In our society and in the society of the future one of the education challenges is to contribute growing up people able to be resilient, responsible, sympathetic and active citizens towards social and sustainable issues. Regarding this goal, both worldwide educational policies and institutions from different fields endorse the promotion of critical thinking (CT), since it is considered necessary to approach complex challenges and, therefore, one of the key competencies to be acquired for the XXI century (Council of the European Union, 2018; P21, 2016; WHO, 1994; World Economic Forum, 2015). In recent years, a comparable interest can be observed regarding values in children including the transmission of values and value education (Döring et al., 2015). As the transmission of common values ensures consistency for cultures and societies (ibid.), citizenship skills are considered as another key competence enabling to raise awareness of shared values (Council of the European Union, 2018).  

Values are at the center of public discussion (Davidov, Schmidt & Schwartz, 2008) and scientific interest today, which is shown by a significant increase in research on the subject (Boehnke, 2018). Despite this dynamic development on the topic of values, research on values in childhood is rare (Döring et al., 2015). Likewise, most studies on CT were taken on high school or university students and a few focused on primary school pupils (Kettler, 2014) probably due to key aspects of humans’ cognitive development. Moreover, concerning the connection between CT and values, it seems that little is known about (Nalcaci, 2012).  

When speaking about CT, philosophers usually address to it as good thinking and agree in claiming that CT involves two distinct dimensions: abilities/skills and dispositions (Ennis, 1996; Siegel, 1999). A disposition is considered to be “[…] a tendency, propensity, or inclination to behave or act in certain ways under certain circumstances” (Siegel, 1999, p. 209), but also a hidden quality (Ennis, 1996) or an underlying trait of a person (Siegel, 1999) that exists even when not displayed. Alongside, Schwartz (2012) defines values as trans-situational criteria or goals, that are ordered by importance as guiding principles in life, and used to explain the motivational bases of attitudes and behaviour. Therefore, it may be meaningful to understand to what extent values can be considered internal dispositions, which characterize a person’s critical spirit. Withthis acceptance, values are stimuli for thinking and guide human actions by influencing attitudes, self-representation, judgments and decision-making, social comparisons and attempts of persuasion (Rokeach, 1973), aspects which in part are consistent with CT. Nevertheless, even if values serve as standards, and guide everyday decisions, the process is mostly unconscious. Instead, “values enter awareness when the actions or judgments one is considering have conflicting implications for different values one cherishes” (Schwartz, 2012, p.4). Thus, it seems that a person’s values influence his/her thinking, especially if not conscious. In fact, Paul and Elder (2003) postulate that one precondition of CT is to be able to control its personal values.   

The objective of this paper is to report the connection between CT and values, which arose in the assessment practices of two distinct research projects. Indeed, in two separate studies involving primary school pupils, one with a focus on CT and the other with a focus on values, we have seen how the tools used to measure the former or the latter also detect the other element more or less indirectly. The procedures and the results of both assessments suggest how the CT concept is strictly embedded within the definition of values.

In Study 1, CT skills performances were assessed twice (before and during an intervention) both in experimental and control classes, throughout two school years. Initially, a final assessment was planned, which didn’t take place due to the pandemic emergency. About 225 primary school pupils (six 2nd grade and six 4th grade classes) were given a set of tasks starting from a moral dilemma. Their answers were collected in a worksheet, statistically described and compared, whereas their talks among small groups of peers were audio-recorded and analyzed through a content analysis process. The assessment tool was self-made by the researcher and thought to best assess the children’s performances on CT since the main existing ones are standardized tests, which measure single aspects of CT and are thought to be unable to catch the whole profile of the critical thinker. In Study 2, participants were 450 fourth- and fifth-graders from 32 primary school classes (Mage = 9.81, SD = 0.73; 217 girls, 233 boys). Their values were measured using the Picture Based Value Survey (PBVS-C; Döring et al., 2010), a self-report instrument based on Schwartz’s value theory. Analyzing the data from Study 1, we have seen that the solutions provided by each pupil to the moral dilemma may be coded using the 10 value types by Schwartz (2012). According to Bilsky (2008), Schwartz’s theory of values can be used as a groundwork, which allows the discussion of outcomes of studies using other measuring instruments. Therefore, children’s responses were each assigned to one of the value types. Both researchers carried out these allocations whereby, in the case of divergent decisions, an agreement was reached through discussion. Using descriptive statistics, we are achieving preliminary information on which values are most important for them and therefore are guiding their decision making. During data collection in Study 2, the researcher has noticed that classes differed in their CT. In some classes, children just performed the tasks assigned without saying anything. In other classes pupils seemed to be more open-minded and reflective: they gathered information from the researcher on the questionnaire’s pictures to better understand them, they argued on the absence of some drawings explaining their motivations, they showed the criteria used to evaluate the pictures in order to make their choices. However, since these parenthetical observations were not systematically captured, they could not be further analyzed.

