Critical thinking is a particular way of thinking that has become a fundamental feature of Western philosophy (Biesta & Stams, 2001) and its importance is increasingly discussed in German-speaking education. While in some countries critical thinking as a school learning goal is not only discussed but also taught in practice (Ennis, 2016; Nygren et al., 2019; Abrami et al., 2015), in the German-speaking area an explicit anchoring of critical thinking in the context of school can hardly be found (Petri, 2003; Rosa, 2017; Rafolt, Kapelari & Kremer, 2019). Although the term is occasionally referred to in school curricula, there is no conceptual understanding or definition of critical thinking. This does not include the original location in the subject of philosophy, in which critical thinking is a core competence (Kuenzle, 2016). Therefore, there is a lack of a conceptual understanding of critical thinking in the German-speaking world that could be anchored in school practice across all subjects. This article takes up this desideratum.

In the approach we refer to Dewey who emphasises: "No one doubts theoretically the importance of fostering good habits of thought in school." (Dewey 1916, p. 179). Habits of thinking means on the one hand practising thinking (ibid.) and on the other hand being able to apply different types of thinking. There are many different types and directions of thinking; here are just a few examples of types of thinking that are close to critical thinking and partly interfere with each other: rational thinking, creative thinking, problem-solving thinking, functional thinking and networked thinking. The concept of thinking itself is described or defined differently depending on the perspective, e.g. cognitive-psychological versus pedagogical-philosophical. In the USA, a concept of critical thinking has been established, which can be characterised by "critical thinking skills" and can rather be attributed to a cognitive-psychological perspective (Facione, 1990). While the "critical thinking skills" have areas such as interpretation, analysis, self-regulation as the object of characterisation, which can also be operationalised well in research contexts, we would like to expand and sharpen the focus to include the pedagogical-philosophical orientation. Dewey understands thinking and acting in a dualistic view: “Thinking, […], is the intentional endeavor to discover specific connections between something which we do and the consequences which result, so that the two become continuous” (Dewey 1916, p. 170). Going further, for Dewey, thought and action must be successful. What successful action can mean, however, requires concretisation. Applied to critical thinking, the question arises as to what successful action can mean in this context. If successful action also means a facet of personality and its self-efficacy, critical thinking can mean a central aspect "of an independent and self-determined personality, a personality that neither blindly follows what others say, nor solely what seems to be right according to its feelings" (Pfister 2020, p. 7). Since personality development is an essential goal of school education (Budde, Geßner & Weuster, 2018), critical thinking should therefore have a prominent place in school practice. Teachers, as key actors shaping school practice, are therefore the starting point for this study with their reports and assessments of critical thinking in school. Even if critical thinking is not explicitly anchored in school curricula, we assume that teachers have their own idea of critical thinking. This gives us three research perspectives:

What are teachers' perceptions of critical thinking and its importance for schools?

To what extent do teachers currently describe critical thinking as an object in school and classroom practice?

How do teachers assess their learning groups in terms of attributes relevant to critical thinking, such as attentiveness, reflectiveness or the pursuit of knowledge?

A self-developed, online-based questionnaire was used to investigate the teachers within the framework of an explorative study. The target group of the explorative study were teachers from secondary schools (N=50). The questionnaire contains both open and closed response formats. The questionnaire contains questions about teachers' perceptions of critical thinking (10 items), as well as teachers' perceptions of the student body (11 items). The questions about critical thinking contain aspects such as understanding and definition of critical thinking, characteristics of a critical thinker and teaching references. The teachers' assessments of the students refer to attributes of personality or classroom behaviour, for example, attentiveness, reflectiveness or striving for knowledge. The answer options were nominally scaled here according to the estimated proportion in the learning groups (all, many [rather the majority], about half, fewer [rather the minority], none, no indication). In the current main study, other types of school are included in addition to the Gymnasium, in particular also the primary school. Here, an online survey verified on the basis of the explorative study is used. The survey is supplemented by individual interviews in order to deepen qualitative aspects and to be able to consider possible interferences or contrasts within the framework of a mixed methods approach (Kuckartz 2014).

Results and discussion Initial results of the study show that all teachers (100%) consider critical thinking to be an important skill for students, but the understanding of critical thinking seems to vary among teachers. This is exemplified by the following statements of critical thinking: "Critical thinking as a basic ability […] is one of the prerequisites for living one's own life in a self-determined way (in the Kantian sense)." "Education is always also a weapon, usable for the good and the bad". From the perspective of teachers, some subjects seem to be better suited than others to stimulate critical thinking. Only a smaller group say that this could be done in all subjects (35%). In their own teaching, most teachers say (>90%) that they believe that they can encourage students to think critically in their lessons. The majority self-assessment of teachers that they encourage critical thinking in their lessons contrasts with the fact that almost half of the teachers (45%) state that, from their point of view, only half of the students engage with openly posed questions or problems. In addition, an overwhelming number of teachers (80%) state the assessment that it is rather the minority of students who engage in the lessons with openly posed questions or problems themselves. These excerpts from the explorative results already make it clear that critical thinking does not seem to be conceptually and systematically anchored in school practice across all subjects or across all subjects, although its importance is emphasised by the majority of teachers. We assume that the results of the main study will provide further insights into the practice of critical thinking in schools, e.g. in relation to subjects and school types, in order to be able to develop approaches for promoting critical thinking through school and lesson developments.

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A. & Persson (2015). Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 275–314. Biesta, G. J.J & Stams, G.J.M. (2001). Critical Thinking and the Question of Critique: Some Lessons from Deconstruction. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20: 57–74, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Budde, J., Geßner, J. & Weuster, N. (2018). Das Feld Persönlichkeitsbildung. Eine Systematisierung. In Budde J. & Weuster, N. (Hrsg.). Erziehung in Schule. Persönlichkeitsbildung als Dispositiv (Erziehungswissenschafliche Edition: Persönlichkeitsbildung in der Schule, p. 33–51). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Dewey, J. (1916). DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATION. New York: Macmillan. Ennis, R.H. (2016). Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision. Topoi 37, 165–184 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphy Report). Millbrae: California Academic Press. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Mixed Methods. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Kuenzle, D. (2016). Philosophie des Geistes und Sprachphilosophie. In Pfister, J. & Zimmermann, P. (Hrsg.), Neues Handbuch des Philosophieunterrichts; Bern: utb. Nygren, T., Haglund, J., Samuelsson C. R., Af Geijerstam, Å. & Prytz, J. (2019): Critical thinking in national tests across four subjects in Swedish compulsory school. EDUCATION INQUIRY, VOL. 10, No. 1, 56–75. Petri, G. (2003). Kritisches Denken als Bildungsaufgabe und Instrument der Schulentwicklung. Innsbruck: Studienverlag. Pfister, J.(2020). Kritisches Denken. Dietzingen: Reclam. Rafolt, S., Kapelari, K. & Kremer, K. (2019). Kritisches Denken im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht – Synergiemodell, Problemlage und Desiderata. ZfDN, 25:63–75. Rosa, L.(2017). Kritisch Denken Lernen für Alle – Kern der Literacy von heute und morgen. shift.Weblog zu Schule und Gesellschaft. 20.09.2020. Web. https://shiftingschool.wordpress.com/2017/02/17/kritisch-denken-lernen-fuer-alle-kern-der-literacy-von-heute-und-morgen/