Given the increasing significance of critical thinking in education, Australian researchers, Hager and Kaye, asked in 1992, why it was not taken seriously in teacher education and made a case for the urgent development of a research agenda to inform a strategic response. But as Cruz, Nascimento and Dominguez (2019) conclude in a Portuguese study, Hager and Kaye’s call for a pro-active response in teacher education has not eventuated despite the growing recognition of the importance of critical thinking as an educational goal. A review of the international literature undertaken by Lorencová, Jarošová, Avgitidou and Dimitriadou (2019), concluded that although ‘critical thinking is considered an essential component of the pedagogical grounding of teachers, it is not systematically included in teacher education programs’ (p. 853).  Nor has it been actively addressed by educational researchers, evident in the limited number of studies conducted to date (Lorencova et al., 2019; McBride, Xiang, & Wittenburg, 2002; Mpofu & Maphalala, 2017).

However, the promotion of critical thinking in national policy reports has supported efforts to address critical thinking for teacher education (Williams, 2005). But as Tsui (2002) argued, many of these attempts has not met expectations. Studies of critical thinking in academic and professional courses in higher education indicate similar findings, leading Nicholas and Raider–Roth (2016) to argue for the development of a ‘thoughtful response’ to the question of how best to address critical thinking to counter the perceived prevalence of a ‘hopeful’ approach to its development (p.8).

This paper supports the case for the development of such a thoughtful response to the development of critical thinking in teacher education, through the articulation of a change strategy for incorporating it into programs. The strategy articulates the problem, the desired outcomes and impacts, influential factors, strategies required for success, as well as their underlying assumptions. Critical thinking is conceptualised as professional practice, designed to support teachers to make evidence based professional judgements, problem solve and make decisions in their everyday practices (Leaman & Flanagan, 2013). To support teacher agency, critical thinking is defined as "reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do" (Ennis, 1993, p. 180), in relation to day to day professional judgements and decision making regarding need identification, selection of evidence informed practices, planning, implementation and evaluation of teaching programs.

This paper is significant because it addresses a research gap, and is more broadly responsive to the demand for improving teacher quality, the effectiveness and impact of teacher education programs (Hattie, 2012) and teacher professionalism (Schleicher, 2012). 

A design research perspective informed the overall methodological approach to strategic development. According to Anderson and Shattuck (2012) design research emerged in early 2000s ‘as a practical research methodology that could effectively bridge the chasm between research and practice in formal education’ (p.16) that is applicable in complex learning environments. Design research is relevant for complex problems (Plomp, 2007), related to significant educational goals for which there are no guidelines or consensus about the resolution of these problems (Kelly, 2007). The aim of design research is therefore to solve educational problems, through the development of ‘usable knowledge’ (Plomp, 2007, p.9) not only about the solutions but also about processes for developing these solutions (Plomp, 2007). Most significantly, design research is ‘theory oriented’ (Plomp, 2007, p.14) as theories not only inform the design of the solution but may also be built as part of the solution. There is recognition that ‘there is no simple theoretical model’ (Kelly, 2007, p.81) to solve complex problems as solutions occur in complex educational systems. The design research perspective has supported a holistic approach (Plomp, 2007) to the development of the change strategy. The first phase entailed the preliminary investigation of the problem of the treatment of critical thinking in teacher education and the question of how best to incorporate it within programs, through a qualitative cross-disciplinary literature review. Data was collected and recorded across separate fields of research - teacher education, professional education, higher education, and 21st century learning and teaching – to support the integration of research on teaching with research on higher education and professional education (Grossman and McDonald, 2008). A complexity lens was used to collect and interpret data in recognition of the complexity of not only teacher education but also the broader education system (Cochran-Smith, Ell, Ludlow, Grudhoff & Aitken, 2014) and institutional contexts of higher education, schooling, government policy (Grossman & McDonald, 2008). The second phase entailed the adaptation of the Theory of Change Logic Model (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2007, p.27) to provide an integrative framework for the development of a proposed strategy to assist teacher education providers to incorporate critical thinking in their programs. The Theory of Change Logic Model enables the incorporation of multiple interrelated elements, the depiction of the big picture and the identification of action needed at the strategic level (Brown, 2016) by articulating planned inputs, and strategies linked to outcomes and impacts (Funnell & Rogers, 2011).

