Promoting dialogical critical thinking in education: examining teachers’ practices and conceptualizations in the Norwegian school context

ABSTRACT

The importance of Critical Thinking (CT), as a set of central competences for future and present citizens and as a prerequisite for a participative democratic life, is today beyond question. However, teachers seem relatively poorly equipped to teach CT, having both theoretical and methodological needs.

In this paper, we examine how teachers’ practices and conceptualizations towards the implementation of CT have evolved during the first three years of an EU-financed collaborative teacher development project named CLAE (Critical Literacies and Awareness in Education (2017–2022)). We investigate a series of two interviews with 5 primary school teachers working in Norway (grades 5–7).

Research findings show that teachers consider pupils’ involvement as a central prerequisite for the implementation of CT in practice. They also highlight two different ‘teaching paths’ among teachers when implementing CT. The first one emphasizes the development of dialogical activities, whereas the second one facilitates the development of metacognitive skills and awareness. These respective teaching paths do not oppose each other but constitute real complementary strategies through which teachers try to shape the class (the group of pupils) into an effective dialogic epistemic space.

Keywords:

• Critical thinking
• critical awareness
• critical pedagogy
• education
• teachers’ practices

Introduction

The importance of Critical Thinking (CT), as a set of central competences for future and present citizens and as a prerequisite for a participative democratic life, is today beyond question (Bronner, 2022; Davies & Barnett, 2015; Ten Dam & Volman, 2004).

This idea is not new but has become more crucial in the wake of the increasing role social media plays in democratic life (Anderson, 2008; Bronner, 2015, 2022; Terren & Broge-Bravo, 2021). The outburst of violent and antidemocratic processes against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar in 2018 (McKirdy, 2018), in Ethiopia in 2020 (MacKintosh, 2021), in the storming of the US Congress on 6 January 2021 or since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, are some blatant illustrations of a global problem which is not only about misinformation and fake news but also about the massive development of what has been called ‘echo chambers’. Echo chambers, defined as places where ‘users (…) interact with likeminded others and/or (…) are exposed to ideologically-aligned content’, fragilize interactions and encourage processes of polarization in societies (Terren & Broge-Bravo, 2021, p. 110).

In a recent report on the importance of CT education, Gérald Bronner points out that ‘the existence of a common epistemic space is the foundation of social life, especially of democratic life’ (2022, p. 25). In a dialogical epistemic space, unlike in echo chambers, knowledge and information can be discussed and disagreements can arise in a constructive and enlightening way. The same report stresses that the immense challenges of the 21st century will only find an answer on one condition: ‘being able to get the most out of the collective intelligence’ (Bronner, 2022, p. 25). In this ongoing global quest for collective solutions and collective intelligence, CT education and consideration of the classroom as a privileged dialogical epistemic space are central prerequisites.

The importance of CT education is widely acknowledged by different public, national educational authorities and curricula (Larsson, 2017; Pithers & Soden, 2000; Santos Meneses, 2020). However, teachers seem relatively poorly equipped to teach CT, having both theoretical and methodological needs (Barnett, 2015; Kuhn & Dean, 2004; Larsson, 2017; Manalo, 2022). The goal of this paper is to track how teachers’ understanding and practices regarding CT have changed over the three-year period of an EU-financed collaborative teacher development project named CLAE (Critical Literacies and Awareness in Education (2017–2022)) as a way of assessing the effectiveness of the project. The CLAE project aimed at implementing CT education in primary and lower secondary schools in different European countries (France, Norway and Spain¹) and more specifically at equipping teachers with the wherewithal to teach CT. In this paper, the focus is on the Norwegian context and poses three research questions:

1. How do teachers report about their own practices while implementing CT and which changes do they report?

2. Which changes do teachers observe in pupils’ attitudes while teaching CT?

3. Which changes do teachers report about their conceptual understandings of CT?

CT in the context of the new Norwegian curriculum (LK20) and curriculum theory

In Norway, the new curriculum (LK20) formalizes CT as one of the core transdisciplinary competences from primary to secondary school and suggests a multifaceted approach to CT.

First, the conceptualization of CT in LK20 asserts the necessity to go beyond the process of knowledge-acquisition and to connect to pupils’ knowledge-production and creative thinking (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2017, p. 7).²

Furthermore, the production of knowledge is connected to a methodology. Being a ‘critical thinker’ begins with an ability to use investigative and analytical methods to solve a problem or challenge. Thus, it is not just a matter of finding answers or solutions, but of asking good questions, using ‘reasoning in investigative and systematic ways when facing concrete practical challenges, phenomena, expressions and forms of knowledge’ (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2017, p. 7).

Moreover, CT is connected to a broader epistemological reflection on how knowledge is actually produced: ‘Pupils should be able to assess different sources of knowledge and think critically about how knowledge is developed’ (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2017, p. 7). LK20’s approach to CT insists on the fact that pupils should be encouraged to critically evaluate sources of information and to produce knowledge, not just to re-produce knowledge. They should also be encouraged to reflect on how ‘knowledge’ is constructed and established in society. In this matter, pupils should develop metacognitive skills, a capacity of assessing their own thoughts, experiences and actions: ‘They should also be able to understand that their own experiences, positions and beliefs may be incomplete or incorrect’ (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2017, p. 7).

Finally, LK20 explicitly links CT to the concept of ‘ethical awareness’, which interprets CT as a way of ‘being’ or attitude when interacting with other ideas or people in society. In the Norwegian curriculum, CT is not only defined as ‘thinking’ or as a set of cognitive and metacognitive skills, but also connected to an ethical attitude, a way of being in the world.