The results of these two distinct research projects, and the consideration of the results of the few research projects on the connection between values and CT (e.g. Nalcaci, 2012) underline the need for a new possible learning framework in teaching to think critically and in growing up active and responsible future citizens. According to Schwartz (2012), values influence our behavior, and thus our thinking and decision-making, whereby they remain however mostly unconscious, we conclude that an education, that fosters critical thinking skills should incorporate children’s values too. The unconsciousness of personal values has also been detected in Study 2 as some of the children said: “Up until now I have never really thought about what is important to me in life.” or “By doing this activity I realized what is important to me and what instead is not.” Therefore, we think that making personal values visible, by working with the children on the concept at school, might be one of the first steps of learning to think critically. In addition, when the relationship between these two factors is investigated it seems that scholars use two different tools for measuring individual values and CT of their participants’ sample (e.g., Nalcaci, 2012), while in Study 1 it appears that it might be possible to employ only one tool to assess both constructs. To conclude, more research is needed to better understand the relationship between CT and values at primary school age as it is considered one of the crucial stages regarding cognitive development and the construction of the self.

Boehnke, K. (2018). Werteentwicklung und Wertewandel bei Kindern – Wünsche an die Forschung. In A. K. Döring & Cieciuch (Eds.), Werteentwicklung im Kindes- und Jugendalter (pp. 77-96). Warschau: Liberi Libri. Bilsky, W. (2008). Die Struktur der Werte und ihre Stabilität über Instrumente und Kulturen. In E. H. Witte (Ed.), Sozialpsychologie und Werte (pp. 63-89). Lengerich: Pabst. Council of the European Union (2018). Council Recommendations of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning (Text with EEA relevance) (2018/C 189/01). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018H0604(01)&from=EN [17.01.2020] Davidov, E., Schmidt, P. & Schwartz, Sh. H. (2008). Bringing Values Back in: The Adequacy of the European Social Survey to Measure Values in 20 Countries. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 420-445. Döring, A. K., Blauensteiner, A., Aryus, K., Drögekamp, L. & Bilsky, W. (2010). Assessing values at an early age: The picture-based value survey for children. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 439-448. Döring, A., Schwartz, S., Cieciuch, J., Groenen, P., Glatzel, V., Harasimczuk, J., Janowicz, M. N., Scheefer, E. R., Allritz, M., Milfont, T. L. Bilsky, W. (2015). Cross‐cultural evidence of value structures and priorities in childhood. British Journal of Psychology, 106(4), 675-699. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2-3), 165-182. Kettler, T. (2014). Critical Thinking Skills Among Elementary School Students: Comparing Identified Gifted and General Education Student Performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 127-136. Nalcaci, A. (2012). The Relationship Between the Individual Values and Critical Thinking Skills of Prospective Social Sciences Teachers. International Journal of Progressive Education, 8(1), 22-34. Partnership for 21st Century Learning [P21] (2016). Framework for 21st Century Learning. http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework [12.09.2018] Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2003). Kritisches Denken. Begriffe & Instrumente. https://www.criticalthinking.org/files/german_concepts_tools.pdf [21.01.2020] Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press. Schwartz, Sh. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116 [22.11.2018] Siegel, H. (1999). What (Good) are Thinking Dispositions? Educational Theory, 49(2), 207-221. World Health Organization. Division of Mental Health. [WHO] (‎1994)‎. Life skills education for children and adolescents in schools, 2nd rev. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/63552 [10.06.2019] World Economic Forum (2015). New Vision for Education. Unlocking the Potential of Technology. Cologny/Geneva Switzerland: World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEFUSA_NewVisionforEducation_Report2015.pdf [04.01.2020]