and controlling impulses, as well as recognizing when we are deceiving ourselves. These things are what make us human, so it’s not something we can remove.

As such, critical thinkers are accepting of not only others around them, but to themselves too.

6. Having Willingness

This is a characteristic that goes hand in hand with flexibility.

Think of this similar to the growth mindset , if we don’t have willingness or flexibility, our attitude towards learning is going to be non-existent. We will also be resist to change and believe whatever we or others tell us. This behavior is similar to a fixed mindset .

On the other hand, when we have these skills, we learn to revise opinions, make changes, and have an eagerness to learn and develop further in other areas. We have a keen eye for growth.

7. Being Creative

While you wouldn’t think critical thinkers are creative people, they are. Creativity is quintessential for a critical thinker as so many positions demand new and creative solutions.

Think about marketing, building professional relationships, these things require creativity. Consider the idea of innovation which is nothing but taking the norms of a specific industry and rearranging them into something new.

8. Thinking Analytically

Of course, being able to analyze information is another important aspect of critical thinkers. Critical thinkers look at various forms of information and analyze it; be it reports, statements, business models, or relationships.

Good use of analytical skills is being able to break information into sections and evaluating them alone and collectively.

9. Drawing Inference

Not all information is spelled out for us. There’s a lot of things that are inferred. It’s important to be able to assess information and base conclusions on the data and evidence.

However, there is a difference between inferring something and making assumptions. For example, if I told you I weigh 230 pounds, what would you think?

An assumption would be that you determine that I’m overweight or am unhealthy. But inferring would be looking at other data points like height and body composition in determining what a healthy weight for a person is.

10. Communicating Clearly

Critical thinkers communicate clearly. They are able to explain and communicate in a concise manner. As a result, they are also attentive and active listeners .

Critical thinking is the tool to build thoughts and express them; this means explaining the line of reasoning and the thought process.

11. Determining Relevance

One last characteristic of a critical thinker is determining what is and isn’t useful. This comes down to determining the relevance of information.

To grow this skill, piece together what information is the most important, meaningful and relevant to your situation. There are so many cases where information may seem important but isn’t important in this particular situation. On the other hand, the information could be meaningful and relevant, but it might not be important in solving the current issues.

All in all, you’ll need to be able to look at the source information and determine if it’s logically relevant to what you’re dealing with.

Final Thoughts

The characteristics of a critical thinker is vast and there is no particular bath of skills that make critical thinkers. Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Henry Ford and many others were critical thinkers. But how they approached their problems and challenges were all completely different.

Remember that we don’t need to be like them; rather, focus on some of the traits that defined them as great thinkers. The characteristics I mentioned above should help you in this journey.

More Tips about Thinking Smarter

• How to Think Critically: 5 Powerful Techniques
• What Is Creative Thinking and Why Is It Important?
• How to Think Clearly and Become Smarter

Featured photo credit: Thought Catalog via unsplash.com

How to Use a Planner Effectively

How to Be a Better Planner: Avoid the Planning Fallacy

5 Best Apps to Help You Delegate Tasks Easily

Delegating Leadership Style: What Is It & When To Use It?

The Fear of Delegating Work To Others

Why Is Delegation Important in Leadership?

7 Best Tools for Prioritizing Work

How to Deal with Competing Priorities Effectively

What Is the RICE Prioritization Model And How Does It Work?

4 Exercises to Improve Your Focus

What Is Chronic Procrastination and How To Deal with It

How to Snap Out of Procrastination With ADHD

Are Depression And Procrastination Connected?

Procrastination And Laziness: Their Differences & Connections

Bedtime Procrastination: Why You Do It And How To Break It

15 Books on Procrastination To Help You Start Taking Action

Productive Procrastination: Is It Good or Bad?

The Impact of Procrastination on Productivity

How to Cope With Anxiety-Induced Procrastination

How to Break the Perfectionism-Procrastination Loop

15 Work-Life Balance Books to Help You Take Control of Life

Work Life Balance for Women: What It Means & How to Find It

6 Essential Mindsets For Continuous Career Growth

How to Discover Your Next Career Move Amid the Great Resignation

The Key to Creating a Vibrant (And Magical Life) by Lee Cockerell

9 Tips on How To Disconnect From Work And Stay Present

Work-Life Integration vs Work-Life Balance: Is One Better Than the Other?