William A. Reid asserts that curriculum theory is about how to solve curriculum problems which ‘relate most closely to that class of questions that are referred to (…) uncertain practical questions’ (1999, p. 17). By implementing CT as a core dimension, the new Norwegian curriculum (LK20) introduces an ‘uncertain practical question’: ‘How to define, understand and implement CT in practice?’. Reid underlines also that the solutions to uncertain practical questions have to be found through practical actions and ‘(…) interactive consideration of means and ends’ (1999, p. 18). To answer the question ‘how to implement CT?’ in the CLAE project, teachers and researchers constituted a ‘community of inquiry’ (Lipman, 2003, p. 20; Normand et al., 2021, p. 281) and have been searching for answers and solutions through the development of a TPD (Teacher Professional Development) programme.³

Although the essential role of TPD for changing classroom practices, improving learning outcomes and answering curriculum problems is widely acknowledged (Borko, 2004; Postholm, 2012), the issue of what makes such programmes effective is still debated. On the one hand, a certain consensus asserts that successful programmes are characterized by sustained duration, collaborative and open cultural practices, active learning methods, clear link to the curriculum and practice-based, substantive focus on both students’ and teachers’ needs, motivation and positive agency of the participants, relations of trust and leadership support, use of external expertise (Cordingley et al., 2015; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Desimone, 2009; Dunst et al., 2015; Ermeling & Yarbo, 2016; Guskey, 2002; Soini et al., 2016; Walter & Briggs, 2012). On the other hand, different voices have engaged critically with this consensus (Guskey, 2003; Kennedy, 2016; Popova et al., 2021; Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021).

The CLAE project constitutes a case-study which addresses curriculum problems in a deliberative and collaborative way, using investigating practices that involve both researchers and teachers (Reid, 1999, p. 18). In doing so, this project participates in assessing the effectiveness of the TPD programme developed during the CLAE period and presented under the methodology section of this paper.

Research status and theoretical framework about CT

Research in education has for a long time emphasized challenges in terms of the transferability of the concept of CT from theory to practice. Several studies assert that although most democratic societies vigorously affirm the importance of CT education, the implementation of this competence in teaching tends to be difficult to document. A gap remains between the affirmation of the political aim of CT education and the realization of this aim in the classroom (Ellerton, 2015; Larsson, 2017; Manalo, 2022; Normand et al., 2021; Pithers & Soden, 2000; Ten Dam & Volman, 2004; Tsui, 1999). A possible explanation for this gap is that school reforms and implementation of new curricula are usually considered to follow each other, without achieving substantial support for teachers’ practices (Dale et al., 2011). One reason for this failure lies in the lack of collaborative professional development programmes (TPD) that adapt the curriculum’s aims and objectives to the daily lived reality of the teachers in the exercise of their work (Kvamme, 2023).

Nevertheless, several studies over the past decades have also produced central results for the teaching of CT (Abrami et al., 2015; Daniel & Gagnon, 2011; Ennis, 2015; Halpern, 2013; Kuhn, 1999; Manalo, 2022). These studies show, for instance, that CT is a competence that can be trained over time in the same way we learn to read, write or even speak another language (Abrami et al., 2015; Fung & Howe, 2014; Kong, 2014; Kwan & Wong, 2014; Terenzini et al., 1995, p. 26; Tsui, 1999). More concretely, studies show the positive effects of teaching CT on transferability of skills, competences and attitudes. Skills acquired in one activity are easily mobilized in other types of activities when teaching is based on the development of CT through good dialogical practices, the use of the pupils’ personal experiences and the development of metacognitive skills (Abrami et al., 2015; Halpern, 2013; Manalo, 2022). This tends to confirm that CT can be trained and should be integrated in teaching activities in a systematic way and over time, facilitating at the same time transferability of skills and ‘deep learning’ (Manalo, 2022).

Other studies underline the importance of metacognitive skills and the practice of good dialogues and interactions in the development of CT among pupils and students (Brookfield, 1987; Daniel & Gagnon, 2011; Daniel et al., 2005; Ennis, 2015; Kim & Wilkinson, 2019; Kuhn, 1999; Santos Meneses, 2020; Ten Dam & Volman, 2004; Terenzini et al., 1995; Tsui, 1999; Wilkinson et al., 2017). After observing classroom conversations in three different countries (Australia, Mexico and Canada) and approx. 250 pupils, Daniel and her colleagues conclude that the development of CT depends on the following four thinking modes: logic, creative, responsible and metacognitive (Daniel et al., 2005, p. 343). Their conclusion underlines the fact that metacognition and good dialogical practices were crucial factors in achieving a higher degree of CT, which they document through the observation of ‘critical dialogical exchanges’ (Daniel et al., 2005, p. 340). Such exchanges are characterized by a negotiation of views between the pupils. This involves an open process where the conclusions are not ‘locked’:

A critical dialogical exchange often takes on the appearance of a negotiation of viewpoints, a transaction among pupils, an open process in which the conclusions, when they are spoken, are open and temporary, serving as hypothesis for future reflection. (Daniel et al., 2005, p. 340)

More recently, a systematic review of the scientific literature on CT education asserts an overall beneficial effect in the development of CT when pedagogical interventions include dialogues and exchanges, the teaching of concrete, localized and realistic problems for the pupils, an adapted mentoring on the teacher’s side, and metacognitive inputs (Abrami et al., 2015).

Based on this research status, the definition of CT and the development of TDP programme in CLAE project was aligned with recent conceptualizations of CT which affirm that education should operate at three different levels. CT is considered as central for learning processes (knowledge acquisition and knowledge production) and personal development, but also for social change:

Criticality can be achieved in three domains, those of knowledge, the self, and the world. A curriculum intended to develop critical persons necessarily, therefore, has to find some way of developing CT in the three domains so as to develop critical thought, critical self-reflection and critical action. (Barnett, 2015, p. 75)

As we can see, this approach is closely connected to LK20 and the three different objectives for CT education defined as information-acquisition objectives, self-development objectives and social development objectives (Daniel et al., 2005, p. 337). According to recent research in the field, teaching CT in education involves not only ‘thinking’, but also ‘being’ and ‘acting’, by taking responsibility and making independent and thoughtful choices. This theoretical approach and understanding of CT constitute a fundamental basis for the development of the TPD programme within the CLAE project.

Methodology

Design

The first phase of the CLAE project (2017–2019) was designed as a comparative project involving 8 teachers and 4 schools from Norway, and 9 teachers and 3 schools from France. All the teachers worked within the fields of L1 (Norwegian and French), English as FL and History/Social Studies.

As mentioned earlier, researchers, teachers and school leaders formed a ‘community of inquiry’ that met regularly to observe, reflect on theoretical concepts and develop teaching methods and strategies.⁴ In line with LK20, the aim of the first year of the project was to strengthen teachers’ professional development by building ‘professional practice on common values and a common research and experience-based knowledge’ (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2017, p. 18).

