critical thinking collaboration communication

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PMC10054602

Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education

Branden thornhill-miller.

1 Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK

2 International Institute for Competency Development, 75001 Paris, France

Anaëlle Camarda

3 LaPEA, Université Paris Cité and Univ Gustave Eiffel, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France

4 Institut Supérieur Maria Montessori, 94130 Nogent-Sur-Marne, France

Maxence Mercier

Jean-marie burkhardt.

5 LaPEA, Univ Gustave Eiffel and Université Paris Cité, CEDEX, 78008 Versailles, France

Tiffany Morisseau

6 Strane Innovation, 91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, France

Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine

Florent vinchon, stephanie el hayek.

7 AFNOR International, 93210 Saint-Denis, France

Myriam Augereau-Landais

Florence mourey, cyrille feybesse.

8 Centre Hospitalier Guillaume Regnier, Université de Rennes 1, 35200 Rennes, France

Daniel Sundquist

Todd lubart, associated data.

Not Applicable.

This article addresses educational challenges posed by the future of work, examining “21st century skills”, their conception, assessment, and valorization. It focuses in particular on key soft skill competencies known as the “4Cs”: creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. In a section on each C, we provide an overview of assessment at the level of individual performance, before focusing on the less common assessment of systemic support for the development of the 4Cs that can be measured at the institutional level (i.e., in schools, universities, professional training programs, etc.). We then present the process of official assessment and certification known as “labelization”, suggesting it as a solution both for establishing a publicly trusted assessment of the 4Cs and for promoting their cultural valorization. Next, two variations of the “International Institute for Competency Development’s 21st Century Skills Framework” are presented. The first of these comprehensive systems allows for the assessment and labelization of the extent to which development of the 4Cs is supported by a formal educational program or institution. The second assesses informal educational or training experiences, such as playing a game. We discuss the overlap between the 4Cs and the challenges of teaching and institutionalizing them, both of which may be assisted by adopting a dynamic interactionist model of the 4Cs—playfully entitled “Crea-Critical-Collab-ication”—for pedagogical and policy-promotion purposes. We conclude by briefly discussing opportunities presented by future research and new technologies such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality.

1. Introduction

There are many ways of describing the massive educational challenges faced in the 21st century. With the appearance of computers and digital technologies, new means of interacting between people, and a growing competitiveness on the international level, organizations are now requiring new skills from their employees, leaving educational systems struggling to provide appropriate ongoing training. Indeed, according to the World Economic Forum’s 2020 “Future of Jobs Report”, studying 15 industries in 26 advanced and emerging countries, up to 50% of employees will need some degree of “reskilling” by 2025 ( World Economic Forum 2020 ). Although many national and international educational efforts and institutions now explicitly put the cultivation of new kinds of skills on their educational agendas, practical means of assessing such skills remains underdeveloped, thus hampering the valorization of these skills and the development of guidance for relevant pedagogy ( Care et al. 2018 ; Vincent-Lancrin et al. 2019 ; for overviews and discussion of higher education in global developmental context, see Blessinger and Anchan 2015 ; Salmi 2017 ).

This article addresses some of these challenges and related issues for the future of education and work, by focusing on so-called “21st Century Skills” and key “soft skills” known as the “4Cs” (creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration), more particularly. It begins with a brief discussion of these skills, outlining their conceptual locations and potential roles in the modern educational context. A section on each “C” then follows, defining the C, summarizing research and methods for its scientific assessment at the individual level, and then outlining some means and avenues at the systemic level for fostering its development (e.g., important aspects of curriculum, institutional structure, or of the general environment, as well as pedagogical methods) that might be leveraged by an institution or program in order to promote the development of that C among its students/trainees. In the next section, the certification-like process of “labelization” is outlined and proposed as one of the best available solutions both for valorizing the 4Cs and moving them towards the center of the modern educational enterprise, as well as for benchmarking and monitoring institutions’ progress in fostering their development. The International Institute for Competency Development’s 4Cs Framework is then outlined as an example of such a comprehensive system for assessing and labelizing the extent to which educational institutions and programs support the development of the 4Cs. We further demonstrate the possibility of labelizing and promoting support for the development of the 4Cs by activities or within less formal educational settings, presenting a second framework for assessment of the 4Cs in games and similar training activities. Our discussion section begins with the challenges to implementing educational change in the direction of 21st century skills, focusing on the complex and overlapping nature of the 4Cs. Here, we propose that promoting a “Dynamic Interactionist Model of the 4Cs” not only justifies grouping them together, but it might also assist more directly with some of the challenges of pedagogy, assessment, policy promotion, and ultimately, institutionalization, faced by the 4Cs and related efforts to modernize education. We conclude by suggesting some important future work for the 4Cs individually and also as an interrelated collective of vital skills for the future of education and work.

