Nicola Tierney is a Senior Lecturer in Primary Education specialising in mathematics at St Mary's University. Australian-trained, Nicola has worked in primary education in Asia, Europe and the UK. Her research interests are focused around critical mathematics education.
What is critical thinking?
Definitions of critical thinking are multifarious but essentially resume to a multi-layered process of reflecting on information, questioning its veracity, intent and source, analysing and evaluating the strength of evidence provided, and comparing and contrasting it with other available information and evidence in order to produce a reasoned, balanced and informed judgement. I would argue that goals of objectivity are utopian, and advocate instead that critical thinking be accompanied by critical reflexivity – acknowledging explicitly the position from which the judgement is formed, both in terms of the sources used and the cultural and personal values which influenced their interpretation.
In a world increasingly assailed by fake news and doted with the digital capacity to spread information and disinformation far and wide, critical thinking would seem to be a vital skill which we need develop in all levels of our education system. Indeed, the primary and secondary national curricula in England (DfE, 2013; 2014b) both state that schools should offer a curriculum which prepares pupils ‘for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life’ (2013, p.5; 2014b, p.4). So, how effectively is critical thinking embedded in our curricula?
Critical thinking in the curriculum
A crude search for the root word ‘think’ in the primary, secondary and A-level curricula suggests that thinking, let alone critical thinking, is not a priority. The root word ‘think’ appears only 19 times in the primary national curriculum, 13 times in the secondary national curriculum, and only rarely in the curricula at A and AS-level. Whilst both the design and technology and citizenship curricula mention thinking critically, only the history primary and secondary curricula require teaching to ‘equip pupils to ask perceptive questions, think critically, weigh evidence, sift arguments, and develop perspective and judgement’ (DfE, 2013, p.188). In post-16 education, history, again, bears the brunt of the responsibility for developing ‘critical and reflective thinkers with curious and enquiring minds’ (DfE, 2014a, p.1), although media studies shoulders some of the load as it develops ‘skills of enquiry, critical thinking, decision-making and analysis’ (DfE, 2016, p.3). Unfortunately, many students will study neither of these subjects at this level. The recognition in the 2025 Curriculum and Assessment Review Interim Report that media literacy and critical thinking are essential in light of the ‘rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and trends in digital information’ (Curriculum and Assessment Review, 2025, p.26), gives hope that change is afoot, but is there really time to wait for curriculum change to filter down into the system?
In the UK, the subject benchmark statements (SBS) for undergraduate degrees place varying levels of emphasis on the need for students to think critically and to demonstrate open-mindedness and independent thinking. But is this too little too late? Should this kind of thinking really only come to the fore in post-compulsory education? As a teacher educator, I particularly worry that the new SBS for Education Studies only mentions the ability ‘to think entrepreneurially’ (QAA, 2025, p.7), although it does at least suggest that Education Studies graduate qualities should include ‘intellectual independence and autonomous thinking, critical engagement with evidence, and the ability to construct, sustain and articulate a reasoned argument about educational issues’ (QAA, 2025, p.9). If the ability to think critically is not explicitly required of teachers at university, and not emphasised in the curricula they teach, how can it become part of what students should learn to do?
The educational emphasis in England appears, therefore, to be entrenched in the stated, and unquestioning, aim of teaching that ‘introduces pupils to the best that has been thought and said’, to ‘the essential knowledge that they need to be educated citizens’ (DfE, 2013, p.6; 2014b). And whilst this is important, it is not enough. The essential knowledge that students need is the ability to understand and question what they are being asked to believe by politicians, media, academics, economists and industry.
Going forward
The implications of the rise of AI for critical thinking also cannot be ignored. Despite the emphasis placed on teaching students to engage with generative-AI critically, ethically and responsibly, can we really move forward from students simply being introduced to ‘what is thought and said’ into critical engagement when AI-produced information emerges from an unregulated black box whose algorithms, training bases and therefore biases are unknown (Khanam, 2025)? And in an online environment where LLMs (Large Language Model AI software) and the internet feed off each other, guiding users in what to think with increasing ubiquity and homogeneity (Carrigan, 2025), where do students go for alternative views? More than ever, teaching transparency and critical reflexivity, acknowledging the bias and values inherent in the sources used and the work produced is essential.
And this critical reflexivity should apply to educators too. What are the values, beliefs and biases inherent in what we teach, how we teach and how we assess? Do we genuinely prize originality of thought, critical synthesis of ideas, or do we, unwittingly, only value the thinking which aligns with what we think is ‘the best of what has been thought and said’?
*Slop is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as “content on the internet that is of very low quality, especially when it is created by artificial intelligence” (Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary, 2025).
- Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary (2025) 'slop' Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. (Accessed: 2nd October 2025).
- Carrigan, M. (2025) 'NCRM Annual Lecture 2025. Responsible AI and research.'. 1st October 2025. YouTube: National Centre for Research Methods, p.
- Curriculum and Assessment Review (2025) Curriculum and Assessment Review Interim Report. London: Crown Copyright.
- Department for Education (2013) The national curriculum in England. Key stages 1 and 2 framework document. London: Crown Copyright.
- Department for Education (2014a) GCE AS and A level subject content for history. London: Crown Copyright.Department for Education (2014b) The national curriculum in England. Key stages 3 and 4 framework document. London: Crown Copyright.
- Department for Education (2016) Media studies. GCE AS and A level subject content. London: Crown Copyright.
- Khanam, Z. (2025) 'NCRM Annual Lecture 2025. Responsible AI and research.'. 1st October 2025. YouTube: National Centre for Research Methods, p.
- QAA (2025) 'Subject Benchmark Statement Education Studies'. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (Accessed: 2nd October 2025).