CLAE was clearly designed as an exploratory project whose main goals were to verify the transferability of curriculum aims and objectives in relation to CT education into practice and to investigate how teachers developed their own practices and conceptualizations when implementing CT in teaching. From the very beginning, the theoretical framework for the project had to be explained, discussed and clarified in connection with the teachers’ feedback, experiences and questions. In that regard, the project was designed as both deductive and inductive. Deductive because researchers informed teachers about research findings and suggested conceptual clarifications during seminars and workshops (see Table 1). But the project was also inductive because teachers and classrooms functioned as an inquiring and exploratory arena for theoretical perspectives and research findings. This means that the constituted community of inquiry aimed to progressively gain a deeper understanding of theories related to CT and how these theories worked in relation to teachers’ practices and conceptualizations. The theories were thus actualized in the light of practice since they gained an expanded and deeper meaning for the community of inquiry.

Table 1. Activities within the CLAE project and the constituted community of inquiry.

	Spring 2018	Autumn 2018	Spring 2019	Autumn 2019
Seminars/Workshops “teachers-researchers”	X		X
Log writing (teachers)	X	X	X	X
Interview		X		X

In connection with research findings (Abrami et al., 2015; Daniel et al., 2005; Halpern, 2013; Manalo, 2022) and LK20, three key challenges were introduced with the teachers at the beginning of the project: how to develop and challenge pupils’ epistemological points of view, how to promote active learning among pupils, and finally, how to enhance pupils’ learning motivation and engagement.

Data collection

The collaboration between researchers and teachers consisted of joint seminars to discuss definitions of CT, and to design, test and reflect upon teaching activities (cf. Table 1).

The data on which our analyses are based in this article, is a series of two interviews with 5 teachers who work at primary schools in Norway (grades 5–7) (cf. Table 2). The 5 teachers in both Norwegian as L1 and Social Sciences were identified and investigated as a ‘case’ (Yin, 2006).

Table 2. Presentation of the five teachers.

Teacher	Gender	Education^5	Seniority	Age category
Vilde	F	Teacher education, 4 years	5–10 years	30–35
Nina	F	Teacher education, 5 years	5–10 years	30–35
Nathan	M	Teacher education, 4 years	1–5 years	25–30
Terry	M	Teacher education, 5 years	1–5 years	25–30
Simon	M	Teacher education, 4 years	15–20 years	40–45

The first interviews (I1) were conducted in September-October 2018, approximately eight months after the beginning of the project. The second interviews (I2) were conducted during the period October-November 2019, approximately 20 months after the beginning of the project. All the interviews lasted between 45–60 minutes. They were audio-recorded and then transcribed. The interviews were semi-structured to create an atmosphere of trust and flexibility (Hammer & Wildavsky, 2018). During the interviews, the respondent was encouraged to think aloud in relation to the three key challenges mentioned earlier (pupils’ epistemological point of view, active learning, and pupils’ motivation and engagement). The fact that the same researchers and teachers were associated in a community of inquiry during the three years facilitated the communication and made it also possible to challenge answers. To facilitate the reflections and the conversation, teachers received the questions before the interviews. The interviews also included questions about the logs the teachers had to write in connection with concrete teaching activities they had to design and test (cf. Table 1). This was done to give teachers the opportunity to reflect on the basis of concrete methods and practices, and not only on the basis of theoretical considerations. Both interviews were structured around central open questions formulated as follows:

1. Why did you choose the specific teaching activity you have documented in the log?

2. How would you define CT?

   • - On a general basis

   • - In the specific activity/activities you have documented in the log

   • - If you were to prioritize the three most important principles for developing a good plan with/about CT, what would they be?

   • - What is most challenging when you implement CT in your teaching?

3. Which method would you prioritize to assess CT and what should characterize a student who ‘thinks critically’?

4. Would you say that the focus on CT in your teaching contributed to change:

   • - Your own practice?

   • - The pupils’ attitudes?

   • - Your understanding of CT?

Data analysis

We used an analytical technique called ‘pattern-matching’ in the treatment of the data (Yin, 2006, p. 118). This method is based on a qualitative content analysis where the main aim is to identify patterns in each interview (I1 and I2) and changes of patterns between I1 and I2. To organize, store and classify the data, we used the software NVivo. We coded the transcripts of both interviews in relation with the three research questions defined in the introduction on 1) teachers’ practices, 2) observation of pupils’ attitudes and 3) teachers’ conceptual understandings of CT. For each teacher, we sampled all coded fragments in which the teachers said something about practices, pupils’ attitudes and conceptual understandings. We then compared the changes between the answers formulated by each teacher between I1 and I2, focusing on 1), 2) and 3). In the final step, this analytical approach gave us the opportunity to compare and identify the existence of common patterns between teachers, which has been called ‘teaching paths’ in the analytical part of this paper.

Research findings

In a previous article connected to the CLAE project, we documented that the subject taught and the different national contexts (i.e. the national curricula, the teacher education programmes and the teaching cultures) had a certain impact on CT teaching (Normand et al., 2021). These observations are in line with previous research in the field as shown earlier.

In the case examined in this paper, we wanted to limit the possible impacts of the subject taught and of the national context to produce an in-depth analysis of the changes in the teachers’ practices, the pupils’ attitudes and the teachers’ conceptual understandings (as reported and observed by the teachers). It is this need for limitation that drew us to focus on a case consisting of five teachers in L1 and social sciences (Vilde, Nina, Nathan, Terry and Simon⁶)⁷ and on the Norwegian context. Even though we will mostly refer to the data gathered through the interviews in this paper, it is also important to mention that some of the reflections of the teachers during the interviews are based on logs in which teachers document and test concrete teaching activities (cf. Table 1).

Teachers’ practices

Reflections connected to own practices is the most discussed topic during the interviews with the five teachers. The teachers share many common reflections and experiences related to their practices, but clear variations exist between the teachers. In that regard, both similarities and variations are interesting because they give us the opportunity to better understand how teachers’ practices change while implementing CT.

