Critical thinking in national tests across four subjects in Swedish compulsory school

Abstract

Critical thinking is brought to the fore as a central competence in today's society and in school curricula, but what may be emphasised as a general skill may also differ across school subjects. Using a mixed methods approach we identify general formulations regarding critical thinking in the Swedish curriculum of school year nine and seven more subject-specific categories of critical thinking in the syllabi and national tests in history, physics, mathematics and Swedish. By analysing 76 individual students' critical thinking as expressed in national tests we find that a student that thinks critically in one subjects does not necessarily do so in other subjects. We find that students' grades in different subjects are closely linked to their abilities to answer questions designed to test critical thinking in the subjects. We also find that the same formulations of critical thinking in two subjects may mean very different things when translated into assessments. Our findings suggest that critical thinking among students comprise different, subject-specific skills. The complexity of our findings highlights a need for future research to help clarify to students and researchers what it means to think critically in school.

Considering the past and present of Romani in Sweden: secondary school pupils’ thinking and caring about the history of the Romani in national tests

“…Also, in upper-secondary schooling, Swedish students at more advanced level (History 2 & 3) may struggle with test questions designed to assess historical thinking (Rosenlund, 2016). Lack of domain-specific knowledge can make it hard for students to contextualise historical sources, to understand temporal dimensions of the past and critically scrutinise information in relevant ways (Nygren, Haglund, Samuelsson, Af Geijerstam, & Prytz, 2018;Rosenlund, 2016).…”

Students Evaluating and Corroborating Digital News

“…In theory and practice, scholars have outlined different aspects of disciplinary literacy that are necessary for evaluating information in different academic subjects. This research highlights how expertise in a discipline includes content knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Nygren, Haglund, et al, 2019;Shanahan et al, 2011;Wineburg, 1991Wineburg, , 1998. Among experts, it has been noted that fact-checkers are particularly skilled at using digital resources to double check information (i.e., read laterally); moreover, they are able to corroborate information in more skillful ways than trained historians (Wineburg & McGrew, 2019).…”

“…The importance of literacy and academic literacy has been underscored in previous research (Cummins & Swain, 2014;Moje, 2007;Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012). Students' abilities to determine credibility has been linked to their disciplinary literacy, for example, their subject specific knowledge and habits of mind (Nygren & Guath, 2019;Nygren, Haglund, et al, 2019). In theory and practice, scholars have outlined different aspects of disciplinary literacy that are necessary for evaluating information in different academic subjects.…”

“…They may have more knowledge about this issue than other students, helping them when reading laterally. Theories of disciplinary literacy predict that students in Natural Sciences have subject specific knowledge that makes it easier for them to search for credible information and determine the credibility of information relating to natural sciences (Nygren, Haglund, et al, 2019;T. Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012).…”

Policy responses to false and misleading digital content

“…Similar to overestimation of content-specific knowledge, overestimation of digital media literacy skills is also a challenge when it comes to thinking critically. Nygren and Guath (2019 [163]) studied teenagers' ability to determine digital news credibility and found that participants generally assessed themselves very favourably for their information sourcing and evaluating abilities. However, this was negatively correlated with their actual performance in detecting false news in climate change articles, and bias in digital news sources.…”