“21st Century Skills”, “Soft Skills”, and the “4Cs”

For 40 years, so-called “21st century skills” have been promoted as those necessary for success in a modern work environment that the US Army War College ( Barber 1992 ) has accurately described as increasingly “VUCA”—“volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous”. Various lists of skills and competencies have been formulated on their own or as part of comprehensive overarching educational frameworks. Although a detailed overview of this background material is outside the scope of this article (see Lamri et al. 2022 ; Lucas 2022 for summaries), one of the first prominent examples of this trend was the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21), whose comprehensive “Framework for 21st Century Learning” is presented in Figure 1 ( Battelle for Kids 2022 ). This framework for future-oriented education originated the idea of the “4Cs”, placing them at its center and apex as “Learning and Innovation Skills” that are in need of much broader institutional support at the foundational level in the form of new standards and assessments, curriculum and instructional development, ongoing professional development, and appropriately improved learning environments ( Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2008 ). These points are also consistent with the approach and assessment frameworks presented later in this article.

The P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning. (© 2019, Battelle for Kids. All Rights Reserved. https://www.battelleforkids.org/ ; accessed on 17 January 2023).

Other important organizations such as the World Economic Forum ( 2015 ) have produced similar overarching models of “21st century skills’’ with the 4Cs at their center, but the term “21st century skills’’ has been rightly criticized for a several reasons: the skills referred to are not actually all unique to, or uniquely important to, the 21st century, and it is a term that is often used more as an advertising or promotional label for systems that sometimes conflate and confuse different kinds of skills with other concepts that users lump together ( Lucas 2019 ). Indeed, though there is no absolute consensus on the definition of a “skill”, they are often described as being multidimensional and involve the ability to solve problems in context and to perform tasks using appropriate resources at the right time and in the right combination ( Lamri and Lubart 2021 ). At its simplest, a skill is a “learned capacity to do something useful” ( Lucas and Claxton 2009 ), or an ability to perform a given task at a specified performance level, which develops through practice, experience. and training ( Lamri et al. 2022 ).

The idea of what skills “are’’, however, has also evolved to some extent over time in parallel to the nature of the abilities required to make valued contributions to society. The digital and information age, in particular, has seen the replacement by machines of much traditional work sometimes referred to as “hard skills’’—skills such as numerical calculation or driving, budget-formulating, or copyediting abilities, which entail mastery of fixed sets of knowledge and know-how of standard procedures, and which are often learned on the job. Such skills are more routine, machine-related, or technically oriented and not as likely to be centered on human interaction. In contrast, the work that has been increasingly valued in the 21st century involves the more complex, human interactive, and/or non-routine skills that Whitmore ( 1972 ) first referred to as “soft skills”.

Unfortunately, researchers, educators, and consultants have defined, redefined, regrouped, and expanded soft skills—sometimes labeling them “transversal competencies”, “generic competencies”, or even “life skills” in addition to “21st century skills”—in so many different ways within and across different domains of research and education (as well as languages and national educational systems) that much progress towards these goals has literally been “lost in translation” ( Cinque 2016 ).

Indeed, there is also a long-standing ambiguity and confusion between the terms “competency” (also competence) and “skill” due to their use across different domains (e.g., learning research, education, vocational training, personnel selection) as well as different epistemological backgrounds and cultural specificities ( Drisko 2014 ; Winterton et al. 2006 ; van Klink and Boon 2003 ). The term “competency” is, however, often used as a broader concept that encompasses skills, abilities, and attitudes, whereas, in a narrower sense, the term “skill” has been defined as “goal-directed, well-organized behavior that is acquired through practice and performed with economy of effort” ( Proctor and Dutta 1995, p. 18 ). For example, whereas the command of a spoken language or the ability to write are skills (hard skills, to be precise), the ability to communicate effectively is a competence that may draw on an individual’s knowledge of language, writing skills, practical IT skills, and emotional intelligence, as well as attitudes towards those with whom one is communicating ( Rychen and Hersch 2003 ). Providing high-quality customer service is a competency that relies on listening skills, social perception skills, and contextual knowledge of products. Beyond these potential distinctions, the term “competency” is predominant in Europe, whereas “skill” is more commonly used in the US. Yet it also frequently occurs that both are used as rough synonyms. For example, Voogt and Roblin ( 2012, p. 299 ) examine the “21st century competences and the recommended strategies for the implementation of these skills”, and Graesser et al. ( 2022, p. 568 ) state that twenty-first-century skills “include self-regulated learning, collaborative problem solving, communication (…) and other competencies”. In conclusion, the term “competencies” is often used interchangeably with “skills” (and can have a particularly large overlap with “soft skills”), but it is also often considered in a broader sense as a set of skills, knowledge, and attitudes that, together, meet a complex demand ( Ananiadoui and Claro 2009 ). From this perspective, one could argue that the 4Cs, as complex, “higher-order” soft skills, might best be labeled competencies. For ease and convenience, however, in this text, we consider the two terms interchangeable but favor the term “skills”, only using “competency” in some instances to avoid cumbersome repetition.