How To Practice Self-Advocacy in the Workplace (Go-to Guide)

How to Boost Your Focus And Attention Span

What Are Distractions in a Nutshell?

What Is Procrastination And How To End It

Prioritization — Using Your Time & Energy Effectively

Delegation — Leveraging Your Time & Resources

Your Guide to Effective Planning & Scheduling

The Ultimate Guide to Achieving Goals

How to Find Lasting Motivation

Complete Guide to Getting Back Your Energy

How to Have a Good Life Balance

Explore the time flow system.

About the Time Flow System

Key Philosophy I: Fluid Progress, Like Water

Key Philosophy II: Pragmatic Priorities

Key Philosophy III: Sustainable Momentum

Key Philosophy IV: Three Goal Focus

How the Time Flow System Works

Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples

• Homework Help
• Private School
• College Admissions
• College Life
• Graduate School
• Business School
• Distance Learning

• Indiana University, Bloomington
• State University of New York at Oneonta

Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze information objectively and make a reasoned judgment. It involves the evaluation of sources, such as data, facts, observable phenomena, and research findings.

Good critical thinkers can draw reasonable conclusions from a set of information, and discriminate between useful and less useful details to solve problems or make decisions. These skills are especially helpful at school and in the workplace, where employers prioritize the ability to think critically. Find out why and see how you can demonstrate that you have this ability.

Examples of Critical Thinking

The circumstances that demand critical thinking vary from industry to industry. Some examples include:

• A triage nurse analyzes the cases at hand and decides the order by which the patients should be treated.
• A plumber evaluates the materials that would best suit a particular job.
• An attorney reviews the evidence and devises a strategy to win a case or to decide whether to settle out of court.
• A manager analyzes customer feedback forms and uses this information to develop a customer service training session for employees.

Why Do Employers Value Critical Thinking Skills?

Employers want job candidates who can evaluate a situation using logical thought and offer the best solution.

Someone with critical thinking skills can be trusted to make decisions independently, and will not need constant handholding.

Hiring a critical thinker means that micromanaging won't be required. Critical thinking abilities are among the most sought-after skills in almost every industry and workplace. You can demonstrate critical thinking by using related keywords in your resume and cover letter and during your interview.

How to Demonstrate Critical Thinking in a Job Search

If critical thinking is a key phrase in the job listings you are applying for, be sure to emphasize your critical thinking skills throughout your job search.

Add Keywords to Your Resume

You can use critical thinking keywords (analytical, problem solving, creativity, etc.) in your resume. When describing your work history, include top critical thinking skills that accurately describe you. You can also include them in your resume summary, if you have one.

For example, your summary might read, “Marketing Associate with five years of experience in project management. Skilled in conducting thorough market research and competitor analysis to assess market trends and client needs, and to develop appropriate acquisition tactics.”

Mention Skills in Your Cover Letter

Include these critical thinking skills in your cover letter. In the body of your letter, mention one or two of these skills, and give specific examples of times when you have demonstrated them at work. Think about times when you had to analyze or evaluate materials to solve a problem.

Show the Interviewer Your Skills

You can use these skill words in an interview. Discuss a time when you were faced with a particular problem or challenge at work and explain how you applied critical thinking to solve it.

Some interviewers will give you a hypothetical scenario or problem, and ask you to use critical thinking skills to solve it. In this case, explain your thought process thoroughly to the interviewer. He or she is typically more focused on how you arrive at your solution rather than the solution itself. The interviewer wants to see you analyze and evaluate (key parts of critical thinking) the given scenario or problem.

Of course, each job will require different skills and experiences, so make sure you read the job description carefully and focus on the skills listed by the employer.

Top Critical Thinking Skills

Keep these in-demand skills in mind as you refine your critical thinking practice —whether for work or school.

Part of critical thinking is the ability to carefully examine something, whether it is a problem, a set of data, or a text. People with analytical skills can examine information, understand what it means, and properly explain to others the implications of that information.

• Asking Thoughtful Questions
• Data Analysis
• Interpretation
• Questioning Evidence
• Recognizing Patterns

Communication

Often, you will need to share your conclusions with your employers or with a group of classmates or colleagues. You need to be able to communicate with others to share your ideas effectively. You might also need to engage in critical thinking in a group. In this case, you will need to work with others and communicate effectively to figure out solutions to complex problems.

