DOI: 10.1111/ejed.

12569

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Fostering and assessing student critical thinking:

From theory to teaching practice

Stéphan Vincent-­Lancrin

CERI, OECD Directorate for Education and

Skills, Paris, France Abstract
In an age of innovation and digitalisation, critical think-
Correspondence
Stéphan Vincent-­L ancrin, CERI, OECD ing has become one of the most valued skills in the labour
Directorate for Education and Skills, Paris, market. This paper shows how teachers can empower stu-
France.
Email: stephan.vincent-lancrin@oecd.org dents to develop their students' critical thinking. After re-
calling why critical thinking matters for democracy and the
economy, a definition of critical thinking is outlined. Next,
a demonstration is given of how the concept critical think-
ing can be translated and simplified using teacher-­friendly
rubrics that can support the design or redesign of lesson
plans, teacher observations and formative assessment—­as
well as standardised assessments. In conclusion, the paper
argues that critical thinking should be mainstreamed in all
subjects in school curricula, and that it leads to deeper un-
derstanding of subject matter content.

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N

Critical thinking has become key to the skillset that people should develop to have better prospects in the labour
market but also for a better personal and civic life. Discussions about fake news, media literacy, and digital compe-
tences have led to a renewed emphasis on critical thinking (a core value of the Western world since Plato) (Machete
& Turpin, 2020). Innovation has become increasingly important for economic growth in most economies (Avvisati
et al., 2013), but also to address global challenges such as sustainable development.
Many education systems have recently started to revise their curricula to adopt a competency-­based approach,
which highlights the importance of holistic education. That is, education that aims to simultaneously develop
students' knowledge, skills, attitudes and values. Most, if not all, curricula documents within OECD countries

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 OECD. European Journal of Education published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

354 | wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ejed
 Eur J Educ. 2023;58:354–368.
 14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
VINCENT-­L ANCRIN | 355

highlight critical thinking as one of the competencies students should acquire as part of their public education. In
most countries, civil society agrees with the view that schools should teach students to be creative and think inde-
pendently. Despite this broad consensus, it remains often unclear to teachers what it means in practice to develop
the critical thinking of students. The main reason that makes the change towards competency-­based curriculum
difficult may not be resistance to change, but rather the difficulty to envision what strengthening critical thinking
would require in teaching practices.
This paper builds and presents some of the findings of an international practice-­engaged OECD project look-
ing at how teachers could help their students develop two higher order skills: creativity and critical thinking
(Vincent-­L ancrin et al., 2019), with a focus on critical thinking. In a first section, I do a review of the origins and
recent research about critical thinking, then highlight sub-­skills that supported the development of rubrics for
teaching practices. After contrasting critical thinking and creativity, I present how the rubrics can help teachers
review and improve their lesson plans as well as assess the critical thinking of students. The conclusion links crit-
ical thinking to the concept of thinking like a scientist.

2 | D E FI N I N G C R ITI C A L TH I N K I N G

Critical thinking mainly aims at assessing the strength and appropriateness of a statement, theory, or idea, through
a questioning and perspective-­t aking process, which may (or not) result in a possibly novel statement or theory.
Critical thinking need not lead to an original position to a problem. The most conventional one may be the most
appropriate. However, it typically involves the examination and evaluation of different possible positions.
Critical thinking is usually traced back to the dialectic method of Socrates and of its followers, who sought
the truth based on questioning, identifying and challenging the strength of statements and underlying hypothe-
ses. One of the philosophical schools that put a radical version of critical thinking at the core of its philosophy is
scepticism (also known as pyrrhonism). The Sceptics emphasised the limits of human knowledge and maintained
that suspending our judgement was ultimately the appropriate stance towards existing theories. This form of radical
scepticism was taken seriously by philosophers and its discussion and critique have led to the foundations of many
philosophical theories of knowledge and science since the 17th century. Descartes and his successors attempted
to create a hierarchy of beliefs and evidence, while others theorised the limitations (and functioning) of the human
brain (e.g., Hume and Kant). The philosophy of the Enlightenment revived the idea that common beliefs could be
criticised and challenged and that knowledge, science, and free-­thinking could lead to better societies—­a philoso-
phy for example illustrated by the encyclopaedia developed by Diderot and D'Alembert in the 18th century.
Dewey is a classic reference to critical thinking in education (Dewey, 1933). He famously used the term in
English, although most of the time he talked about reflective thinking. Dewey noted that suspended judgement was
essential for critical thinking and that suspense entailed an inquiry for determining the nature of the problem be-
fore attempting to solve it (Dewey, 1933). Critical thinking would thus be an initial scepticism allowing for inquiry,
better understanding of the problem at hand before proposing a solution. Critical thinking can easily be linked
to the two speeds of thinking highlighted by Kahneman's distinction of fast and slow thinking (Kahneman, 2011).
While fast thinking is successful for most daily situations, it includes several systematic biases of the mind that
lead humans to give irrational or wrong solutions to even relatively simple analytical problems. Conversely, slow
thinking is the reflective and analytical thinking that attempts to remedy some of the biases of fast thinking. Fast
thinking is associated with confirmation bias (that speeds up the thinking process) and usually leads to an accurate
or rational solution to a problem (should one have the relevant technical knowledge to solve it). At its best, critical
thinking is one of the different forms of thinking slow, although it is not limited to finding the right answer to a
problem, and also includes determining its nature.
Applied to education (and higher education), the theory of critical thinking has been developed by philos-
ophers such as Ennis, Facione and McPeck (Ennis, 1996, 2018; Facione, 1990; McPeck, 1981; for an overview
 14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
356 | VINCENT-­L ANCRIN