Even having defined soft skills as a potentially more narrow and manageable focus, we are still aware of no large-scale study that has employed a comprehensive enough range of actual psychometric measures of soft skills in a manner that might help produce a definitive empirical taxonomy. Some more recent taxonomic efforts have, however, attempted to provide additional empirical grounding for the accurate identification of key soft skills (see e.g., Joie-La Marle et al. 2022 ). Further, recent research by JobTeaser (see Lamri et al. 2022 ) surveying a large, diverse sample of young workers about a comprehensive, systematic list of soft skills as actually used in their professional roles represents a good step towards some clarification and mapping of this domain on an empirical basis. Despite the fact that both these studies necessarily involved assumptions and interpretive grouping of variables, the presence and importance of the 4Cs as higher-order skills is evident in both sets of empirical results.

Various comprehensive “21st century skills” systems proposed in the past without much empirical verification also seem to have been found too complex and cumbersome for implementation. The 4Cs, on the other hand, seem to provide a relatively simple, persuasive, targetable core that has been found to constitute a pedagogically and policy-friendly model by major organizations, and that also now seems to be gaining some additional empirical validity. Gathering support from researchers and industry alike, we suggest that the 4Cs can be seen as highest-level transversal skills—or “meta-competencies”—that allow individuals to remain competent and to develop their potential in a rapidly changing professional world. Thus, in the end, they may also be one of the most useful ways of summarizing and addressing the critical challenges faced by the future of work and education ( National Education Association 2011 ).

Taking them as our focus, we note, however, that the teaching and development of the 4Cs will require a complex intervention and mobilization of educational and socio-economic resources—both a major shift in pedagogical techniques and even more fundamental changes in institutional structures ( Ananiadoui and Claro 2009 ). One very important issue for understanding the 4Cs and their educational implementation related to this, which can simultaneously facilitate their teaching but be a challenge for their assessment, is the multidimensionality, interrelatedness, and transdisciplinary relevance of the 4Cs. Thus, we address the relationships between the Cs in the different C sections and later in our Discussion, we present a “Dynamic Interactionist Model of the 4Cs’’ that we hope will assist in their understanding, in the further development of pedagogical processes related to them, and in their public promotion and related policy. Ultimately, it is partly due to their complexity and interrelationships, we argue, that it is important and expedient that the 4Cs are taught, assessed, and promoted together.

2. The 4Cs, Assessment, and Support for Development

2.1. creativity.

In psychology, creativity is usually defined as the capacity to produce novel, original work that fits with task constraints and has value in its context (for a recent overview, see Lubart and Thornhill-Miller 2019 ). This basic definition, though useful for testing and measurement, is largely incomplete, as it does not contain any information about the individual or groups doing the creating or the nature of physical and social contexts ( Glăveanu 2014 ). Moreover, Corazza ( 2016 ) challenged this standard definition of creativity, arguing that as it focuses solely on the existence of an original and effective outcome, it misses the dynamics of the creative process, which is frequently associated with periods of creative inconclusiveness and limited occasions of creative achievements. To move away from the limitations of the standard definition of creativity, we can consider Bruner’s description of creativity as “figuring out how to use what you already know in order to go beyond what you currently think” (p. 183 in Weick 1993 ). This description echoes the notion of potential, which refers to a latent state that may be put to use if a person has the opportunity.

Creativity is a multifaceted phenomenon that can be approached from many different angles. There are three main frameworks for creativity studies: the 4Ps ( Rhodes 1961 ), the 5As ( Glăveanu 2013 ), and the 7Cs model ( Lubart 2017 ). These frameworks share at least four fundamental and measurable dimensions: the act of creating (process), the outcome of the creative process (product), the characteristics of creative actor(s) enacting the process (person), and the social and physical environment that enable or hinder the creative process (press). Contrary to many traditional beliefs, however, creativity can be trained and taught in a variety of different ways, both through direct, active teaching of creativity concepts and techniques and through more passive and indirect means such as the development of creativity-supporting contexts ( Chiu 2015 ; Thornhill-Miller and Dupont 2016 ). Alongside intelligence, with which it shares some common mechanisms, creativity is now recognized as an indispensable element for the flexibility and adaptation of individuals in challenging situations ( Sternberg 1986 ).

2.1.1. Individual Assessment of Creativity

Drawing upon previous efforts to structure creativity research, Batey ( 2012 ) proposed a taxonomic framework for creativity measurement that takes the form of a three-dimensional matrix: (a) the level at which creativity may be measured (the individual, the team, the organization, and the culture), (b) the facets of creativity that may be assessed (person/trait, process, press, and product), and (c) the measurement approach (objective, self-rating, other ratings). It is beyond the scope of this article to offer a literature review of all these dimensions, but for the purposes of this paper, we address some important aspects of individual-level and institutional-level assessment here.