• Active Listening
• Collaboration
• Explanation
• Interpersonal
• Presentation
• Verbal Communication
• Written Communication

Critical thinking often involves creativity and innovation. You might need to spot patterns in the information you are looking at or come up with a solution that no one else has thought of before. All of this involves a creative eye that can take a different approach from all other approaches.

• Flexibility
• Conceptualization
• Imagination
• Drawing Connections
• Synthesizing

Open-Mindedness

To think critically, you need to be able to put aside any assumptions or judgments and merely analyze the information you receive. You need to be objective, evaluating ideas without bias.

• Objectivity
• Observation

Problem-Solving

Problem-solving is another critical thinking skill that involves analyzing a problem, generating and implementing a solution, and assessing the success of the plan. Employers don’t simply want employees who can think about information critically. They also need to be able to come up with practical solutions.

• Attention to Detail
• Clarification
• Decision Making
• Groundedness
• Identifying Patterns

More Critical Thinking Skills

• Inductive Reasoning
• Deductive Reasoning
• Noticing Outliers
• Adaptability
• Emotional Intelligence
• Brainstorming
• Optimization
• Restructuring
• Integration
• Strategic Planning
• Project Management
• Ongoing Improvement
• Causal Relationships
• Case Analysis
• Diagnostics
• SWOT Analysis
• Business Intelligence
• Quantitative Data Management
• Qualitative Data Management
• Risk Management
• Scientific Method
• Consumer Behavior

Key Takeaways

• Demonstrate you have critical thinking skills by adding relevant keywords to your resume.
• Mention pertinent critical thinking skills in your cover letter, too, and include an example of a time when you demonstrated them at work.
• Finally, highlight critical thinking skills during your interview. For instance, you might discuss a time when you were faced with a challenge at work and explain how you applied critical thinking skills to solve it.

University of Louisville. " What is Critical Thinking ."

American Management Association. " AMA Critical Skills Survey: Workers Need Higher Level Skills to Succeed in the 21st Century ."

• 18 Ways to Practice Spelling Words
• The 16 SEC Schools
• Sample Appeal Letter for an Academic Dismissal
• List of Supplies for High School Students
• Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Education
• How to Find the Main Idea
• Understanding Very Big Numbers
• 100 Persuasive Speech Topics for Students
• Introduction to Critical Thinking
• Foreign Language Requirement for College Admissions
• Fostering Cultural Diversity in Your School
• GRE Text Completion Examples
• ACT Science Reasoning Information
• Controversial Speech Topics
• Free Online Computer Classes
• Undergraduate Courses That Are Recommended for Law School

The 4 Cs: Collaboration, Creativity, Communication and Critical Thinking

Since Empower Generations’ beginning, we have been committed to helping learners develop into well-rounded, lifelong learners empowered to lead in an ever-changing world. That’s why we focus on the four Cs of 21st-century learning:

• Collaboration: Learners are able to work effectively with diverse groups and exercise flexibility in making compromises to achieve common goals.
• Creativity: Learners are able to generate and improve on original ideas and also work creatively with others.
• Communication: Learners are able to communicate effectively across multiple media and for various purposes.
• Critical thinking: Learners are able to analyze, evaluate, and understand complex systems and apply strategies to solve problems.

These skills enhance the academic growth of Empower Generations’ learners and prepare them to succeed in life.

RECENT POSTS

It’s Pizza Time! Our Little Caesars Fundraiser Continues through October 23

Empower Generations High School’s Little Caesars Fundraiser has begun! Click the link below to purchase pizza, bread, cookies, and meal deal codes. Every purchase helps as we earn $6.00* for Read more…

Individualized Learning Plans: Oct. 4

Empower Generations embraces the whole learner, focusing on both social-emotional and academic skills. After our beginning-of-the-year assessments and in lieu of the traditional parent-teacher conference, the learners, facilitators, and parents/guardians Read more…

Empower Generations Learners Ride AVTA and Metro for Free with GoPass

Empower Generations learners, your GoPass cards are now available! With your GoPass card, you are eligible for free rides on both Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) and Metro Los Angeles Read more…

Monday Message: Timely News & Information for our Families

For more information.

