Critical thinking (CT) is widely recognized as a fundamental 21st-century skill alongside communication, creativity, collaboration, problem-solving, and digital literacy (Higgins, 2014; Ro, 2023; Yuan et al., 2022; Yuan & Stapleton, 2020). It is considered essential for individual academic success and for fostering independent, democratic citizens who can make meaningful contributions to society (Lim, 2015; Meneses, 2020; Mulnix, 2012). Consequently, educational systems worldwide are urged to integrate CT into curricula to better prepare students for future societal demands.

Scholars define CT as a combination of cognitive skills (e.g., interpretation, analysis, reasoning, evaluation) and dispositional traits (e.g., curiosity, openness, inquisitiveness, flexibility, and confidence) essential for higher-order thinking (McGuire, 2007; Yuan et al., 2022). This definition emphasizes the interplay of skills required to achieve specific goals and dispositions essential for effective task performance (Yuan et al., 2022). However, some scholars argue that an individual-centric focus on cognitive and dispositional aspects is insufficient. They advocate including ‘criticality’ as a core component of CT to address its social dimensions (An Le & Hockey, 2022; Liao & Yuan, 2024; Meneses, 2020). Drawing on Paulo Freire’s notion of critical consciousness (Freire, 2005), they emphasize questioning and challenging oppressive social structures. From this broader perspective, CT encompasses not only rational decision-making but also the capacity for critical reflection and transformative actions that challenge societal norms (Davies & Barnett, 2015). Proponents of this view argue that CT must align with social justice goals, encouraging students to critically examine the status quo and contribute to societal transformation (Papastephanou & Angeli, 2007; Kleinig, 2018). Integrating criticality into CT demonstrates how traditional cognitive skills and dispositions can be applied to reflect on, engage with, and transform social realities, positioning CT as a concept committed to social justice and equity (Kleinig, 2018). Thus, CT should be understood as a synthesis of cognitive skills, dispositions, and critical actions (Liao & Yuan, 2024; Yuan & Liao, 2023).

Despite its global emphasis, CT education varies significantly across cultural contexts. Many Asian nations, including South Korea, China, and Japan, have introduced educational reforms to enhance CT in schools (Tan, 2017; Wang & Wu, 2023). However, integrating CT—rooted in Western values of individual autonomy—into collectivist cultures that prioritize group harmony presents challenges (Atkinson, 1997; So & Hu, 2019). Given these cultural differences, imposing a universal CT framework on diverse educational systems may be problematic. As Asian societies evolve, they increasingly reinterpret CT within their own historical, social, and cultural contexts.

In South Korea, students have historically been reluctant to engage in CT or express original ideas (Choi & Rhee, 2013; Lee & Sriraman, 2013; Ramos, 2014). This hesitancy is often attributed to socio-cultural factors such as rote memorization for exams, teacher-centered instruction, and adherence to group norms influenced by Confucian traditions (Kim, 2012; McGuire, 2007; Ramos, 2014). However, since the late 1990s, curriculum reforms have aimed to foster student autonomy and agency, emphasizing 21st-century skills, including CT (Chang, 2009; DeWaelsche, 2015). While these efforts promote greater individualism and openness, they still intersect with traditional collectivist values, potentially conflicting with the long-standing focus on exam-oriented subject knowledge.

This study critically examines how transnational CT is adopted and translated within South Korea’s national curriculum through an analysis of the national curriculum documents. Specifically, it addresses two key questions: (1) How is CT positioned within South Korea’s national curriculum? (2) What characteristics of CT education are emphasized in the curriculum? By exploring these questions, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of how transnational educational concepts like CT are contextualized within specific cultural and educational environments, thereby enhancing our comprehension of CT in relation to local contexts.

Since the 1950s, South Korea has maintained a centralized national curriculum system, with the government directly overseeing curricula for primary and secondary education. Within this system, curriculum documents define the scope of CT in educational practice. This study analyzes how CT is represented in the 2022 National Curriculum by examining the general framework document and subject-specific curricula for ten core subjects taught from elementary grade 1 to middle school grade 3: Korean language, social studies, ethics, mathematics, science, technology and home affairs, physical education, music, fine arts, and English. The dataset, obtained from the National Curriculum Information Center (nice.re.kr), consists of 11 documents (one general framework and ten subject-specific curricula), totaling 506 pages. The general framework spans 52 pages, while subject-specific curricula cover 454 pages, ranging from 23 pages for ethics to 126 pages for social studies. This study employs summative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches. Initially, each document was read at least twice to identify how CT was described. Iterative reading revealed that terms related to CT’s core components—cognitive skills, dispositions, and critical actions (Yuan & Liao, 2023)—frequently co-occurred with mentions of CT. Frequently occurring terms were identified as alternative expressions for CT and were categorized under cognitive skills (interpretation, analysis, reasoning, evaluation), dispositions (inquisitiveness, confidence, curiosity, openness), and critical actions (reflection, engagement). Additionally, terms related to ‘sense of community’, often contrasted with CT, were analyzed to examine their relationship. To address Research Question 1 on CT’s status in the curriculum, quantitative content analysis was conducted, calculating the frequency of CT-related terms and their comparison across documents. The frequency of ‘sense of community’ was also analyzed. To ensure reliability, keyword inclusion and exclusion guidelines were established, and a self-cross-check was conducted two weeks after the initial analysis. Qualitative content analysis was then conducted to interpret the underlying meanings of the identified terms. Sentences containing these terms were extracted, categorized by document, and analyzed for patterns and recurring themes. This process was repeated three times to ensure consistency with the quantitative findings. The identified patterns were explicitly linked to the research questions, yielding four themes—two for each question. To ensure trustworthiness, interpretations were cross-checked with textual evidence (Weber, 1990), and textual excerpts were included to support findings (Silverman, 2020).