Assessing creativity at an individual level encompasses two major approaches: (1) creative accomplishment based on production and (2) creative potential. Regarding the first approach focusing on creative accomplishment , there are at least four main assessment techniques (or tools representing variations of assessment techniques): (a) the historiometric approach, which applies quantitative analysis to historically available data (such as the number of prizes won or times cited) in an effort to understand eminent, field-changing creativity ( Simonton 1999 ); (b) the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) ( Amabile 1982 ), which offers a method for combining and validating judges’ subjective evaluations of a set of (potentially) creative productions or ideas; (c) the Creative Achievement Questionnaire ( Carson et al. 2005 ), which asks individuals to supply a self-reported assessment of their publicly recognizable achievement in ten different creative domains; and (d) the Inventory of Creative Activities and Achievements (ICAA) ( Jauk et al. 2014 ; Diedrich et al. 2018 ), which includes self-report scales assessing the frequency of engagement in creative activity and also levels of achievement in eight different domains.

The second major approach to individual assessment is based on creative potential, which measures the cognitive abilities and/or personality traits that are important for creative work. The two most popular assessments of creative potential are the Remote Associations Test (RAT) and the Alternative Uses Task (AUT). The RAT, which involves identifying the fourth word that is somehow associated with each of three given words, underscores the role that the ability to convergently associate disparate ideas plays as a key capacity for creativity. In contrast, the AUT, which requires individuals to generate a maximum number of ideas based on a prompt (e.g., different uses for a paperclip), is used to assess divergent thinking capacity. According to multivariate models of creative potential ( Lubart et al. 2013 ), there are cognitive factors (e.g., divergent thinking, mental flexibility, convergent thinking, associative thinking, selective combination), conative factors (openness, tolerance of ambiguity, intuitive thinking, risk taking, motivation to create), and environmental factors that all support creativity. Higher creative potential is predicted by having more of the ingredients for creativity. However, multiple different profiles among a similar set of these important ingredients exist, and their weighting for optimal creative potential varies according to the profession, the domain, and the task under consideration. For example, Lubart and Thornhill-Miller ( 2021 ) and Lubin et al. ( forthcoming ) have taken this creativity profiling approach, exploring the identification and training of the components of creative potential among lawyers and clinical psychologists, respectively. For a current example of this sort of comprehensive, differentiated measurement of creative potential in adults in different domains and professions, see CreativityProfiling.org. For a recent battery of tests that are relevant for children, including domain-relevant divergent-exploratory and convergent-integrative tasks, see Lubart et al. ( 2019 ). Underscoring the growing recognition of the importance of creativity assessment, measures of creative potential for students were introduced internationally for the first time in the PISA 2022 assessment ( OECD 2019a ).

2.1.2. Institutional and Environmental Support for Development of Creativity

The structural support that institutions and programs can provide to promote the development of creativity can be described as coming through three main paths: (1) through design of the physical environment in a manner that supports creativity, (2) through teaching about creativity, the creative process, and creativity techniques, and (3) through training opportunities to help students/employees develop personal habits, characteristics, and other ingredients associated with creative achievement and potential.

Given the multi-dimensionality of the notion of creativity, the environment can positively influence and help develop creative capacities. Studies have shown that the physical environment in which individuals work can enhance their positive emotions and mood and thus their creativity. For example, stimulating working environments might have unusual furniture and spaces that have natural light, windows open to nature, plants and flowers, a relaxing atmosphere and colors in the room (e.g., green and blue), or positive sounds (e.g., calm music or silence), as well as inspiring and energizing colors (e.g., yellow, pink, orange). Furthermore, the arrangement of physical space to promote interpersonal exchange rather than isolation, as well as the presence of tools, such as whiteboards, that support and show the value of exchange, are also important (for reviews, see Dul and Ceylan 2011 ; Samani et al. 2014 ).

Although it has been claimed that “creativity is intelligence having fun” ( Scialabba 1984 ; Reiman 1992 ), for most people, opportunities for fun and creativity, especially in their work environment, appear rather limited. In fact, the social and physical environment often hinders creativity. Corazza et al. ( 2021 )’s theoretical framework concerning the “Space-Time Continuum”, related to support for creativity, suggests that traditional education systems are an example of an environment that is “tight” both in the conceptual “space” it affords for creativity and in the available time allowed for creativity to happen—essentially leaving little room for original ideas to emerge. Indeed, though world-wide data suggest that neither money nor mere time spent in class correlate well with educational outcomes, both policies and pedagogy that direct the ways in which time is spent make a significant difference ( Schleicher 2022 ). Research and common sense suggest that teachers, students, and employees need more space and time to invest energy in the creative process and the development of creative potential.