of the literature see Davies & Barnett, 2015; Hitchcock, 2018). Hitchcock summarises most conceptions by
defining critical thinking as careful goal-­d irected thinking (Hitchcock, 2018). This is another version of Ennis'
definition of reasonable reflective thinking as thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do (Ennis, 2018).
In many cases, definitions of critical thinking emphasise logical or rational thinking. That is, the ability to
reason, assess arguments and evidence, and argue in a sound way to reach a relevant and appropriate solu-
tion to a problem. This is also typically what standardised assessments of critical thinking tend to assess.
However, critical thinking arguably goes beyond good analytical thinking and includes a dimension of critique
and perspective-­taking. This is not so much about taking someone else's perspective, but in the sense of per-
spectivism in philosophy (as developed by philosophers such as Leibniz and Nietzsche), which is about looking
at things from different perspectives. All perspectives or ways of seeing things may not be equivalent, and
some may be stronger than other, but they can all be valid and derived from rational or good thinking (and thus
true). Considering alternative perspectives may provide a more comprehensive and nuanced view of a specific
issue (and the world) (Brookfield, 1987).
This view has been well illustrated in modern epistemology with Foucault's concept of historically accepted
knowledge as epistemes (Foucault, 1966); also, with Kuhn's concept of paradigms (Kuhn, 1962). Building on Karl
Popper's falsification theory, Lakatos (Lakatos, 1980) provided one of the best illustrations of what critical think-
ing and its perspectivist dimension may look like in science. Scientists do indeed have different theories to explain
natural and social phenomena. Their research programmes embody these different views or perspectives. Lakatos
noted that a scientific research programme (that is, a theory) is composed of a hard core (of assumptions and pro-
cedures) and a protective belt (of secondary assumptions and procedures). Typically, scientists never challenge the
hard core of their research program, but rather change the secondary assumptions and theories to accommodate
facts that do not fit with it. In the normal regime of a research program, there is indeed no time to challenge
assumptions. Challenging the hard core of a research program, that is, its assumptions and ways of thinking, may
lead to a better understanding of its framework. In some cases, this may lead to another research program with
a different set of assumptions—­an occurrence of creative thinking. Within disciplines, a variety of research pro-
grammes often compete, even though some may be more widely accepted or successful in explaining relevant
phenomena than others. Some disciplines can be seen as competing research programmes departing from different
sets of values or assumptions about what matters and theories to explain observed facts (for example, economics
and sociology).
Thus, critical thinking is not merely limited to finding the right or appropriate solution after a reflective think-
ing process within a specific theory, paradigm, or discipline. It is not just about having a critical look at the second-
ary belt of assumptions to find a way to adapt the theory. From time to time, it is also about being able and willing
to challenge the core assumptions of theories, paradigms, or accepted knowledge; about recognising the possible
value of other perspectives or research programmes; assessing their possible strengths and weaknesses, and rec-
ognising that all theories or research programmes build on unproven assumptions, are limited, and include biases,
and uncertainties, even when reasonable and aligned with empirical perceptions and fast thinking. In addition to
rational and logical thinking, critical thinking thus includes two other dimensions: (1) the recognition of multiple
perspectives (or possibility to challenge a given one); and (2) the recognition of the assumptions (and limitations)
of any perspective, even when it appears superior to all other available.

2.1 | The sub-­skills of critical thinking

What are the cognitive processes or skills that together as a set of sub-­skills, contribute to critical thinking? Based
on a review of research literature and on working with teachers in different countries to find language amenable to
teaching practices (for teacher-­friendly language see Vincent-­L ancrin et al., 2019), the underlying macro-­processes
can be summarised under the following big headings: inquiring, imagining, doing, and reflecting. The headings
 14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
VINCENT-­L ANCRIN | 357

were chosen partly in a parallel effort for enabling creativity, whose sub-­skills can also be described using the
same headings.

2.1.1 | Inquiring

Determining and understanding the problem at hand, including its boundaries, is a first important dimension of
a critical thinking inquisitive process. Sometimes this includes wondering why the problem is posed in a certain
way, examining whether the associated solutions or statements may be based on inaccurate facts or reasoning,
and identifying the knowledge gaps. This inquiry process addresses in part rational thinking features such as
checking facts, observing, analysing the reasoning. Additionally, it includes a more critical dimension when it
comes to identifying the possible limitations of the solution. An inquiry process that challenges some of the
underlying assumptions and interpretations, even when facts are accurate. In many cases, inquiring involves
acquiring knowledge, verifying knowledge, and examining the components of the problem in detail as well as
the problem as a whole.

2.1.2 | Imagining

In critical thinking, imagination plays an important role as the mental elaboration of an idea—­but any thinking
involves some level of imagination. At a higher level, imagining is also about identifying and reviewing alternative,
competing world views, theories and assumptions, so as to consider the problem from multiple perspectives.
This allows for better identification of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed evidence, arguments, and
assumptions, even though this evaluation also belongs to the inquisitive process. Imagination also plays a role in
thought experiments, which can be a strong component of any good thinking, but also a way to explore alterna-
tives and make a point when experimentation is not possible (Dennett, 2013).