The newly revised South Korean national curriculum emphasizes 21st-century skills, yet the explicit use of ‘critical thinking’ remains limited. This omission does not indicate a lack of CT; rather, its components—cognitive skills (e.g., analysis, interpretation), dispositions (e.g., inquisitiveness), and critical actions (e.g., reflection and engagement)—are embedded across subject curricula in culturally acceptable ways. The frequent inclusion of cognitive skills and dispositions, in particular, signals a shift from passive learning to active engagement, encouraging students to collect, analyze, and interpret data while exploring new phenomena. CT is also integrated alongside a sense of community, a core element of South Korean education. While communal values remain central, the curriculum increasingly emphasizes student agency and autonomy, aligning with OECD 2030’s focus on fostering student agency (Ministry of Education, 2022; OECD, 2019). This coexistence of CT and communal values challenges stereotypes that an Asian collectivist orientation inherently limits CT education. Instead, this study highlights how harmonious, non-adversarial thinking (Chen, 2017; Meneses, 2020) shapes CT in South Korea, offering a revised understanding of CT within an Asian context. Like China and Japan, South Korea has a cognitive tradition focused on subject-specific knowledge acquisition. Integrating CT into subject curricula shifts learning away from rote memorization toward deeper engagement in analysis, reasoning, and inquiry. South Korean students’ high PISA performance in problem-solving and reasoning reflects this shift. These findings suggest that CT is most effectively cultivated when integrated into subject content within specific disciplines. Moreover, integrating critical actions across subjects enhances CT’s role beyond individual learning, fostering ethical and socially responsible thinking (Yuan & Liao, 2023). This study illustrates how cultural contexts shape CT education. By examining how CT coexists with communal values in South Korea, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the complex ways CT is contextualized within specific cultural settings.

Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 71-94. Chen, L. (2017). Understanding critical in Chinese sociocultural contexts: A case study in a Chinese college. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 140-151. Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (2015). Introduction. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 1-26). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DeWaelsche, S. (2015). Critical thinking, questioning and student engagement in Korean university English courses. Linguistics and Education, 32, 131-147. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. Higgins, S. (2014). Critical thinking for 21st-century education: A cyber-tooth Curriculum? Prospects, 44(4), 559-574. Kleinig, J. (2018). Trust and critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(2), 133-143. Liao, W., & Yuan, R. (2024). Cultivating criticality through transformative critical thinking curriculums in a time of flux and transformation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 56(8), 743-749. Lim, L. (2015). Critical thinking, social education and the curriculum: Foregrounding a social and relational epistemology. The Curriculum Journal, 26(1), 4–23. McGuire, J. M. (2007). Why has the critical thinking movement not come to Korea? Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(2), 224-232. Meneses, L. F. S. (2020). Critical thinking perspectives across contexts and curricula Dominant, neglected, and complementing dimensions. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100610 Ministry of Education (2022). General framework for the elementary and secondary curriculum. Sejong: Ministry of Education. OECE (2019). An OECD learning framework 2030. Paris: OECD. Papastephanou, M., & Angeli, C. (2007) Critical thinking beyond skill. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(6), 604-621. Silverman, D. (2020). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. So, K., & Hu, Y. (2019). Understanding creativity in an Asian school context: Korean teachers’ perspectives. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100573. Tan, C. (2017). Teaching critical thinking: Cultural challenges and strategies in Singapore. British Educational Research Journal, 43(5), 988-1002. Wang, Y., & Wu, Z. (2023). Adapting or adopting? Critical thinking education in the East Asian cultural sphere: A systematic integrative review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49. 101330 Yuan, R., & Liao, W. (2023). Critical thinking in teacher education: Where do we stand and where can we go? Teachers and Teaching, 29(6), 543–552. Yuan, R., & Stapleton, P. (2020). Student teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking and its teaching. ELT Journal, 74(1), 40–48.