Underscoring the importance of teaching the creative process and creativity techniques is the demonstration, in a number of contexts, that groups of individuals who generate ideas without a specific method are often negatively influenced by their social environment. For example, unless guarded against, the presence of others tends to reduce the number of ideas generated and to induce a fixation on a limited number of ideas conforming to those produced by others ( Camarda et al. 2021 ; Goldenberg and Wiley 2011 ; Kohn and Smith 2011 ; Paulus and Dzindolet 1993 ; Putman and Paulus 2009 ; Rietzschel et al. 2006 ). To overcome these cognitive and social biases, different variants of brainstorming techniques have shown positive effects (for reviews of methods, see Al-Samarraie and Hurmuzan 2018 ; Paulus and Brown 2007 ). These include: using ( Osborn 1953 ) initial brainstorming rules (which aim to reduce spontaneous self-judgment of ideas and fear of this judgment by others); drawing attention to ideas generated by others by writing them down independently (e.g., the technique known as “brainwriting”); and requiring incubation periods between work sessions by forcing members of a problem-solving group to take breaks ( Paulus and Yang 2000 ; Paulus and Kenworthy 2019 ).

It is also possible to use design methods that are structured to guide the creative process and the exploration of ideas, as well as to avoid settling on uncreative solution paths ( Chulvi et al. 2012 ; Edelman et al. 2022 ; Kowaltowski et al. 2010 ; see Cotter et al. 2022 for a valuable survey of best practices for avoiding the suppression of creativity and fostering creative interaction and metacognition in the classroom). Indeed, many helpful design thinking-related programs now exist around the world and have been shown to have a substantial impact on creative outcomes ( Bourgeois-Bougrine 2022 ).

Research and experts suggest the utility of many additional creativity enhancement techniques (see, e.g., Thornhill-Miller and Dupont 2016 ), and the largest and most rapid effects are often attributed to these more method- or technique-oriented approaches ( Scott et al. 2004 ). More long-term institutional and environmental support for the development of creativity, however, should also include targeted training and understanding of personality and emotional traits associated with the “creative person” (e.g., empathy and exploratory habits that can expand knowledge, as well as increase tolerance of ambiguity, openness, and mental flexibility; see Lubart and Thornhill-Miller 2021 ). Complementing these approaches and focusing on a more systemic level, recent work conducted by the OECD exemplifies efforts aimed to foster creativity (and critical thinking) by focusing simultaneously on curriculum, educational activities, and teacher support and development at the primary, secondary, and higher education levels (see Vincent-Lancrin et al. 2019 ; Saroyan 2022 ).

2.2. Critical Thinking

Researchers, teachers, employers, and public policymakers around the world have long ranked the development of critical thinking (CT) abilities as one of the highest educational priorities and public needs in modern democratic societies ( Ahern et al. 2019 ; Dumitru et al. 2018 ; Pasquinelli et al. 2021 ). CT is central to better outcomes in daily life and general problem solving ( Hitchcock 2020 ), to intelligence and adaptability ( Halpern and Dunn 2021 ), and to academic achievement ( Ren et al. 2020 ). One needs to be aware of distorted or erroneous information in the media, of the difference between personal opinions and proven facts, and how to handle increasingly large bodies of information required to understand and evaluate information in the modern age.

Although much research has addressed both potentially related constructs, such as intelligence and wisdom, and lists of potential component aspects of human thought, such as inductive or deductive reasoning (for reviews of all of these, see Sternberg and Funke 2019 ), reaching a consensus on a definition has been difficult, because CT relies on the coordination of many different skills ( Bellaera et al. 2021 ; Dumitru et al. 2018 ) and is involved in, and sometimes described from the perspective of, many different domains ( Lewis and Smith 1993 ). Furthermore, as a transversal competency, having the skills to perform aspects of critical thinking in a given domain does not necessarily entail also having the metacognitive ability to know when to engage in which of its aspects, or having the disposition, attitude, or “mindset” that motivates one to actually engage in them—all of which are actually required to be a good critical thinker ( Facione 2011 ).

As pointed out by the American Philosophical Association’s consensus definition, the ideal “critical thinker” is someone who is inquisitive, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded, and keeps well-informed, thus understanding different points of view and perspectives ( Facione 1990b ). These characteristics, one might note, are also characteristic of the “creative individual” ( Facione 1990b ; Lai 2011 ), as is the ability to imagine alternatives, which is often cited as a component of critical thinking ability ( Facione 1990b ; Halpern 1998 ). Conversely, creative production in any domain needs to be balanced by critical appraisal and thought at each step of the creative process ( Bailin 1988 ). Indeed, it can be argued that creativity and critical thinking are inextricably linked and are often two sides of the same coin. Representing different aspects of “good thought” that are linked and develop in parallel, it seems reasonable that they should, in practice, be taught and considered together in teaching and learning ( Paul and Elder 2006 ).

