Critical thinking (CT) has been emphasized as a key competence in education, and one of the most central competences to promote in sustainability education (SE) (EU Commission, 2016; Vare & Scott, 2007). CT is regarded an essential competence to be able to contribute to a sustainable society (Rieckmann, 2017), and considered a vital part in building up students’ action competence for sustainability (Schnack, 1998). In 2007, Vare & Scott pointed to the need to strengthen the focus on CT in SE, and CT as an area of development in education is yet still emphasized (Munkebye & Gericke, 2022; Frønes & Jensen, 2020). Studies have shown that teachers consider CT to be a central aspect of SE, however, there is a need for professional development to further teachers’ abilities to teach CT generally (Hasslöf & Malmberg, 2015; Frønes & Jensen, 2020), and specifically in relation to complex sustainability issues (Munkebye & Gericke, 2022).

CT has been defined in varying ways over time, however, there is a broad consensus that CT includes skills and dispositions (Lai, 2011; Facione, 1990). Skills concern elements such as e.g. analyzing, evaluating and problem-solving, and dispositions include e.g. fairmindedness, openmindedness and desire to be well informed (e.g. Lai, 2011, Facione, 1990). It is also argued that developing those elements is not sufficient; being a critical thinker also includes the concept of criticality, i.e. to exert CT in situations that call for it (Davies & Barnett, 2015). This is of importance when dealing with complex sustainability issues, which brings important implications for SE. Moreover, skills include cognitive components whereas dispositions generally are associated with the affective domain (Facione, 1990). Including dispositions may be important for developing CT that includes ethical considerations.

Sustainability issues are characterized by great complexity and often great uncertainty (Block et al. 2019). To find solutions that simultaneously benefit the environmental, social and economic dimensions that sustainability issues entail are often difficult (Öhman & Öhman, 2012). Vare & Scott (2007) emphasize the need to include activities that allow students to explore the contradictions inherited in sustainability issues. This makes sustainability a fruitful learning context for the development of CT, and equally important, CT becomes one important learning outcome of SE. A large-scale study from Sweden showed that students who experienced teaching that focuses on a multitude of perspectives and critical approaches to these also display a higher level of actions that promote sustainability (Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2015).

Several studies have shown that teachers often pursue an environmental perspective of sustainability, which implies a risk that the complexity is lost (Sund & Gericke, 2020; Borg et al. 2014). The opportunities for developing CT in SE might then be reduced. The study by Munkebye & Gericke (2022) indicated that teachers in Norwegian primary school associate CT to SE. However, both affective elements and interdisciplinary strategies were excluded from their teaching. Possibly, there is a risk that CT is taught without inclusion of ethical perspectives. Studies have found that teachers recognize the importance of CT, but many lack deeper understanding of what CT comprises and they often feel unprepared to teach it (Schulz & FitzPatric, 2016).

Many studies on competences in relation to SE are carried out within higher education. Against this background, the present study aims to identify what skills and dispositions primary school teachers relate to when they reflect on CT. The research is conducted within the CriThiSE-project, which aims to develop teaching of CT within SE. The research questions are:

-          How do primary school teachers perceive the concept of CT?

-          How do primary school teachers perceive CT in relation to their teaching?

The data for this qualitative study were obtained through two different sources; written reflection notes (N = 65) and interviews with focus groups of Norwegian and Swedish teachers (N = 69). We used purposive sampling to interview 19 focus groups of teachers in grades 5-9 in Norway and grades 4-6 in Sweden who teach various subjects to students of ages 10-13. In advance of the focus group interviews, teachers were asked to reflect in written form on the question “What do you associate with critical thinking?). Before the interviews took place, all participants had consented to audio-recording, which was later on transcribed verbatim. In the interviews, the teachers were grouped based on which level and grade they were teaching. Thus, they represented a mix of different subjects within each group. A semi-structured interview guide was developed in advance of the interviews that made it possible to follow up responses to encourage participants to elaborate on their answers or reply to other’s comments. During the interviews, which lasted up to 1h, the teachers were asked to reflect upon what CT is and if and how CT is included in their teaching. The data were analyzed by using thematic analysis as described by Braun & Clarke (2006). We applied an inductive approach to identify patterns across the data and at the same time, enable a theoretically grounded interpretation. During the first step, data were read several times and notes were made based on the contents in the teachers’ utterances and written reflections. In the next step, the data were coded inductively and independently by the first five authors, which generated a diversity of different codes. The codes were then reviewed and discussed, in order to identify similarities and differences. Coding was performed at both semantic and latent level (Braun & Clarke, 2006), in order to identify understandings of CT that were implicit in the teachers’ utterances. Since CT is generally defined based on skills and dispositions, and since our coding appeared to fit well into these categories, we decided to use these as main categories. The final step was to make joint decisions on what the main themes were and how to label them according to their meaning. This was made in an iterative way, several times returning to the interview transcripts for checking for example in what context something was expressed, to secure accuracy and credibility throughout the whole process.