2.1.3 | Doing

The product of critical thinking is one's position or solution to a problem (or judgement about others' position or
solution). This mainly implies good inference, a balancing act between different ways of looking at the problem,
and thus recognition of its (possible) complexities. As with any good thinking, critical thinking implies the ability to
argue and justify one's position rationally, according to some existing perspectives and socially recognised ways
of reasoning, or possibly some new ones.

2.1.4 | Reflecting

Finally, even though one may consider one's position or way of thinking superior to some alternatives, per-
haps just because it embraces a wider view or is better supported by existing evidence, critical thinking
implies some self-­r eflective process about the perspective one endorses, its possible limitations and un-
certainties, and thus a certain level of humility and openness to other competing ideas. While one does not
have to embrace ancient scepticism and suspend one's judgement in all cases, this may sometimes be the
most appropriate position.
 14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
358 | VINCENT-­L ANCRIN

2.2 | Critical thinking and attitudes

Critical thinking has also been studied as a disposition or attitude. Teaching and learning critical thinking across
several subject matter areas (disciplines), is about developing this attitude—­which can then be demonstrated as
a skill. For example, Barnett has distinguished the following different forms of criticality: critical reason, which is
applied to knowledge; critical self-­reflection, which applies to the self; and critical action, which applies to the
world (Barnett, 2015). Vardi highlighted three dispositions involved in critical thinking: (1) self-­regulation (self-­
discipline and self-­management); (2) having an open, fair and reasonable mind, a preparedness to identify and
face one's own biases, and preparedness to reconsider one's own views where warranted; (3) being committed to
ongoing self-­improvement and being ready to develop one's knowledge (Vardi, 2015). In the same spirit, Thomas
and Lok analysed the dispositions or personal attitudes that support the development and application of critical
thinking skills (Thomas & Lok, 2015). They include to these: being open-­and fair-­minded; being truth-­seeking and
curious; avoiding cultural-­or trait-­induced bias and dichotomous black-­and-­white thinking (Thomas & Lok, 2015).
Synthesising the research literature on critical thinking, Hitchcock categorised critical thinking dispositions as
follows: attentiveness, the habit of inquiry, self-­confidence, courage, open-­mindedness, willingness to suspend
judgement, trust in reason, and truth-­seeking (Hitchcock, 2018).
In sum, critical thinking is a slow thinking process involving analytical thinking, looking at problems from different
perspectives, and the willingness to challenge assumptions and conventional ways of thinking before reaching a posi-
tion. Critical thinking does not necessarily end in a critique of the most widely accepted position on a topic—­which may
indeed be the strongest one, based on existing evidence. It requires having mere opinions (rather than convictions)
about facts, theories, and assumptions. Here follow a few examples of critical thinking actions: questioning and eval-
uating ideas and solutions before making up one's mind; carefully considering several possible alternatives for making
decisions; fully considering different arguments or views before rejecting (or accepting) them; suspending one's judge-
ment before one has time to inquire and while one is inquiring; working proactively against confirmation bias—­one's
own and that of others; accepting that there is not enough evidence to conclude firmly and remaining indecisive
because of the uncertainty. By contrast, while the following actions can be valuable, they cannot be considered an
expression of critical thinking. The act of finding the solution to a well-­specified complex problem is just problem solv-
ing that may or may not require any critical thinking. The act of accepting the first idea that comes to mind is aligned
with fast thinking, not critical thinking. Repeating without further examination what existing theories or authorities, or
local cultural views say, are examples of dogmatism and ethno-­centrism. Refusing all conclusions whatever they are,
as a matter of principle, based on the possible remaining uncertainties, or just because a position is widely accepted
socially—­this is in fact another form of automatic thinking.

2.3 | Critical thinking and creativity

As mentioned above, the OECD project focused on creativity as well as critical thinking, recognising the impor-
tance of both as innovation skills, but also that they had some commonalities that made it sensible to work on both
in parallel. Some participants in the project described them as the two sides of a coin: critical thinking may lead to
the identifying of a problem that creativity may solve.
Creativity and critical thinking are two distinct but related higher order cognitive skills. As such, both require
great mental effort and energy and are cognitively challenging. They are related in that they involve some similar
thought processes, but their goals differ. Critical thinking aims to carefully evaluate and judge statements, ideas
and theories relative to alternative explanations or solutions so as to reach a competent, independent position—­
possibly for action. Creativity aims to create novel, appropriate ideas and products.
The research on creativity and on critical thinking do not actually overlap much, even though critical think-
ing sometimes plays an important role in creativity, and vice versa. School curricula and educational rubrics are,
 14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
VINCENT-­L ANCRIN | 359