Given its complexity, many definitions of critical thinking have been offered. However, some more recent work has helpfully defined critical thinking as “the capacity of assessing the epistemic quality of available information and—as a consequence of this assessment—of calibrating one’s confidence in order to act upon such information” ( Pasquinelli et al. 2021 ). This definition, unlike others proposed in the field (for a review, see: Bellaera et al. 2021 ; Liu et al. 2014 ), is specific (i.e., it limits the use of poorly defined concepts), as well as consensual and operational (i.e., it has clear and direct implications for the education and assessment of critical thinking skills; Pasquinelli et al. 2021 ; Pasquinelli and Bronner 2021 ). Thus, this approach assumes that individuals possess better or worse cognitive processes and strategies that make it possible to judge the reliability of the information received, by determining, for example, what the arguments provided actually are. Are the arguments convincing? Is the source of information identifiable and reliable? Does the information conflict with other information held by the individual?

It should also be noted that being able to apply critical thinking is necessary to detect and overcome the cognitive biases that can constrain one’s reasoning. Indeed, when solving a problem, it is widely recognized that people tend to automate the application of strategies that are usually relevant in similar and analogous situations that have already been encountered. However, these heuristics (i.e., automatisms) can be a source of errors, in particular, in tricky reasoning situations, as demonstrated in the field of reasoning, arithmetic problems ( Kahneman 2003 ) or even divergent thinking tasks ( Cassotti et al. 2016 ; for a review of biases, see Friedman 2017 ). Though some cognitive biases can even be seen as normal ways of thinking and feeling, sometimes shaping human beliefs and ideologies in ways that make it completely normal—and even definitely human— not to be objective (see Thornhill-Miller and Millican 2015 ), the mobilization of cognitive resources such as those involved in critical reasoning on logical bases usually makes it possible to overcome cognitive biases and adjust one’s reasoning ( West et al. 2008 ).

According to Pasquinelli et al. ( 2021 ), young children already possess cognitive functions underlying critical thinking, such as the ability to determine that information is false. However, until late adolescence, studies have demonstrated an underdevelopment of executive functions involved in resistance to biased reasoning ( Casey et al. 2008 ) as well as some other higher-order skills that underlie the overall critical thinking process ( Bloom 1956 ). According to Facione and the landmark American Philosophical Association’s task force on critical thinking ( Facione 1990b ; Facione 2011 ), these components of critical thinking can be organized into six measurable skills: the ability to (1) interpret information (i.e., meaning and context); (2) analyze information (i.e., make sense of why this information has been provided, identify pro and con arguments, and decide whether we can accept the conclusion of the information); (3) make inferences (i.e., determine the implications of the evidence, its reliability, the undesirable consequences); (4) evaluate the strength of the information (i.e., its credibility, determine the trust in the person who provides it); (5) provide explanations (i.e., summarize the findings, determine how the information can be interpreted, and offer verification of the reasoning); (6) self-regulate (i.e., evaluate the strength of the methods applied, determine the conflict between different conclusions, clarify the conclusions, and verify missing elements).

2.2.1. Individual Assessment of Critical Thinking

The individual assessment of critical thinking skills presents a number of challenges, because it is a multi-task ability and involves specific knowledge in the different areas in which it is applied ( Liu et al. 2014 ; Willingham 2008 ). However, the literature provides several tools with which to measure different facets of cognitive functions and skills involved in the overarching critical thinking process ( Lai 2011 ; Liu et al. 2014 ). Most assessments involve multiple-choice questions requiring reasoning within a particular situation based upon a constrained set of information provided. For example, in one of the most widely used tests, the California Critical Thinking Skills Test ( Facione 1990a ), participants are provided with everyday scenarios and have to answer multiple questions targeting the six higher-order skills described previously. Similarly, the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal ( Watson 1980 ; Watson and Glaser 2010 ) presents test takers with passages and scenarios measuring their competencies at recognizing assumptions, evaluating arguments, and drawing conclusions. Although the Watson–Glaser is one of the oldest and most frequently used assessments internationally for hiring and promotion in professional contexts, its construct validity, like many other measures of this challenging topic, has some limitations ( Possin 2014 ).

Less frequently, case study or experiential methods of assessment are also used. This approach may involve asking participants to reflect on past experiences, analyze the situations they faced and the way they behaved or made judgments and decisions and then took action ( Bandyopadhyay and Szostek 2019 ; Brookfield 1997 ). These methods, often employed by teachers or employers on students and employees, usually involve the analysis of qualitative data that can cast doubt on the reliability of the results. Consequently, various researchers have suggested ways to improve analytic methods, and they emphasize the need to create more advanced evaluation methods ( Brookfield 1997 ; Liu et al. 2014 ).