The need to develop pupils’ involvement

To start with, all five teachers problematize and discuss early in the project the necessity to create engagement and motivation among pupils. This perspective is rapidly identified by the teachers as a key element or even a prerequisite for the implementation of CT in their teaching:

What I think is most important is to work on topics that the pupils can engage with (…) I have experienced (…) that the pupils’ involvement (…) is extremely crucial to whether I get them with me or not. If not, they become passive. They just accept and do what they are asked to do (…), but they are not really active or engaged. (Vilde, I1)

Nina also expresses interesting reflections connected to the development of CT in practice and the need to create engaging activities. She clearly mentions the necessity as a teacher of being ‘more aware of the texts that are picked to create more engagement’ (Nina, I1). Nina experiences that the choice of topics and texts is something that matters in the teaching of CT and is probably something she should focus more on in the planning of her teaching.

Nathan also recognizes the necessity of engaging the pupils using concrete teaching methodologies. In his case, the creation of dilemmas for the pupils is a clear strategy: ‘I like to create a dilemma for the students, so that they have to try to understand something they may not fully understand (…)’ (Nathan, I1). Nathan insists also, like Nina, on the development of a deeper awareness about how topics are introduced by the teacher for the pupils:

When it comes to my own practice, I am more aware of how I introduce things, because I must think through why I do this. I think more about what I say and do in the classroom in the form of being critical of/in my own practice (…). (Nathan, I1)

Terry is also clear about the fact that teaching CT demands a deeper reflection about what and how he teaches:

It (teaching CT) really depends on what topic we are going to work with. Right now, we are looking at the French Revolution, so I tend to suggest that they reflect on causes and effects. First and foremost, they have to fill up the knowledge bank about the topic, and then I start asking questions about causes and effects. I always try to draw lines from the present day, so that it becomes a little closer to the students’ interests and contexts. They must have something tangible, that they can relate to, otherwise it can become too abstract. For example, I find video clips about (…) how life was like, and then I ask the pupils if they can draw it into their own lives. (Terry, I1)

Like Nathan, Terry refers to the implementation of teaching strategies to facilitate pupils’ involvement. He mentions the use of ‘provocative questions’ that invite pupils to respond and to discuss societal issues or historical phenomena:

I usually start with provocative questions about school, politics, immigration (…) You have to get them a bit provoked, and then try to get them to reflect on the topic. (…) that’s how I get a reaction from them. So you have to start with something that is close to them, and work beyond that. And if you manage to get reflections on what they relate to, then you can reach something (…) (Terry, I1)

Simon also mentions the need to engage pupils to develop CT. Like Nathan, Simon aims at choosing topics the pupils can relate to. One of his favourite methods is to use local newspapers. In this way, he brings into the classroom debates and discussions that are happening outside the classroom, and preferably in the local community. The example he mentions here deals with discussions about the location of the school:

When I talked about freedom of speech (…) I took our local newspaper and talked about the local school that had to be moved, and about teachers who have been involved and stood up and wrote letters to politicians. This process that has taken place here is something they could have been interested in and using (…) that Martin Luther quarrelled with the Catholic Church is difficult to understand (…). But what is happening today? What are we discussing? (…) That’s how I try to put it. There is something in teaching that we can draw into everyday life. (Simon, I1)

As we can see in the teachers’ reflections in I1, there is a clear concern to encourage pupils’ involvement, understood as a prerequisite for the development of CT. To some extent, pupils’ involvement relates to content perspectives (which topic is taught). Teachers argue for the need to teach about familiar topics, topics the pupils can relate to, or the need to make the topic relevant, for instance, by connecting past and present or global and local perspectives. But in this process, teachers also develop reflections connecting teaching methodologies to pupils’ involvement. The focus in their reflection is not only on content but also on methods. Asking good (provocative) questions or creating relevant dilemmas for the pupils seem to be considered as adequate privileged strategies by teachers for the implementation of CT in their own practice.

The need to develop independent thoughts and interactions

Rapidly in I1, some teachers stress methodological aspects and start to discuss qualitative considerations when teaching CT. In Vilde’s reflection, it is central that the focus on making the pupils active is connected to the creation of independent and creative thoughts. According to her, having engaged pupils is a prerequisite for the development of independent thoughts. Active participation is not an aim in itself:

I feel like my pupils think too little by themselves. Therefore, I wanted to propose an activity that ‘forced’ them to think for themselves. (…) The reason why I wanted this kind of activity was because I felt that pupils were ‘instructed’ too much… I wanted to see what pupils thought and therefore I chose sources (pictures) which were difficult to interpret. (…) It is important that we evaluate pupils’ work so that we make sure that pupils do not lock themselves too much into our thoughts and ideas but develop their own. (Vilde, I1)

Moreover, teachers start to connect the development of independent thoughts to the question of how interactions should be organized in the classroom. Nina affirms for instance the need to be in charge: “Although we are open for pupils’ thoughts and reflections, I think it is important that we, as classroom’s leaders, avoid the pitfall that ‘everything is allowed’” (Nina, I1). Vilde develops the same kind of reflections when she says:

You are very dependent on the quality of the responses made by the pupils throughout the whole lesson really (…) you must think about the organization of the interactions. (…) We are used to discussing with the whole group questions such as ‘Is it allowed to just blurt out bad comments?’ ‘Can you hold whatever opinion you want as long as you can justify it?’. (…). (Vilde, I1)

Early in the project, Nina and Vilde state an aim of developing interactions for the development of independent and creative thoughts among pupils, but they also insist on the need to have clear rules for oral participation in the classroom:

I have explained to pupils that at school and elsewhere in life, it is important to be able to participate constructively in oral reflections and discussions (…) I repeat this incessantly – be curious, ask questions, contribute, be a good team player (…) Creating a learning environment characterized by generosity, warmth, humour and clear frameworks and expectations, is fundamental to creating space for wise and reflective dialogues. This requires continuous focus and clever work. (Nina, I1)

The need to focus on metacognitive skills and awareness

Another interesting aspect regarding Simon, Terry and Nathan, is that the implementation of CT in their practice is rapidly associated with the development of metacognitive skills:

(…) I ask questions about why they (the pupils) think what they think (…). (Simon, I1)

(…) It is of course central to ask questions about the text. What kind of perspectives are there in this text? What message will they convey? Is there a theme the author wants to discuss? What do they want to achieve? (…). But my first goal is that they should be sceptical when they get something in front of them and they should ask questions. But what kind of questions they should ask—that can be very difficult. (Terry, I1)

I try to draw in critical thinking as a ‘backdrop’ (…) it is often not the answer they come up with which is most important but the process along the way. (…) I have also said that my favourite question or my favourite question word is «why» (…) I think that the most important thing is that they reflect about the way they think. It is more important than the answer they come up with. (Nathan, I1)

According to Simon, Terry and Nathan, the implementation of CT in their own practices leads to a clear paradigm shift, which consists in making the pupils more aware of their own thoughts and attitudes. In the case of Simon and Nathan, this happens by asking the pupils direct questions about the way they think, focusing more on the ‘why-question’ (why do you think what you think?). Whereas with Terry, his goal is more to create a scepticism among pupils when they meet a text or information. Both perspectives are connected to the acquisition of a metacognitive awareness and the development of metacognitive strategies among pupils (Kuhn, 1999). In this case, the ability to reflect on how they think and on how they treat different sources of information.