however, prone to group them together and to talk about “creative and critical thinking”. In the same spirit, Lucas
and Spencer include critical thinking (as well as problem solving) under the concept of creative thinking (Lucas &
Spencer, 2017). In some cases, this conflation leads to nuances and differences getting lost, but this also highlights
that some educational tasks may allow expanding and practicing sub-­skills that are important for both.
Many of the cognitive processes involved in creativity and critical thinking share commonalities. Both require
prior knowledge in the domain of application. The sub-­skills that need to be deployed for each competence in-
volve imagining, inquiring, doing and reflecting. The OECD has developed creativity rubrics that use those same
headings for both concepts. Creativity puts more emphasis on imagining (brainstorming, generating ideas and al-
ternatives), while critical thinking puts more emphasis on inquiring, including its more analytical and systematic di-
mension (understanding and deconstructing the problem). Critical thinking is mainly inquisitive, a detective way of
thinking; creative thinking is imaginative, the artist way of thinking. However, critical thinking involves imagining
alternative theories, counterfactuals, reasons, and results in an action (making a judgement). Creativity requires
making judgements and decisions about the alternative ideas generated in the imaginative process. Notably, cre-
ativity requires examining assumptions of existing solutions and conventions before its own act (creating some-
thing novel and appropriate)—­and thus some level of critical thinking, although it is not always necessary.
Both creativity and critical thinking require a certain level of openness and curiosity. Both may lead to challeng-
ing authority, values or accepted norms, and this is what may make them both valuable and sometimes challeng-
ing. Critical thinking requires scientific integrity; creativity requires discipline and judgement. When education is
conceived as the mere transmission of socially accepted knowledge, there is little room for creativity and critical
thinking. On the other hand, like most other skills, creativity and critical thinking only have to be exercised at some
points. Even if this was in practice possible, a world in which people were all the time creative or all the time critical
would be very hard to live in. Chances for cumulative knowledge and learning would become scarce, and the lack
of accepted conventions would make life in society difficult. Students also need to learn when and about what
they can or should think creatively or critically. In an educational context, both creative and critical thinking pursue
the deeper understanding of knowledge and solutions, and thus deeper learning. Developing creativity and critical
thinking is actually a way to improve learning and get students to acquire more expertise in a domain—­whether it
leads to the proposition of new knowledge and solutions or not.
Even though one can describe them at the conceptual level in a domain-­general way, both creativity and
critical thinking are in practice specific to a subject-­matter, or domain. Both require knowledge about a field or
context to be practiced, and usually being a strong creative or critical thinker in one domain does not imply any
transfer of those skills to another domain. In both cases, the research literature overwhelmingly emphasises this
domain-­specificity, even though, again, at a certain level of generality they can be described as domain-­general
(Barbot et al., 2016).
It was long believed that creativity was domain-­general, but virtually all creativity researchers now agree that
it is actually mainly domain-­specific (Baer, 2015). The research community on critical thinking also leans towards
the domain-­specificity of critical thinking (Dominguez & Payan-­C arreira, 2019). McPeck argued convincingly in an
exchange with Ennis (McPeck, 1981, 1990; Ennis, 1989) that critical thinking can only be exercised in a domain in
which one has a certain level of knowledge and expertise, and argued that transfer to other domains is difficult to
imagine, and has failed to materialise empirically even in a very narrow understanding of critical thinking as formal
and informal logic (Evans, 1982; Glaser, 1984). To our knowledge, empirical testing of whether strong critical think-
ers in one domain (say, philosophy) have similar higher performance in other domains (say, ancient poetry, music
or cooking) has not been carried out. But one can assume that the results would be similar to those for creativity.
The implications of the domain-­specificity of creativity and critical thinking are straightforward for edu-
cation. This does not mean that one cannot describe or talk about those skills in similar ways for all domains
or subjects at the conceptual level. This does not mean that similar patterns cannot be recognised in all do-
mains. However, this implies that creativity and critical thinking have to be acquired and experienced as part
of learning in the subjects rather than as a special class on creativity or on critical thinking. If creativity or
 14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
360 | VINCENT-­L ANCRIN

critical thinking were domain-­general, without having a dedicated class to develop those skills, we could also
leave the teaching of creativity to arts teachers, and the teaching of critical thinking to philosophy or science
teachers—­it would then be transferred to all other skills. Their domain-­specificity implies that transfer would
be hypothetical and that all teachers must feel in charge if these skills are to be consistently developed (even
as a mere disposition).
In terms of summative or standardised assessment, this also implies that performance in one domain or one
task should not be generalised to people's creativity or critical thinking in general. Performance in technical skills
in science is not necessarily a predictor of performance in technical skills in literacy, and the same applies to cre-
ativity and critical thinking.