661-429-3264

Asistencia en español (661) 570-5951

[email protected]

Empower Generations

44236 10th Street West, Ste. 105 Lancaster, CA 93534

Current Board Agenda

(Physical Copy Of The Approved Charter Available At Learning Center)

Approved by the Accrediting Commission for Schools, Western Association of Schools and Colleges

No Imagery Or Content Contained In This Website May Be Copied Without Owner’s Permission.

Board & Public Information

Learning continuity plan, lcap federal addendum, math policy, privacy policy.

© 2024 iLEAD California. All rights reserved.

• Register for First Class
• Book FREE Trial Now

A Glimpse Into The 5 Cs Of 21st Century Skills

As we progress into an increasingly tech-driven world, the workings around us are rapidly changing, and so are the skills that are required to succeed at this fast pace. In today’s highly competitive and globalized economy, it is essential not only for kids but for every individual to possess a certain set of skills that go beyond the traditional academic curriculum. These skills are known as the “5 Cs”: critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity, and character . These 21st century skills for students can provide them with a great head start in life as they go on to tackle different obstacles.

In this blog, we will explore each of the 5 c’s skills in detail, discuss why they are important, and provide tips on how you can develop and enhance them in yourself. So, whether you are a student, a professional, or someone who is simply looking to improve their skill set, this blog is just for you!

Table of contents

Critical thinking, communication, collaboration, why is the 5 cs education important, frequently asked questions (faqs).

The capacity to analyze information and assess arguments is referred to as “critical thinking,” which is the first of the 5 c’s and one of the crucial 21st century skills for students.  In today’s digital era, when we are continuously bombarded with information, being able to filter through it and discern what is factual and credible is critical. Critical thinking involves asking questions, evaluating opposing points of view, and drawing educated conclusions based on facts. Something that lays the foundation of complex problem-solving skills in young minds at the start itself. 

BrightChamps programming for kids nurtures critical thinking, empowering young learners with essential problem-solving skills for a successful future.

Tips for developing critical thinking and complex problem-solving skills. 

• Practice asking questions and seeking out different viewpoints.
• Read a variety of sources and evaluate the credibility of the information presented.
• Engage in debates and discussions with others to refine your argumentation skills.

Communication skills have always been crucial, but they are becoming increasingly important in the twenty-first century. With remote work and virtual collaboration becoming the norm, the ability to communicate clearly and efficiently over numerous channels, such as email, video conferencing, and instant messaging, is critical. Individuals with strong communication abilities may also form connections and operate successfully in groups.

Tips for developing communication skills:

• Practice active listening by paying attention to what others are saying and asking clarifying questions
• Work on expressing your ideas clearly and concisely
• Use nonverbal cues, such as body language and facial expressions, to enhance your communication

Collaboration is the ability to work effectively with others towards a common objective, which is another of the 5 c’s. Teamwork is crucial in today’s increasingly interconnected and globalized environment. Collaborative skills entail not just working together but also negotiating and compromising when required.

Tips for developing collaboration skills:

• Practice working in teams on group projects or volunteer activities
• Develop your negotiation skills by listening to the perspectives of others and finding common ground
• Build trust and respect with your team members by being reliable and accountable

The capacity to develop fresh and inventive ideas is referred to as creativity. To handle issues and face difficulties in today’s fast-changing environment, it is critical to be able to adapt and think creatively. Creative abilities are important 21st century skills for students, and they include not just the ability to generate ideas but also the capacity to effectively apply them.

Tips for developing creativity skills:

• Practice brainstorming and generating new ideas
• Look for inspiration from a variety of sources, such as art, music, and literature
• Experiment with different approaches to problem-solving and be open to trying new things

Character  

Personal attributes such as honesty, integrity, and resilience are examples of character. In the twenty-first century, having a strong moral compass and a sense of purpose is becoming increasingly crucial. People with strong character are more inclined to persist in the face of adversity.

Remember, the developing character is a lifelong process. Be patient with yourself, stay committed to your values, and continue to seek out opportunities for growth and development.

Tips for developing character:

• Take some time to reflect on what you value most in life.
• Take time to reflect on your actions and consider how they align with your values. Ask for feedback from others and be open to constructive criticism.
• Identify areas where you would like to improve and set goals for yourself.
• Surround yourself with people who share your values and support your growth.