Status after I1

After I1 and eight months with implementation of CT, teachers already report changes in their practices. All five participants have developed a clear awareness of the need to engage pupils in teaching and a clear focus on the development of responsible skills (Daniel et al., 2005). Early in the project, the topic of pupils’ involvement is considered among all the teachers as a core prerequisite for a successful implementation of CT in the classroom. This early connection between this prerequisite (pupils’ involvement) and the goal (development of pupils’ CT) can be seen as a clear starting point or an entrance gate for the renewal of the teachers’ practices.

What we also observe after I1 is that the path chosen by teachers for the renewal of their practices differs between teachers, but we observe two clear trends. Whereas Vilde and Nina emphasize the need to implement good routines for dialogical activities and interactions in the classroom, the other teachers tend to focus more on the need to develop pupils’ metacognitive skills and awareness (Simon, Terry and Nathan).

Changes in teachers’ practices from I1 to I2

From I1 to I2, it becomes clearer for Vilde that engaging pupils is not limited to the choice of adequate or relevant topics, but depends on the capacity of organizing good interactions and dialogues in the classroom. When Vilde answers the question about central principles for the development of CT among pupils, she says:

(…) it is first that they are able to say their opinion (…) that they take the initiative independently. Also that they listen to the others. Listen and let others talk. This is something we have worked on in relation with this activity. (Vilde, I2)

Furthermore, the organization of good dialogues in the classroom becomes clearly connected for Vilde with a need to assess interactions:

(…) We worked a lot with the criteria for how to discuss (…) It has been positive because in the past, it has been like ‘discuss this question’, and it is not easy for the pupils to know how to do it, and we just expect it to be done (…) But it doesn’t work in practice (…) so implementing criteria for good dialogues has been very straightforward to use, and pupils have also known what to deal with (…) Why haven’t I thought of that before? We always have criteria for all written work, so it will also be easier for pupils to deal with a discussion and achieve the good dialogue when they know what they have to deal with and work with (…). (Vilde, I2)

This change from creating engagement to developing good dialogues, and then to the question of oral assessment, is something Nina clearly reports as well:

(…) what has changed the most perhaps is the importance of the oral, I mean … , we are assessed on all sort of things, but orality is generally not assessed. During this project, I am more aware that … yes, it’s important to spend plenty of time on it (…). (Nina, I2)

What we observe among Vilde and Nina is a progressive change in their practice, which establishes a deeper relationship between the development of CT (the goal), the need to engage the pupils (the prerequisite), the creation of good interactions in the classroom (the teaching methods) and the need to develop concrete criteria for assessing dialogical practices (the teaching strategies). They underline that these criteria are actively used in their practices and that the pupils need to learn to use them.

Nathan also reports changes from I1 to I2 in his practice. He mentions a shift from a strong focus on knowledge acquisition towards more focus on interpretation and comparative tasks:

I probably have more comparison tasks and a little more interpretation than I had before (…) a lot more interpretation when I think about it. Before it was much more focused on reproducing facts or discussing facts (…), whereas now I’m looking for ‘What do you think?’ and ‘why?’. (…). (Nathan, I2)

The main change reported by Nathan in I2 is the focus on the development of metacognitive awareness: ‘(…) it’s about making the pupils aware of what they think and what they do and why’ (Nathan, I2). In fact, this focus on metacognitive development has also contributed to a change of his practices towards a greater focus on pupils’ involvement and participation:

I am very much more concerned with their (the pupils’) voices. I use them much more in my teaching and they are much more involved in shaping ‘What are we going to work on?’, ‘How would you solve this task, then?’, ‘What do you think about the way to do it?’. (Nathan, I2)

Nathan’s path towards the change of his practice is not exactly identical to what Nina or Vilde report. Nathan’s focus is clearly more on the development of pupils’ metacognition. This observation confirms what Nathan already reported in I1, but his comprehension of metacognition has evolved. He moves from a focus on metacognitive awareness, by asking the pupils why they think the way they think, to a greater focus on metacognitive strategies by including the ‘pupils’ voices’ in the elaboration of the activity and in the learning process. This change in Nathan’s practice is quite interesting because it clearly describes in practical terms what has been defined as a developmental goal in LK20 and CT education: ‘a developmental goal (…), to put people in metacognitive and meta-strategic control of their own knowing’ (Kuhn, 1999, p. 23).

The changes in Terry’s and Simon’s practices are also interesting. For them, the implementation of critical thinking in their practice has first led to a ‘liberation’ from the textbook and content-based teaching practices:

I think many teachers are reluctant to move away from planning activities with the textbooks where the focus is on getting meanings out of a text (…). (Terry, I2)

Before this project, I realize that I had not been able to really engage in critical thinking. (…) Before I only had a plan covering work assignments and learning goals taken from the curriculum and the textbooks. While now I think much more about what and how the pupils should learn and need to learn over time. (Simon, I1)

This liberation has been very productive because it leads to a clearer focus on pupils’ active learning and, for Terry, the importance of the pupils ‘asking questions’:

(…) you (teachers) get so insanely much freer if pupils learn to ask questions by themselves. I think a critical thinker becomes more independent because he dares to ask questions (…) it is important for the pupils to ask questions and not only to give the correct answer, but it is also important that you help pupils to find new ways to ask questions as well. (Terry, I2)

We already observe a similar change in Simon’s first interview. According to him, pupils’ active learning and self-assessment have become a more central perspective in his teaching:

Before I thought … Is assessment so important? (…) But now I want to know what the pupils think, what happens in group discussions or the plenary discussions and to really get the pupils’ opinions. I think it’s important that pupils participate in self-evaluation: what did you think yourself? and what did you learn? (…). (Simon, I1)

Simon reports that previously, teaching activities were done in a less thoughtful way. Since then, Simon has been questioning more directly the purpose and effects of activities on pupils’ learning. He underlines that his approach is now more connected to deep learning, and therefore leads to the need to select certain learning objectives more carefully. It seems that for Terry and Simon, implementing CT in practice has functioned as a ‘game-changer’, moving from teaching objectives where the content was central, to teaching objectives and strategies where the pupil’s active learning is now in focus. This change in Terry’s practices results in a greater focus on pupils asking questions and helping them to ask questions. In Simon’s practice, the focus has evolved towards a greater concern about the development of pupils’ learning and metacognition using self-assessment.