3 | TE AC H I N G C R ITI C A L TH I N K I N G

3.1 | Using conceptual rubrics for intentionally developing critical thinking

Overall, there is a common understanding among researchers on the key dimensions of critical thinking, such as
those described in the previous sections. There are two main elements: thinking thoroughly and exploring alterna-
tives. However, transferring the concept to a consistent educational application requires further translation. This
is where rubrics intervene.
Rubrics are a way to simplify, translate and construct a social representation of what creativity and critical
thinking look like in the teaching and learning process. The purpose of using rubrics is to create a shared un-
derstanding of what creativity means in the classroom, and shared expectations among teachers, and among
teachers and students. The function of rubrics is to simplify big concepts to make them relevant to teachers
and learners in teaching and learning practices. Rubrics are a metacognitive tool that helps to make teaching
intentional and learning both visible and tangible. Different types of rubrics serve different purposes, some
are conceptual rubrics, some merely clarify what counts or what teachers and students should particularly keep
in mind.
As part of its project on Fostering creativity and critical thinking in education, the OECD worked with teachers
and school networks in eleven countries to develop rubrics and other supporting materials through a quick proto-
typing process (Vincent-­L ancrin et al., 2019). Two domain-­general conceptual rubrics were developed: a compre-
hensive rubric and class-­friendly rubric. Domain-­specific adaptations of those rubrics were also developed. Table 1
shows the comprehensive domain-­general rubric (first column), and the teaching practice oriented, or class-­friendly,
domain-­general rubric (second column) for critical thinking. A portfolio of domain-­specific rubrics (for science,
math, language art, music, and visual arts) was also developed. The comprehensive rubric has more descriptors
and presents in a more balanced way the two main dimensions of critical thinking: epistemic thinking and critique.
The class-­friendly rubric is simpler, with just one descriptor per heading, and puts more emphasis on the critique
dimension, mainly because this is the dimension that is less common in education (and challenging for teachers).
Depending on the subject of the lesson and the other learning outcomes they want to achieve, using a con-
ceptual rubric while designing a lesson helps teachers to build in it some assignments or tasks allowing students
to develop at least some of the sub-­skills of creativity or critical thinking. Some lessons may focus on developing
a few sub-­skills, while some can cover the full range. Existing lessons could be modified according to the same
process, just adding one opportunity to develop a sub-­skill here and there, thanks to small changes to the lesson
or its pedagogical delivery.
The conceptual rubrics also represent a key element of a metacognitive quality assurance method. After
deconstructing their lessons or entire course or project into steps, teachers can identify when students were
given the possibility or were requested to practice some of the skills identified in the rubric. This allows them to
double-­check whether their designed lessons had the quality they wanted as far as critical thinking objectives are
 VINCENT-­L ANCRIN

TA B L E 1 OECD rubric on critical thinking (domain-­general, comprehensive and class-­friendly).

Comprehensive (questioning and evaluating ideas and solutions) Class-­friendly (questioning and evaluating ideas and solutions)

Inquiring • Understand context/frame and boundaries of the problem Identify and question assumptions and generally accepted ideas or
• Identify and question assumptions, check the accuracy of facts and practices
interpretations, analyse gaps in knowledge
Imagining • Identify and review alternative theories and opinions and compare or Consider several perspectives on a problem based on different
imagine different perspectives on the problem assumptions
• Identify strengths and weaknesses of evidence, arguments, claims, and
beliefs
Doing • Justify a solution or reasoning on logical, ethical, or aesthetic criteria/ Explain both strengths and limitations of a product, a solution, or a
reasoning theory justified on logical, ethical, or aesthetic criteria
Reflecting • Evaluate and acknowledge the uncertainty or limits of the endorsed Reflect on the chosen solution/position relative to possible
solution or position alternatives
• Reflect on the possible bias of one's own perspective compared to other
perspectives

Note: These rubrics are meant for teachers/faculty use to identify the student skills related to creativity and to critical thinking to foster in teaching and learning, not for assessment.
Each column is generally presented alongside the creativity rubric in the same comprehensive or class-­friendly format.
Source: Author.
| 361

14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
362 | VINCENT-­L ANCRIN

concerned. Examples of lesson plans developed during the project include a mapping of the different steps of the
lesson against the sub-­skills of the conceptual rubrics.
The OECD rubrics were designed for use in real-­life teaching practices in different ways: (1) designing and
revising lesson plans to support students gain opportunity to develop critical thinking skills (and creativity); (2)
assessing student work and progression in the acquisition of these skills; (3) generating newly aligned rubrics
adapted to their local context or self-­assessment tools.
The fieldwork showed that seven in ten teachers participating in the international network did on average use
the OECD rubrics for those purposes. The rubrics have thus proven to be useful and were adopted well by teach-
ers in most of the countries in which the project was implemented.

3.2 | Designing lesson plans including critical thinking as a learning objective

While the conceptual rubrics presented above can support teachers to review their curriculum units and plan les-
sons that give students opportunities to develop the sub-­skills identified by the rubrics, they do not guide all key
dimensions of the pedagogies. While critical thinking can be nurtured in any domain, it requires giving students
certain types of tasks and problems.
Based on the feedback from the field as well as the peer-­review of proposed lessons by teachers, pedagogues
and researchers (Vincent-­L ancrin et al., 2019), a set of design criteria was developed to support teachers further,
building on learning science principles, including motivation, cognitive activation, self-­regulation, and opportuni-
ties for formative assessment (see Table 2). These design criteria for good lesson plans represent another set of
quality check and a new perspective on how to approach pedagogical redesign to foster students' critical thinking,
even though they arguably have a strong emphasis on creativity as well. By following these design criteria, teach-
ers will be able to nurture students' critical thinking in an engaging way.
The design criteria highlight that tasks to develop, and then demonstrate, critical thinking skills in educa-
tion share some general features. For example, they seek to engage students, may have a deliberate open
nature, and encourage students to explore multiple solutions to problems within parameters and constraints
that clarify goals, yet remain comparatively flexible to allow students to address them with a certain level of
agency.
The successful teaching of critical thinking also hinges critically on teacher attitudes and in their ability to
create learning environments where students feel safe to take risks in their thinking and expressions. This in
turn presupposes a positive attitude towards mistakes and learner empowerment, including learning to express
critique in a constructive way and in relation to productions (e.g. ideas, assumptions and theories) rather than
individuals. A positive attitude among teachers towards student mistakes or failure can take the form of using
these to trigger reflection about learning opportunities, thus helping students to see misunderstandings and other
matters too often labelled failures as a chance for improvement (Brookfield, 2012). Choosing questions and tasks
that teachers themselves cannot resolve can make it clear to students that the thinking process behind a problem
can be as important as its answer. This is typically the role of the Driving Question Board in project-­based learning
(Schneider et al., 2020), which has to come with a positive teacher attitude towards student questions, and also
student explanations.