In this stage, we present early findings. By the time of the ECER2023 conference, we will be able to present more detailed results. Our findings indicate that teachers emphasize skills more than dispositions. Concerning CT in general, 17 codes for skills and 18 codes for dispositions were identified. The most emphasized skills were: pursue source criticism, ask questions, see an issue from different perspectives, argue, reflect, evaluate and discuss. The dispositions that were emphasized most were: be open-minded, do not believe in everything you hear, be brave, be investigative and be independent. Turning to the teachers’ perception of CT in association with their teaching, we identified 13 codes for skills and 6 codes for dispositions. The mostly emphasized skills were: ask questions, pursue source criticism and discuss. The mostly emphasized dispositions were: be open-minded, be independent, do not believe in everything you hear, use common sense, be thorough, be critical to sources. To be open-minded and independent were the two that occurred most. We see similarities between the teachers’ view of CT in general and CT in relation to teaching when it comes to skills. In both cases, pursue source criticism, see an issue from different perspectives and ask questions are commonly occurring. In the context of teaching, the skills pursue source criticism, argue, discuss, ask questions, self-reflection and thinking about consequences are more commonly occurring compared to their descriptions of CT in general. Dispositions were mostly occurring in their general perception of CT. However, be independent and be critical to sources are more common in association with teaching, and open-minded is about equally emphasized in both contexts. The results concerning skills and dispositions of CT will be discussed in terms of implications for SE.

Boeve-de Pauw, J., Gericke, N., Olsson, D., & Berglund, T. (2015). The effectiveness of education for sustainable development. Sustainability, 7(11), 15693-15717. Borg, C., Gericke, N., Höglund, H. O., & Bergman, E. (2014). Subject-and experience-bound differences in teachers’ conceptual understanding of sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 20(4), 526-551. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Springer. EU Commission. (2016). A new skills agenda for Europe: Working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competitiveness. Brussel: European Commission. Accessed 25 January, 2023, https://community.oecd.org/docs/DOC-131502 Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). The California Academic Press. Frønes, T. S., & Jensen, F. (2020). Chapter 1. Introduksjon: Like muligheter til god leseforståelse? 20 år med lesing i PISA. Universitetsforlaget. Hasslöf, H., & Malmberg, C. (2015). Critical thinking as room for subjectification in Education for Sustainable Development. Environmental Education Research, 21(2), 239-255. Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson's Research Reports, 6(1), 40-41. Munkebye, E., & Gericke, N. (2022). Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Critical Thinking in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development. In Critical Thinking in Biology and Environmental Education (pp. 249-266). Springer, Cham. Öhman, M., & Öhman, J. (2012). Harmoni eller konflikt?–en fallstudie av meningsinnehållet i utbildning för hållbar utveckling." Harmony or conflict?–A case study of the conceptual meaning of education for sustainable development". Nordic Studies in Science Education, 8(1), 59-72. Rieckmann, M. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO publishing. Schnack, K. (1998). Handlekompetence. Pædagogiske teorier. København: Billesøe & Baltzer. Schulz, H. W., & FitzPatrick, B. (2016). Teachers’ understandings of critical and higher order thinking and what this means for their teaching and assessments. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 62(1), 61-86. Sund, P., & Gericke, N. (2020). Teaching contributions from secondary school subject areas to education for sustainable development–a comparative study of science, social science and language teachers. Environmental Education Research, 26(6), 772-794. Vare, P., & Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a change: Exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2), 191-198.