The five teachers report interesting changes in their own practices when implementing CT. They all shared a common objective or what curriculum theorist Reid called ‘an uncertain practical problem’ (p. 4) given by the project (how to implement CT) and worked together as ‘a community of inquiry’. They also shared a common theoretical framework related to CT education focusing on CT as a set of skills and attitudes (logic, creativity, responsibility and metacognition) and as dependent on the active use of dialogical practices. What all the teachers identify very early in the project is the existence of what they consider to be a prerequisite for the implementation of CT in their practices: pupils’ involvement. From the teachers’ perspectives and in an experience-based reflection, the implementation of CT from curriculum to practice depends clearly on the engagement of the pupils and the development of the pupils’ responsible skills. From this prerequisite, teachers develop different teaching paths with a clear focus on the need to frame the pupils’ voices, thoughts and meanings. Further on, these teaching paths lead to two different teaching methods and strategies. The first one emphasizes the use of dialogical practices in the classroom, whereas the other one insists on the development of metacognitive skills and awareness.

Teachers’ reports about pupils’ attitudes

In this part of our analysis, the goal is to report on how teachers experienced changes in pupils’ attitudes and how they report it.

Terry emphasizes from the start that it is challenging to change what he called a ‘traditional learning culture’ among his pupils, i.e. a change from a practice in which pupils are used to being passive, reproducing and retelling, to a practice in which pupils have to be engaged, creative and independent thinkers:

I think pupils are just used to retelling and they think it is good enough. I notice that they get very confused when they must explain and justify themselves, and often stop and just say ‘I do not know’. (…) they are really used to a traditional learning culture. (…). (Terry, I1)

Vilde underlines the same challenges when she refers to the first time she introduced self-assessment practices in relation with pupils’ oral activities:

At the start, both the pupils who participated in the discussion and the pupils who had to observe and report the oral participation were a bit frustrated (…) Nevertheless, after some practice, they reported it was very useful to use concrete assessment criteria in oral participation. (…). (Vilde, I2)

Otherwise, and already in I1, all the teachers extensively observe and report positive evolution in pupils’ attitudes, independently of the teaching path. The first observations stress a stronger engagement in teaching activities:

The pupils that I worked with over time have expressed that working with CT makes sense… they understand the importance of being able to discuss things, put words on things and understand each other in all sorts of perspectives and variants. (Nina, I2)

I said it before, but I have never experienced ‘bad’ activities when I have been working with CT in my teaching. I feel it is so easy to engage students in those lessons. (Vilde, I2)

I feel like the pupils become more engaged. There are always some who fall out (…). But I experience this to a lesser extent than before. I think the pupils find my teaching more interesting as well. I experience that the commitment among pupils is greater and it is very enriching. (…). (Simon, I1)

Another observation made by the teachers highlights the pupils’ ability to ask reflective questions:

I think the most concrete thing about my class is that my pupils have become better at asking critical questions. (…). (Nathan, I1)

Yes, there have been some changes at the lower grades (…). I have noticed it when I talk to the pupils, when I ask them questions and ask them to explain more, they really try. It’s an ongoing process, but when you’ve been following a certain path for a very long time, it’s hard for the pupils to change. I did not expect to see more than I do. (…). (Terry, I1)

Vilde also reports longer discussions and greater awareness among pupils, especially related to their own participation in the activities and their own critical reflection:

I felt that the discussions lasted longer, were better and more reflective/critical with clear assessment and self-assessment criteria. It seems that most pupils have gained awareness of their own participation and become more reflective and critical (…). (Vilde, I2)

The connection between changes in teachers’ practices and pupils’ attitudes is interesting, because it shows us to what extent CT education is not only about creating good practices in relation with central principles and theories for the acquisition and the development of CT. It also depends on creating a learning context in which pupils manage to respond and to engage.

What the teachers report in this project is that such processes are challenging and take time. Concretely, it takes time to change the pupils’ habits and learning culture. The implementation of CT education demands a focus on concrete teaching practices and methods, but to be successful it also clearly depends on pupils’ attitudes. Teachers observed that many pupils are not used to working with CT perspectives, as emphasized by research. Being active in interactions, engaging in exchanges of meanings, and reflecting upon your own thoughts is challenging, especially when you are not used to it. At the same time, all the teachers report that it is worth investing time to implement dialogical practices and enhance metacognition in teaching, because it tends to clearly and rapidly create better and more engagement, better and more discussions, and more reflective pupils.

Teachers’ conceptualization of CT

One of the main goals of the CLAE project was to challenge and experiment with the connection between theories and practices in CT education, so the teachers could find their own paths towards implementation of CT. In the last part of this analysis, we will therefore examine how teachers’ conceptualizations of CT have changed during the project period.

At the end of the project, Vilde has developed a clear conceptualization of CT which is both research and experience-based. Vilde presents in I2 a clear narrative about what CT means to her and how she tries to implement it in her practice:

(…) the most important principle for me is that everyone gets to express their opinion, in one way or another, whether it is written, orally or whatever (…) and that people really understands why other people’s opinions matter (…) When planning my teaching, it’s important that the activity feels relevant for the pupils, (…) so they can relate to the topic. Another principle for me is that pupils understand the meaning of what they are doing (…) and produce something that they can use later in similar situations and other situations. (Vilde, I2)

We clearly notice here a process of conscientization about teaching CT, in terms of theoretical assumptions but also in terms of practical considerations. The three principles for the development of CT that Vilde mentions are related to the organization of constructive dialogue in the classroom, making teaching both relevant and motivating for the pupils, and finally that the learning has an objective which goes beyond the daily activity and focus on learning in a long-term perspective. By this Vilde means that it is important to make the pupils understand why they are working on a concrete activity, and which competences or skills they are supposed to develop, because this will give them the possibility to re-use these competences and skills in the future. To a certain extent, Vilde implicitly associates critical thinking here with the notion of deep learning (Manalo, 2022).