4 | A S S E S S I N G C R ITI C A L TH I N K I N G

What is important to teach must also be assessed, both by teachers and by education systems. In the case of
critical thinking, some aspects are already part of common practices, notably the logical aspect, such as justifying
 VINCENT-­L ANCRIN

TA B L E 2 Design criteria for activities that foster creativity or critical thinking skills.

A pedagogical activity aligned with the OECD rubric on

creativity and critical thinking should Comments

1. Create students' need and interest to learn • Usually implies starting with a big question or an unusual activity
• May imply coming back to these questions several times during the activity
2. Be challenging • Often, the lack of student engagement comes from learning goals or activities that lack challenge. The
tasks should be challenging enough, though not too difficult given the students' level
3. Develop clear technical knowledge in one domain or more • The activity should include the acquisition and practice of both content and procedural knowledge
(technical knowledge)
4. Include the development of a product • A product (a paper, a presentation, a performance, a model, etc.) makes the learning visible and tangible
• Teachers and students should also be attentive to and possibly document the learning process
5. Have students co-­design part of the product, solution or • Products should thus in principle not all look alike
problem
6. Deal with problems that can be looked at from different • Problems should have several possible solutions
perspectives • Several techniques may be used to solve them
7. Leave room for the unexpected • Teachers and students do not have to know all the answers
• The most commonly adopted techniques/solutions may have to be taught and learned, but there should
be room for exploring or discussing unexpected answers
8. Include space and time for students to reflect and give and
receive feedback

Source: Vincent-­L ancrin et al. (2019).

| 363

14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
364 | VINCENT-­L ANCRIN

one's claims, and identifying strengths and weaknesses of arguments. What is less often done is the critique part
of critical thinking, including the perspective-­t aking.
Beyond a better understanding of the skills that one should develop, rubrics can also be used to assess
student work. This is usually their main use in countries where they are popular. They usually have descriptors
of different levels of proficiency for each of their dimensions, either attached to a specific assignment or an
unspecified one.
Table 3 presents the OECD assessment rubric on critical thinking that was developed iteratively with teachers
and experts to support the formative assessment of critical thinking—­but could be used in a summative way too.
It has four proficiency levels. The two lower levels were intentionally defined so that they would not correlate
with the technical skills in the subject of the assignment. The initial level of progression (dormant) suggests that
the student work demonstrates a good level of mastery of the technical learning outcome in the subject, but not
in critical thinking. The lower level describes a lack of effort to demonstrate those skills in the assignment. The
second level (emergent) describes a relatively low level in these skills, but an attempt to demonstrate them. They
are deliberately combined with a possibly lower level of mastery in the technical skills in the subject (that is, the
other learning goals of the assignment). The third level (excellent) shows a good understanding of the problem,
presents an argued position that is compared to one alternative perspective, and understands the assumptions of
the proposed position. The fourth level (outstanding) differs by comparing to more than one alternative perspec-
tive, provides sound evidence, and is self-­reflective.
While final products say something about students' learning and skill acquisition, they do not tell the
whole story about the learning process. It could actually be that the final product does not fully reflect the
learning, and that teachers' assessments would differ if they had documentation about the whole process
rather than just the final output. The two product-­ and process approaches correspond to two different as-
sessment situations, depending on what the assessor can see and assess (or wants to). Assessing the learning
process implies that the assessor(s) were able to observe it (or documentation about it, for example through
a portfolio).
There is nonetheless a similar logic between the product and process dimensions of the scoring rubric. Level
1 (dormant) corresponds to a production process during which students did not explore alternatives, challenge
assumptions, and quickly jumped to conclusions and a position. Level 2 (emergent) corresponds to more attempts
to explore alternatives, suspend judgement and be careful in one's thinking, but a partially inappropriate under-
standing of the framing of the problem. At Level 3 (flourishing), students manage to consider and understand
another way of looking at the problem, are able to challenge some aspect of it (or see why it could be challenged),
and are self-­aware of the strengths but also possibly limitations of their position. Finally, at Level 4 (outstanding),
students went further and explored several rather than just one alternative theory or formulation of the problem,
challenged several positions, and showed an openness to feedback and critiques in addition to their own under-
standing of the strengths and limitations of their position.
When provided with an appropriate task that requires them to demonstrate critical thinking, this rubric can
be used to clarify expectations about critical thinking, to give feedback on students work process and output, and
even to grade student work on this dimension by attaching points to the different levels of the rubric. It should be
noted that typically, other learning outcomes such as subject matter specific content knowledge, communication,
and creativity, will also be graded and specific descriptors of proficiency level for those other learning goals should
also be provided separately.
Critical thinking should also be assessed as part of in national exams—­and in particular, in exams for tran-
sitioning from one level of education to the next (for example, university entrance exams where they exist).
It can also be part of (for students low-­stake) national evaluations, to inform the system. Several coun-
tries have started to develop national evaluations. Many standardised tests have also been developed in
this area.
 TA B L E 3 OECD assessment rubric for critical thinking.