For example, Liu et al. ( 2014 ) reviewed current assessment methods and suggest that future work improves the operational definition of critical thinking, aiming to assess it both in different specific contexts and in different formats. Specifically, assessments could be contextualized within the major areas addressed by education programs (e.g., social sciences, humanities, and/or natural sciences), and the tasks themselves should be as practically connected to the “real world” as possible (e.g., categorizing a set of features, opinions, or facts based on whether or not they support an initial statement). Moreover, as Brookfield ( 1997 ) argues, because critical thinking is a social process that takes place in specific contexts of knowledge and culture, it should be assessed as a social process, therefore, involving a multiplicity of experiences, perceptions, and contributions. Thus, Brookfield makes three recommendations for improving the assessment of critical thinking that are still relevant today: (1) to assess critical thinking in specific situations, so one can study the process and the discourse related to it; (2) to involve students/peers in the evaluation of critical thinking abilities, so that the evaluation is not provided only by the instructor; and (3) to allow learners or participants in an experiment to document, demonstrate, and justify their engagement in critical thinking, because this learning perspective can provide insight into basic dimensions of the critical thinking process.

Finally, another more recent and less widely used form of assessment targets the specific executive functions that underlie logical reasoning and resistance to cognitive biases, as well as the ability of individuals to resist these biases. This form of assessment is usually done through specific experimental laboratory tasks that vary depending on the particular executive function and according to the domain of interest ( Houdé and Borst 2014 ; Kahneman 2011 ; West et al. 2008 ).

2.2.2. Institutional and Environmental Support for Development of Critical Thinking Skills

The executive functions underlying general critical thinking, the ability to overcome bias ( Houdé 2000 ; Houdé and Borst 2014 ), and meta-cognitive processes (i.e., meta information about our cognitive strategies) can all be trained and enhanced by educational programs ( Abrami et al. 2015 ; Ahern et al. 2019 ; Alsaleh 2020 ; Bellaera et al. 2021 ; Uribe-Enciso et al. 2017 ; Popil 2011 ; Pasquinelli and Bronner 2021 ; Yue et al. 2017 ).

Educational programs and institutions can support the development of critical thinking in several different ways. The process of developing critical thinking focuses on the interaction between personal dispositions (attitudes and habits), skills (evaluation, reasoning, self-regulation), and finally, knowledge (general and specific knowledge, as well as experience) ( Thomas and Lok 2015 ). It is specifically in regard to skills and knowledge that institutions are well suited to develop critical thinking through pedagogical elements such as rhetoric training, relevance of information evaluation (e.g., media literacy, where and how to check information on the internet, dealing with “fake news”, etc.), deductive thinking skills, and inductive reasoning ( Moore and Parker 2016 ). A few tools, such as case studies or concept mapping, can also be used in conjunction with a problem-based learning method, both in individual and team contexts and in person or online ( Abrami et al. 2015 ; Carmichael and Farrell 2012 ; Popil 2011 ; Thorndahl and Stentoft 2020 ). According to Marin and Halpern ( 2011 ), training critical thinking should include explicit instruction involving at least the four following components and objectives: (1) working on attitudes and encouraging individuals to think; (2) teaching and practicing critical thinking skills; (3) training for transfer between contexts, identifying concrete situations in which to adopt the strategies learned; and (4) suggesting metacognition through reflection on one’s thought processes. Supporting these propositions, Pasquinelli and Bronner ( 2021 ), in a French national educational report, proposed practical advice for creating workshops to stimulate critical thinking in school classrooms, which appear relevant even in non-school intervention situations. For example, the authors suggest combining concrete examples and exercises with general and abstract explanations, rules and strategies, which can be transferred to other areas beyond the one studied. They also suggest inviting learners to create examples of situations (e.g., case studies) in order to increase the opportunities to practice and for the learner to actively participate. Finally, they suggest making the process of reflection explicit by asking the learner to pay attention to the strategies adopted by others in order to stimulate the development of metacognition.

2.3. Communication

In its most basic definition, communication consists of exchanging information to change the epistemic context of others. In cooperative contexts, it aims at the smooth and efficient exchange of information contributing to the achievement of a desired outcome or goal ( Schultz 2010 ). But human communication involves multiple dimensions. Both verbal and non-verbal communication can involve large quantities of information that have to be both formulated and deciphered with a range of purposes and intentions in mind ( Jones and LeBaron 2002 ). These dimensions of communication have as much to do with the ability to express oneself, both orally and in writing and the mastering of a language (linguistic competences), as with the ability to use this communication system appropriately (pragmatic skills; see Grassmann 2014 ; Matthews 2014 ), and with social skills, based on the knowledge of how to behave in society and on the ability to connect with others, to understand the intentions and perspectives of others ( Tomasello 2005 ).

Like the other 4Cs, according to most authorities, communication skills are ranked by both students and teachers as skills of the highest priority for acquisition in order to be ready for the workforce in 2030 ( OECD 2019b ; Hanover Research 2012 ). Teaching students how to communicate efficiently and effectively in all the new modalities of information exchange is an important challenge faced by all pedagogical organizations today ( Morreale et al. 2017 ). All dimensions of communication (linguistic, pragmatic, and social) are part of what is taught in school curricula at different levels. But pragmatic and social competencies are rarely explicitly taught as such. Work on social/emotional intelligence (and on its role in students’ personal and professional success) shows that these skills are both disparate and difficult to assess ( Humphrey et al. 2007 ). Research on this issue is, however, becoming increasingly rigorous, with the potential to provide usable data for the development of science-based practice ( Keefer et al. 2018 ). Teachers and pedagogical teams also have an important, changing role to play: they also need to master new information and communication technologies and the transmission of information through them ( Zlatić et al. 2014 ).