In I1, Nina evokes two things as fundamental for CT education, the first one is an ability to ‘communicate and write good sentences’ and to use oral language in a proper way. The second one is a capacity to ask questions (Nina, I1). The other interesting reflection that Nina formulates in the first interview about her conceptualization of CT is the necessity for the pupils to learn about becoming good listeners:

Pupils express opinions in different ways, some of them are very wise and know how to ask questions, while others are more confrontational in a way, but still, they get to express something, so we also have to learn to be good listeners. (Nina, I1)

In I2, Nina insists on the fact that CT should not be understood as a compilation of logical or communicative skills, but as a ‘fundamental attitude’:

I remember that when we started, I thought… I experienced that critical thinking was winning an argument and being logical, but I thought, no it’s not a matter of winning a competition (…) but more like a fundamental attitude in all situations really. (Nina, I2)

We observe the same conceptual change in the case of Nathan. During the first interview, Nathan’s basic conception was that critical thinking is a method which supports the ability to express meaning, to state opinions and to discuss them with others: ‘(…) the goal was to express their own opinions (…)’ (Nathan, I1). Nathan also insists on the fact that CT is about developing logical skills and knowledge-based opinions, and not unfounded opinions: ‘I want my pupils to be able to use arguments based on good sources. So (…) it is important to work with knowledge-based sources’ (Nathan, I1). In the second interview with Nathan, his conceptualization of CT becomes more integrated and complex. From a conception of critical thinking centred on the ability to defend opinions and to critically use sources, Nathan has also integrated the ability to understand the arguments of others:

And then it seems like some of them have agreed with each other on things that I never thought they would agree on. They present their views and arguments, ‘I think this because of that’ (…), and then they have managed to understand each other based on assessing others’ arguments. (Nathan, I2)

Critical thinking is thus conceptualized here as an ability to participate in a ‘dialogical critical dialogue’ (cf. p. 5; Daniel et al., 2005, p. 340). Nathan also realizes that he has acquired a richer and more complex understanding of critical thinking: ‘The understanding I had of critical thinking at the beginning was simple, I mean (…) simple and concrete, but then I understood that it is more, a much larger and richer topic and theme’. (Nathan, I2).

In the first interview, Terry’s conception of CT is centred on being sceptical about information or opinions. According to him, scepticism does not have to be radical and shouldn’t lead to having doubts about everything:

(…) Suddenly you can take it too far and the students are sceptical of everything (…), so critical thinking is also about knowing when it makes sense to ask challenging questions. (Terry, I1)

According to Terry, in I1, critical thinking is basically associated with a logical skill—an ability to argue and explain opinions. But in I2, critical thinking changes from the capacity to justify ideas towards a capacity to be more open to dialogue and to accept the ideas of others: ‘Critical thinking does not happen in a vacuum, students must be in dialogue with others to develop CT’ (Terry, I2). From a self-centred attitude, we have passed on to a focus on a dialogical critical attitude.

Moreover, teachers associate their new conceptualization and understanding of CT with a renewed understanding of their role as a teacher. Terry reports a better integration of critical thinking in his teaching, to the extent that critical thinking has become an accrued and permanent part of his work. For him, critical thinking is an existential part of his role as a teacher and an important source of meaning and of personnel career renewal:

I also see that the importance, i.e. how much this means – it is not just a project anymore, it has in a way become a part of my profession. It’s not like ‘I’m doing some critical thinking’. No, it’s really integrated now. I cannot separate critical thinking from my teaching practice. (…) Now it has become present in almost every lesson or activity (…). I almost do not think about it anymore (…). (Terry, I2)

These considerations about career development and changes in the understanding of the teacher’s role are also present in other teachers’ reflections:

Now it’s more interesting to be a teacher (…) It is completely different than before. I found it exciting and I have to be creative and be prepared in a completely different way than just going through a chapter and doing some tasks. (Simon, I1)

So I feel that it has been a big change, I feel that I have probably got a different attitude as a teacher (…). (Nathan, I2)

And outside the classroom, when I prepare my teaching, I feel that I always have it in mind in terms of the way I ask questions. (Vilde, I2)

For all the teachers, the project has contributed to enriching and making their understanding of CT, both as research and experience-based, more complex. It is very interesting to note that the work carried out during the CLAE project on CT education has contributed in most cases to (re)giving meaning to the profession of these teachers. The work on CT has asserted itself as a (re)structuring anchor point for teachers, and as a clear factor of professional and personal development. In their eyes, the implementation of CT, as skills and attitude, has emerged, over the three years of the project, as an essential part, if not the very heart, of their teaching activity. This change is described as paradigmatic insofar as it has given rise to a renewal of the vision of their profession as more meaningful, and to radical modifications in the attitudes and practices of teachers, even if they are expressed in different ways and through different strategies.

Conclusion

How can the above reported results be interpreted and evaluated? Overall, the fact that changes occurred as a result of our project might appear natural and unsurprising, especially since CLAE followed the consensual criteria of efficiency for TPD programmes.

However, the nature of these changes and their substantial and enduring character are, in our opinion, of great interest, and not only because they confirm the array of outcomes TPD programmes can produce (Thurlings & den Brok, 2017). As reported in a previous article, we believe that the international, collaborative and long-term nature of the CLAE project has been particularly beneficial (Normand et al., 2021). Our postulate is that, beyond constituting an enriching experience on a personal basis, it has triggered a positive climate of emulation between the participants, and offered a distance to one’s own cultural and national settings that has been especially fruitful and eye-opening.

Although it can be considered as natural that teachers’ practices and understandings of the concept of CT have become richer and more complex, the project has nevertheless produced interesting answers and results.

First, we can identify in the teachers’ reports clear choices, strategies and actions as a response to LK20’s ‘uncertain practical questions’ defined in this project as the need to define, understand and implement CT in practice (Reid, 1999).