This paper supports the case for the development of such a thoughtful response to the development of critical thinking in teacher education by proposing a change strategy for teacher education providers. This strategy clearly identifies the problem to be solved, that is, the lack of a clarity about how best to incorporate critical thinking in teacher education programs and outlines four broad strategic areas of action to ensure that teacher education programs effectively support preservice teachers to both enhance the development of their own critical thinking and also develop a capacity to teach it to their students. These strategies are contextualisation of critical thinking as professional practice; development of a whole of program approach to intervention; building capacity for effective implementation of intervention; and development of an evidence base to inform continuous improvement. The change strategy also identifies desired outcomes to be achieved through these strategies as well as impacts of strategies, such as, the longer-term impact of the overall curriculum, pedagogy and assessment content and the process of teacher education program entry and admission processes and more broadly program standards for accreditation and credentialing. It may support systemic reform processes, such as, whole of career teacher development and performance management policies and practices, teacher professional standards and the advancement of the teaching profession. An important assumption underpinning this change strategy is the use of the human capability perspective (Boni & Walker, 2013) that is inclusive of the diverse purposes of critical thinking (that is, for learning, citizenship, workplace contribution and professionalism). Moreover, a logic model has been used as an integrative framework for developing a strategy with multiple interrelated elements.

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41: 16-25. Boni, A., & Walker, M. (2013). Human Development and capabilities; Re-imagining the university of the twenty-first century. Routledge Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Ludlow, L., Grudhoff, L., & Aitken, G, (2014). The challenge and promise of complexity theory for teacher education research. Teachers College Record. Volume 116, 050302. Cruz, G., Nascimento, M.M., & Dominguez, C. (2019). With a little help from my peers: Professional development of higher education teachers to teach critical thinking. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 44, 142-157. Ennis, R.H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179–183. Grossman, P. & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 184-205. Hager, P., & Kaye, M. (1992). Critical thinking in teacher education: A process-oriented research agenda. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 17(2), 26-33. Kelly, A.E. (2007). When is Design Research appropriate? In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen, (Eds.) Introduction Educational Design Research. Seminar conducted at the East China Normal University, Shanghai (PR China), November 23-26, 2007. SLO Netherlands: Institute for Curriculum Development. Leaman, L.H. & Flanagan, T.M. (2013). Authentic role-playing as situated learning: Reframing teacher education methodology for higher-order thinking. Studying Teacher Education, 9(1), 45–61. Lorencová, H., Jarošová, E., Avgitidou, S., & Dimitriadou, C. (2019). Critical thinking practices in teacher education programmes: A systematic review. Studies in Higher Education, 44(5), 844-859. McBride, R., Knight, S. (1993). Identifying teacher behaviours during critical thinking tasks. The Clearing House, 66(6), 374-378. Mpofu, N., & Maphalala, M. (2017). Fostering critical thinking in initial teacher education curriculums: A comprehensive literature review. Gender & Behaviour, 15(2), 9256-9266. Centre of Psychological Studies. Nicholas, M.C., & Raider-Roth, M. (2016). A hopeful pedagogy to critical thinking, International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 10(2), 1-10. Plomp, T. (2007). Educational Design Research: an Introduction. In Plomp, T. & Nieveen, N. (Eds) Introduction to Educational Design Research. Proceedings of the seminar conducted at the East China Normal University, Shanghai (PR China), November 23-26. Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four institutional case studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 740-763. W.K. Kellogg Foundation, (2004). Logic model development guide: Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action. W.K. Kellogg Foundation.