Level 4 outstanding Level 3 flourishing Level 2 emergent Level 1 dormant

Product Student work Student work Student work Student work

• Presents a specific personal position to a • Presents a personal position to a clearly • Presents a position to • Presents a commonly
VINCENT-­L ANCRIN

clearly formulated problem formulated problem a problem that is not accepted position to
• Relates this position to alternative theories or • Relates this position to one alternative clearly formulated a problem
perspectives within or outside the discipline theory or perspective within or outside the • Relates this position to • Justifies it with
• Justifies the position with good evidence discipline one alternative theory sound evidence, but
• Acknowledges the assumptions and limitations • Justifies the position with some evidence or perspective within • Fails to question
of the chosen position • Acknowledges the assumptions of the the discipline its assumptions
chosen position • Provides little evidence or consider other
or acknowledges possible perspectives
only minimally the on the problem
assumptions and
limitations of the chosen
position
Process Work process Work process Work process Work process
• Considers several ways of formulating and • Considers one other way to formulate and • Shows the willingness to • Shows little
answering a problem answer the problem go beyond one's initial willingness to explore
• challenges several common positions or ideas • Challenges one common position or idea way to formulate and other positions or
about the problem about the problem answer the problem, but theories than the
• Shows a clear understanding of the strength • Shows a clear understanding of the strength • Does not clearly identify most commonly
and limitations of the chosen and alternative and limitations of the chosen and the the assumptions accepted one
positions alternative positions of the examined • Shows no willingness
• Shows an openness to the ideas, critiques, or theories or practices to question the
feedback of others when relevant or their strengths and assumptions of the
weaknesses chosen position,
theory, or practices

Note: The class-­friendly assessment rubric for critical thinking is supposed to assess a task targeting the acquisition of some learning outcome in a discipline or more. It is not meant
to assess a critical thinking exercise, but any exercise in which students have space to develop their critical thinking skills. Product refers to a visible final student work (for example
the response to a problem, an essay, an artefact of a performance). The criteria are meant to assess the student's work even if the learning process is not observable by the rater or
was not fully documented. Process refers to the learning and production process observed by the teachers or documented by the students. The process may not be entirely visible
in the final product as some interim ideas or aspects of the process may not be reflected in the final student work. Typically, the process could show a greater level of acquisition of
the skills than the product.
|

Source: Author.
365

14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
366 | VINCENT-­L ANCRIN

5 | CO N C LU S I O N S

Education systems do and should pay attention to the development of their students' critical thinking for a variety
of reasons. It matters for democratic values (and democracies) to thrive as well as for individuals to be ready for
the labour market at a time when digitalisation and other forms of innovation are reshaping OECD economies.
How can education systems support the development of students' critical thinking? This can be done by sup-
porting teachers to leave more room for critical thinking in teaching and learning. Also, by making it more visible
and tangible to teachers, what it looks like to provide more opportunities to develop one's critical thinking in a
classroom in a specific subject matter. This is what the OECD showcased with a network of teachers in eleven
countries by developing and piloting a portfolio of teacher-­friendly tools. These comprise conceptual rubrics that
help teachers and students identify the critical thinking sub-­skills students should develop, and teachers to reflect
on whether their lesson plans are intentionally providing space to develop those skills. The tools include design
criteria that supplement the rubrics to design learning scenarios that will support engagement, perspective-­t aking
and deeper learning; assessment rubrics that allow teachers to make their assessment criteria visible and enable
formative assessment. Over 100 examples for lesson plans and other materials for teachers to reflect on how they
can adjust teaching practices were also provided.1
Two possible supplementary approaches could be adopted. One consists of designing learning activities spe-
cifically targeting critical thinking, in addition to traditional subject lessons. It could for example focus on debates,
the assessment of different media and news. Another one, which we believe is more effective, consists of em-
bedding critical thinking in all subjects of the curriculum, so that students are repeatedly given the opportunity to
develop this skill, including in the subjects they appreciate the most. This implies that no teacher (e.g. science or
philosophy) should be considered the specialist of critical thinking but that all teachers should take responsibility
for it.
Some aspects of critical thinking, and notably its critique dimension may be challenging, especially as educa-
tion is also about the transmission of authoritative knowledge. Sometimes teachers may feel that opening space
for critical thinking threatens the asymmetrical relationship between teacher and student, forgetting that critical
thinking is not about critiquing teachers or their knowledge, but just about offering different perspectives on spe-
cific theories and issues. Another difficulty is that it takes time, as teachers have to select tasks and subjects that
can be considered from different perspectives, which is not the case of all problems (and not typically the case of
problems with only one right answer).
However, cultivating skills such as creativity and critical thinking as part of student learning improves the qual-
ity and depth of education. Osborne notes that critique is at the core of the scientific enterprise but usually absent
in science education. Meanwhile, critique offers a powerful means of enhancing student conceptual understand-
ing and student skills and capabilities with scientific reasoning (Osborne, 2010, 2014). There is no science without
a certain level of scepticism, as Feynman forcefully noted:

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience
is of very great importance. […] We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress
we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of state-
ments of varying degrees of certainty—­some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely
certain. […] Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of
science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question—­to doubt—­to not be sure. I
think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have
gained. Herein lies a responsibility to society. […] It is our responsibility as scientists […] to teach
how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty
to all coming generations.
(Feynman, 1955, pp. 245–­247)
 14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
VINCENT-­L ANCRIN | 367

Teaching and learning critical thinking is thus one way to think like a scientist and understand the values of scientific
inquiry—­whatever the subject, and even if, like for the mastery of content and procedural knowledge, one may reach
different levels of proficiency. Students are not necessarily expected to be as proficient as expert scientists—­not to
mention the most celebrated ones—­but this is something they can learn.