When we first look more closely at changes in definition and understanding of CT, teachers have moved from understanding CT as episodic skills, limited to certain specific tasks (for instance questioning the reliability of sources of information or expressing personal ideas or arguments), to an understanding of CT that connects with attitudes. Thus, from a skill that includes daring to assert one’s own opinions and to argue, we have evolved towards CT as a more complex competence that also consists of understanding pupils’ own thoughts, the positions and arguments of others and an ability to be open to dialogue. Moreover, we observed that this development in conceptualization and understanding of CT has also clear consequences for the motivation and interest of the teachers, who assert that their work becomes more interesting and enriching.

When it comes to the implementation of CT in practice, teachers identify early in the project a key prerequisite: the need to create pupil involvement. Furthermore, the implementation of CT in practice in terms of teaching methods and strategies seems to follow two ‘privileged paths’ as underlined in the analysis. The first one is organized towards more dialogical practices, and the other one is organized towards a greater focus on metacognitive skills and awareness.

When implementing CT, some of the teachers chose to clearly intensify the use of dialogues in their practices. Indeed, the fact that teachers report more interactive and oral activities indicates a rapid change compared to their usual practices, and a quite radical change compared to a school culture traditionally dominated by writing activities and writing assessments. The other clear prioritization the teachers make is to emphasize the development of metacognition among pupils. This focus resulted in a more frequent use of metacognitive strategies in their practices (like self-assessment practices) in order to facilitate metacognitive awareness among pupils.

Both the implementation of dialogical practices and the greater focus on metacognition represented, according to the teachers, significant changes in their own practices. They report challenging situations with the pupils, who can be frustrated or even disoriented in meeting renewed teaching practices. But teachers also report positive and significant changes in pupils’ attitudes: they are usually more reflective, more engaged, they ask better questions, they listen better to each other and the discussions last longer. Ultimately, we cannot assert that the pupils’ attitudes have changed, but we can observe that teachers consider changes in pupils’ attitudes as a clear legitimation of the choices they have made in implementing CT in their own practice.

All these observations made and reported by the teachers during this project tend to assert the meaningfulness of two central principles for the implementation of CT in teaching. The first principle, based on the development of dialogical practices (Daniel et al., 2005; Manalo, 2022), corresponds to what Paolo Freire defined as the transitivity of consciousness, ‘a capacity to enter into dialogue not only with other men but with their world’ (Freire, 2013, p. 14). The transitivity of consciousness is a necessary step towards the development of a critical consciousness according to Freire. It is also clearly identified by the teachers as a core and meaningful step for the implementation of CT in their own practice.

The second principle is based on the development of metacognition among pupils and supports the necessity of taking into consideration the notion of ‘epistemological evaluation’ in the implementation of CT (Kuhn, 1999). This concept is used to define the individual’s ability to self-assess and to assess opinions and knowledge (a metacognitive awareness) and is also associated with an ability to use strategies to verify opinions and knowledge (a metastrategic awareness) (Abrami et al., 2015; Kuhn, 1999).

In fact, the choices made by the teachers during the CLAE-project led to the adoption of a form of critical pedagogy, associated with democratic competence and the necessity of active and participatory citizenship (Dewey, 1916; Freire, 2013; Shyman, 2011). A central element in critical pedagogy is to make pupils aware that the production of knowledge not only takes place in the minds of experts (and to a certain extent for the pupils in the mind of the teacher) but should also be the result of interactions between existing and established knowledge and the pupils’ prior knowledge. The goal of such a pedagogical approach is, in the long term, to develop a deeper understanding that learning and knowledge production are active processes in which the learning subject (here the pupil) has an active role to play.

Democratic education systems depend on a new form of critical thinking linked to a critical pedagogy. A practice where the pupil is actively involved in the learning process, where knowledge is discussed and where ideas, opinions and attitudes can be enriched. Such an educational approach to critical thinking is crucial in today’s context, characterized by a rapid spread of misleading and incorrect information, but also by a real danger that dialogues, conversations and debates do not get enough space in public discourses.

Teachers’ clear prioritization of dialogical practices and of metacognition in the implementation of CT during the CLAE project is the result of teachers’ strategic choices, based on both research and experience-based knowledge. These strategic choices, defined as ‘teaching paths’, are clear attempts to organize the classroom (and the group of pupils) as a dialogical epistemic space (cf. p. 1). As shown in this paper, there are many reasons to believe that these attempts have been successful in the context and the framework of the CLAE project within the established community of inquiry, and we believe this shows a great degree of effectiveness of the TPD programme developed during the CLAE period.

Nevertheless, more research needs to be conducted in order to verify the impact of such teaching strategies on the pupils’ development of CT, both in a qualitative and quantitative perspective, and also in a longitudinal context. More research also needs to be conducted in order to further develop research and experience-based methods and strategies that sustain the development of CT education and structure the development of the classroom as a privileged dialogical epistemic space.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. For more information about the CLAE project see http://www.clae.no. Spain was included in the second phase of the CLAE project, which started in 2020.

2. We have translated from Norwegian to English all the public documents related to the new Norwegian curriculum (LK20).

3. The TPD programme is described in the chapter about methodology on p. 7 in this paper.

4. For a more detailed description of the TPD programme see Normand et al. (2021).

5. In Norway, teachers teach at least two or even three different subjects. Norwegian students who choose to be teachers in primary, lower or upper secondary schools can follow an integrated 5-year teacher education programme, which usually combines 2–3 different disciplines and includes modules in pedagogy, didactics and school teaching practice. Each 5-year programme is specific to a level of education: grade 1–7 teacher education (from age 6 to 13); grade 5–10 teacher education (from age 11 to 16), or upper secondary teacher education (grade 8–13; from age 14–19). It is also possible to become a teacher by completing a 2-year master’s programme after a bachelor’s degree, followed by an additional year of coursework, which comprises a teaching internship, and pedagogical and didactic training and education called PPU (Degree in Practical and Pedagogical Education).

6. Because of changes in Simon’s professional career, we were not able to conduct the second interview with him. But the first interview contains rich information that will be used in our analytical work.

7. The project follows the ethical requirements of NSD (Norwegian Research Data). The names of the teachers have been changed and the data have been anonymized.