The Swedish Higher Education Ordinance (Högskoleförordning 1993:100), widely uses concepts on being critical in activities in higher education. The ordinance states about critically discussing different issues; critically using digital tools relevant for educational activities; critically reviewing, analyising, interpreting, evaluating and reflecting on information, phenomena, questions and new facts; critically interpreting and reflecting on one’s own and others´ experiences, work process and research results. While the goals of these critical activities are supposed to improve the ongoing educational works and research for developing new knowledge in the specific fields of studies, they are understood, interpreted and practiced differently from one higher education institution to the other depending on the areas of focus and subjects such as humanities, natural sciences, social sciences, medicine and technology. 

In two occasions I encountered posters in public places from the university I used for this study, with the aim of recruiting students with messages on importance of critical thinking. The first poster reads, “Kritiska tänkare tar samhället framåt” (Critical thinkers take society forward) and in the second one, “Utan problemlösare och kritiska tänkare stannar allt” (without problem solvers and critical thinkers, everything standstill).  

More than the strong statements, on the need for critical thinkers and problem solvers, the posters did not say which courses are given on these issues and what are the strategies to be used to train these critical thinkers. Starting from these two posters, I undertook a survey in 2022/2023 with questions revolving around “critical thinking”. Beyond critical thinking, the survey even included concepts of critical reflections and critical action.

The objective of the study was to find out how the teaching staff of the university understand the concepts of critical thinking, reflection and action. The study attempted to investigate further how critical thinking, reflection and action are transformed into practice in the teaching-learning process at the university and later in the working life of graduates from the university. 

Supporting students to develop their ability to critically analyse, evaluate, understand, and act are among the main responsibilities of higher education. This study used Dunne´s categories of knowledge (critical reason), the self (critical self-reflection) and the world (critical action) (Dunne, 2015). Dunne write, “critical-reason, critical self-reflection and critical action collectively referred to here as `critical being`” (Dunne, 2015, 92). Other researchers in the field also emphasized, that higher education needs to focus as one of its goals on developing critical beings through reflection and action (Normile, 2024; Barnett, 1997). These critical beings are critical graduates that are ready to meet the practical challenges they are facing and ready to contribute to transformation of their society to the better. 

The context for the survey is a medium-sized Swedish university with different faculties focusing on different subject. Among educators who replied to the survey some are teaching and researching in teacher education and pedagogy, textile and design engineering, resource recycling, library and information science, health and social welfare and police education. The survey questionnaire was mailed to 553 teaching staff of the university and after three reminders 86 (15.6%) replied to the survey. The study observed all ethical rules and regulations. It was anonymous, no data included personal, sensitive and identifiable information. Through cover letter participants were informed that participation is voluntary, that they have the right not to participate and withdraw any time from study without any consequence to do so (VR, 2024). The cover letter included the collected material will be used only for research purpose. Respondents were given the option of filling the survey either in Swedish or in English. Except few general statistical figures, the study collected and used qualitative data. The qualitative data used was an “Answers to open questions in survey” (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2023). Results were transcribed and analyzed by using a content analysis method (Clark, Foster, Sloan & Bryman, 2021; Kuckartz & Rädikler, 2023). The analysis followed the major topics of the study, with the focus on critical thinking, critical reflection and critical action. As research in the field indicates critical thinking can be subject specific or general (McPeck, 1990). For Ennis (1989; 2018) who is authority in the area, critical thinking is both general and subject specific. Responses to this survey are also both general and specific, because of the differing disciplines and practices. Specific responses are given on the implication of critical thinking, critical reflection and critical action for their present students which are future, teachers, nurses, librarians and engineers. The responses included prediction of if these students can use their knowledge in their work life. The subject specific comments predict their students will use skills, abilities and knowledge they developed at the university to deal with challenges in their different professions. There were also comments on how students can use these skills abilities and knowledge not only to tackle day to day challenges but also to improve their services for society and in developing their profession.

The general responses on critical thinking included not to take issues at face value, scientific skepticism, questioning, problematizing, reviewing and evaluating. One respondent: “Thinking critically can resemble to listening carefully, thinking about the content, testing it before taking it as yours.” Critical thinking is considered as independent thinking relevant for critical reflection, self-reflection as a tool to check upon one’s action. One respondent preferred “reflective thinking” instead of critical thinking, to avoid misunderstood and negative interpretation. A respondent indicated vitality of critical thinking and reflection for critical action, facilitated through, “inviting environment for critical reflection and encouraging questioning and welcoming critical reflection”. Other respondents commented on providing students with critical literature to develop critical thinking and reflection. One teacher educator: “I train teachers of the future, they must be independent, democratic and responsible professionals.” A nursing teacher: “The students today make reflective logbooks during practice placement, reflecting on patients, care and own learning.” A teacher in police education: “Police officers need critical thinking and perspective to be as neutral as possible in their professional practice, one's own prejudices and values should not affect how they treat persons.” Engineering teacher: “Question what exists (to improve it) and what does not exist (innovation).” A teacher of library and information science comments, “Since we largely train librarians, it can be assumed their use of critical thinking in their profession, e.g. in the choice of sources (source criticism) when meeting library users who need information.” No sufficient studies confirm students´ use of critical thinking after graduation (Huber and Kuncel, 2016), but respondents believe on the possibilities that their students apply critical thinking and reflection in their working life by investigating facts before making decisions and in creatively solving problems. Critical thinking, reflection and action can develop critical beings that are problem solvers and innovators.

References Barnett, R. (1997). Higher Education: A Critical Business. Open University Press. Clark, T., Foster, L., Sloan, L & Bryman, A. (2021). Bryman´s social research methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. Department of Education/Unblindingsdepartment (2022). Higher Education Ordinance (Högskoleförordning 1993:100). Ennis, R.H. (2018). Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision Topoi, 37:165–184 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4 Huber, C. R. & Kuncel, N. R. (2016). Does College Teach Critical thiking? A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86 (2) 431- https://www.aera.net/Newsroom/Does-College-Teach-Critical-Thinking-A-Meta-Analysis Kuckartz, U. & Rädiker, S. (2023). Qualitative content analysis. Methods, practices and software (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Normile, I. (2024). Expanding Critical Thinking into “Critical Being” Through wonder and Wu-Wei. Educational Theory, 74 (1), 41-65. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/edth.12619 Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2023). Fostering and assessing student critical thinking: From theory to teaching practice. European Journal of Educational Research, 58 (3), 354-368. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12569 VR (Vetenskapsrådet). (2024). God Forskningssed (Good Research Practice). Vetenskapsrådet (The Swedish Research Council). https://www.vr.se/analys/rapporter/vara-rapporter/2024-10-02-god-forskningssed-2024.html