AC K N O​W L E D
​ G E ​M E N T S
Stéphan Vincent-­L ancrin is a Senior Analyst and Deputy Head of CERI at the OECD Directorate for Education and
Skills. The analyses given and the opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the OECD and of its members. The article draws on work from a CERI project on Fostering and
Assessing Creativity and Critical Thinking in Education (Vincent-­L ancrin et al., 2019). The author thanks Todd Lubart,
University of Paris, for stimulating discussions and helpful suggestions.

ORCID
Stéphan Vincent-­Lancrin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3108-2657

E N D N OT E
1
These materials are available at www.oecdc​ericct.com and https://www.oecd.org/educa​tion/foste​ring-­stude​nts-­creat​
ivity​-­and-­criti​c al-­think​ing-­62212​c37-­en.htm. See also Pasquinelli & Bronner (2021) for further examples of activities
in the French education context.

REFERENCES
Avvisati, F., Jacotin, G., & Vincent-­L ancrin, S. (2013). Educating higher education students for innovative economies:
What international data tell us. Tuning Journal of Higher Education, 1, 223–­240. www.tunin​g jour​nal.org/publi​c/
site/01/11_Educa​ting_Higher_Educa​tion_Stude​nts_for_Innov​ative_Econo​mies.pdf
Baer, J. (2015). Domain specificity of creativity. Academic Press.
Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2016). The generality-­specificity of creativity: Exploring the structure of creative
potential with EPoC. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 178–­187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.005
Barnett, R. (2015). A curriculum for critical being. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking
in higher education. Palgrave McMillan.
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting.
Jossey Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions.
Jossey-­Bass.
Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Dennett, D. C. (2013). Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking. Penguin Books.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Dover Publications.
Dominguez, C., & Payan-­C arreira, R. (Eds.). (2019). Promoting critical thinking in European higher education Institutions:
Towards an educational protocol. UTAD. https://repos​itorio.utad.pt/bitst​ream/10348/​9227/1/CRITH​INKED​U%20
O4%20%28ebo​ok%29_FINAL.pdf
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–­10. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00131​89X01​8 003004
Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Prentice-­Hall.
Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37(1), 165–­184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1124​
5-­016-­9401-­4
Evans, J. (Ed.) (1982), The psychology of deductive reasoning. Rouledge.
Facione, P. A. (1990). 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.
Feynman, R. (1955). The value of science. In R. Leighton (Ed.), “What do you care what other people think?” Further adven-
tures of a curious character (pp. 240–­247). Penguin Books.
Foucault, M. (1966). Lees mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines [The Order of Things: An Archaeology of
Human Sciences, English language edition by Vintage]. Gallimard.
 14653435, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 by Leandro Sousa - CAPES , Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
368 | VINCENT-­L ANCRIN

Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2), 93–­104. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-­066X.39.2.93
Hitchcock, D. (2018). Critical thinking. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition).
https://plato.stanf​ord.edu/archi​ves/fall2​018/entri​es/criti​c al-­thinking
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin Books.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1980). The methodology of scientific research Programmes. In J. Worrall & G. Currie (Eds.), Philosophical pa-
pers, (Volume 1). Cambridge University Press.
Lucas, B., & Spencer, E. (2017). Teaching creative thinking: Developing learners who generate ideas and can think critically.
Crown House Publishing Limited.
Machete P., & Turpin M. (2020). The use of critical thinking to identify fake news: A systematic literature review. In M.
Hattingh, M. Matthee, H. Smuts, I. Pappas, Y. K. Dwivedi, & M. Mäntymäki (Eds.), Responsible design, implementa-
tion and use of information and communication technology. I3E 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 12067).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­45002​-­1_20
McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical thinking and education. St. Martin's Press.
McPeck, J. E. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: A reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19, 10–­12. https://
doi.org/10.3102/00131​89X01​9004010
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–­466.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching critical thinking? New directions in science education. School Science Review, 95(352), 53–­62.
Pasquinelli, E., & Bronner, G. (Eds.). (2021). Éduquer à l'esprit critique: Bases théoriques et indications pratiques pour l'en-
seignement et la formation. Conseil Scientifique de l'Education Nationale. https://www.resea​u-­c anope.fr/filea​dmin/
user_uploa​d/Proje​t s/conse​il_scien​tifiq​ue_educa​tion_natio​nale/Resso​urces_pedag​ogiqu​es/VDEF_Eduqu​er_a_lespr​
it_criti​que_CSEN.pdf.
Schneider, B., Krajcik, J., Lavonen, J., & Salmela-­Aro, K. (2020). Learning science: The value of crafting engagement in science
environments. Yale University Press.
Thomas, K., & Lok, B. (2015). Teaching critical thinking: An operational framework. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The
Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Palgrave McMillan.
Vardi, I. (2015). The relationship between self-­regulation, personal epistemology, and becoming a ‘critical thinker’:
Implications for pedagogy. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher educa-
tion. Palgrave McMillan.
Vincent-­L ancrin, S., González-­Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-­Barrerra, M., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal,
Q. (2019). Fostering Students' creativity and critical thinking in education: What it means in school. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/62212​c37-­en

How to cite this article: Vincent-­Lancrin, S. (2023). Fostering and assessing student critical thinking: From
theory to teaching practice. European Journal of Education, 58, 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12569