The 5 c’s of 21st century skills for students – critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity, and character – are becoming increasingly important in today’s world. Just like nourishing your kids with the benefits of stem education , giving them the 5 Cs education is crucial. Here are some reasons why:

Adaptability: The world is changing swiftly, and people who possess the 5 Cs are better able to adapt to new problems and opportunities. They can think critically, communicate easily, interact with others, produce original ideas, and work well with individuals from a variety of backgrounds.

Employability: There’s no question that employers are looking for people who exhibit the 5 Cs. These abilities are vital in today’s workforce, where collaboration, problem-solving, and creativity are valued.

Success in life: The 5 c’s are vital not just for professional success, but also for personal achievement. Individuals with these skills are better able to negotiate complicated social, cultural, and political situations. They can comprehend and accept multiple points of view, work well with varied groups, and give back to their communities.

Innovation: Creativity and innovation are required to handle the difficult issues that our planet faces today. Individuals that possess the 5 Cs education are more suited for developing new and original ideas, thinking outside the box, and solving complicated issues creatively.

Globalization: Individuals who possess the 5 Cs education are more suited to effectively interact with people from varied origins and cultures as the globe becomes more interconnected. They can respect other points of view, communicate effectively, and interact with others in a global setting.

The 5 Cs of 21st century skills are important for success in today’s rapidly changing world. They provide individuals with the adaptability, employability, and personal and professional skills necessary to manage complex environments and add to their communities. Whether you are seeking career success, personal growth, or simply want to become a more effective and adaptable individual, developing the 5 Cs education is a worthwhile pursuit. Developing these characteristics in kids from an early age can be extremely beneficial for them.

Know more about kids coding languages in this article.

In conclusion, in today’s society, the 5 Cs of 21st century abilities—critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity, and character—are becoming increasingly vital. These abilities are necessary not just for professional success but also for personal growth and development. It’s possible to build and improve your 5 Cs by recognizing your values, practicing self-awareness, creating objectives, developing positive relationships, practicing gratitude, accepting difficulties, and committing to lifelong learning. 

Remember that acquiring these abilities is a lifetime process that takes patience, perseverance, and a desire to make personal progress. However, the advantages of having these talents are numerous, ranging from flexibility and employability to personal and professional success. So begin your journey now and cultivate your 5 Cs to become a more successful, flexible, and productive person.

BrightChamps provides financial education for kids , equipping them with essential money management knowledge for a successful future.

The 5 Cs of 21st century skills are critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity, and character.

The 5 Cs are important for several reasons, including adaptability, employability, personal and professional success, innovation, and globalization.

Examples of critical thinking skills include analyzing information, evaluating arguments, solving problems, making decisions, and applying knowledge.

Examples of communication skills including speaking clearly and effectively, active listening, writing clearly and effectively, nonverbal communication, and adapting to different communication styles.

Developing the 5 Cs is a lifelong process that requires patience, dedication, and a commitment to personal growth. It may take time to develop these skills, but the benefits are immense, from personal and professional success to contributing to your communities and making a positive impact on the world.

Team BrightChamps

Email Address

Free Kids Coding Resources 📕

Receive a copy of our Top 10 FREE Resources for your Kids

Success🎉 Check your email for more info!

Get a talent discovery certificate after trial class.

100% Risk-Free. No Credit Card Required

Related Articles

Navigating Parenthood: Simple Tips for Dealing with Behavioral Challenges in Kids

by admin | Apr 9, 2024

Parenting is a journey filled with joys, but it also comes with its fair share of challenges. One of the most common challenges parents face is...

Easing the Burden of Anxiety: Practical Tips for Parenting Anxious Teens

by Team BrightChamps | Feb 15, 2024

The adolescent years are a time of profound growth and change, marked by the pursuit of identity, independence, and the navigation of social...

Ready, Set, School! Simple Advice for Parents on School Readiness

by Team BrightChamps | Feb 13, 2024

Preparing children for school is like laying the foundation for a sturdy building. Just as a solid foundation ensures a structure's stability,...

Trending Articles

Financial Literacy Activities for High School Students: Engaging and Practical Learning

by Team BrightChamps | Apr 10, 2024

As young adults step into the world of independence and responsibility, the importance of financial literacy cannot be overstated. Equipped with the...

Online Learning Platforms for Kids: A Comprehensive Guide

Over the past few years, online learning platforms for kids has seen a significant rise in popularity. This trend has been fueled by various...