Communication has an obvious link with the three other Cs. Starting with critical thinking, sound communication implies fostering the conditions for a communicative exchange directed towards a common goal, which is, at least in educational and professional contexts, based on a fair evaluation of reality ( Pornpitakpan 2004 ). Collaboration too has a strong link with communication, because successful collaboration is highly dependent on the quality of knowledge sharing and trust that emerges between group members. Finally, creativity involves the communication of an idea to an audience and can involve high-quality communication when creative work occurs in a team context.

2.3.1. Individual Assessment of Communication

Given the vast field of communication, an exhaustive list of its evaluation methods is difficult to establish. A number of methods have been reported in the literature to assess an individual’s ability to communicate non-verbally and verbally. But although these two aspects are intrinsically linked, they are rarely measured together with a single tool. Moreover, as Spitzberg ( 2003 ) pointed out, communication skills are supported by different abilities, classically conceptualized as motivational functions (e.g., confidence and goal-orientation), knowledge (e.g., content and procedural knowledge), or cognitive and socio-cognitive functions (e.g., theory of mind, verbal cognition, emotional intelligence, and empathy; McDonald et al. 2014 ; Rothermich 2020 ), implying different specific types of evaluations. Finally, producing vs. receiving communication involve different skills and abilities, which can also vary according to the context ( Landa 2005 ).

To overcome these challenges, Spitzberg ( 2003 ) recommends the use of different assessment criteria. These criteria include the clarity of interaction, the understanding of what was involved in the interaction, the satisfaction of having interacted (expected to be higher when communication is effective), the efficiency of the interaction (the more competent someone is, the less effort, complexity, and resources will be needed to achieve their goal), its effectiveness or appropriateness (i.e., its relevance according to the context), as well as criteria relative to the quality of the dialogue (which involves coordination, cooperation, coherence, reciprocity, and mutuality in the exchange with others). Different forms of evaluation are also called for, such as self-reported questionnaires, hetero-reported questionnaires filled out by parents, teachers, or other observers, and tasks involving exposure to role-playing games, scenarios or videos (for a review of these assessment tools, see Cömert et al. 2016 ; Landa 2005 ; Sigafoos et al. 2008 ; Spitzberg 2003 ; van der Vleuten et al. 2019 ). Results from these tools must then be associated with others assessing underlying abilities, such as theory of mind and metacognition.

2.3.2. Institutional and Environmental Support for Development of Communication Skills

Although communication appears to be a key employability skill, the proficiency acquired during studies rarely meets the expectations of employers ( Jackson 2014 ). Communication must therefore become a priority in the training of students, beyond the sectors in which it is already known as essential (e.g., in medicine, nursing, engineering, etc.; Bourke et al. 2021 ; D’Alimonte et al. 2019 ; Peddle et al. 2018 ; Riemer 2007 ), and also through professional development ( Jackson 2014 ). Training programs involving, for example, communication theory classes ( Kruijver et al. 2000 ) and self-assessment tools that can be used in specific situations ( Curtis et al. 2013 ; Rider and Keefer 2006 ) have had convincingly positive results. The literature suggests that interactive approaches in small groups, in which competencies are practiced explicitly in an open and feedback-safe environment, are more effective ( Bourke et al. 2021 ; D’Alimonte et al. 2019 ; AbuSeileek 2012 ; Fryer-Edwards et al. 2006 ). These can take different forms: project-based work, video reviews, simulation or role-play games (see Hathaway et al. 2022 for a review; Schlegel et al. 2012 ). Finally, computer-assisted learning methods can be relevant for establishing a secure framework (especially, for example, when learning another language): anonymity indeed helps to overcome anxiety or social blockages linked to fear of public speaking or showing one’s difficulties ( AbuSeileek 2012 ). Each of these methods tackles one or more dimensions of communication that must then be assessed as such, by means of tools specifically developed and adapted to the contexts in which these skills are expressed (e.g., see the two 4Cs evaluation grids for institutions and for games outlined in Section 4 and Section 5 , below).

2.4. Collaboration

Collaborative problem solving—and more generally, collaboration—has gained increasing attention in national and international assessments (e.g., PISA) as an educational priority encompassing social, emotional, and cognitive skills critical to efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation in the modern global economy ( Graesser et al. 2018 ; OECD 2017 ). Understanding what makes effective collaboration is of crucial importance for professional practice and training ( Détienne et al. 2012 ; Graesser et al. 2018 ), as evidenced by the long line of research on group or team collaboration over the past 40 years (for a review, see e.g., Salas et al. 2004 ; Mathieu et al. 2017 ). Although there is no consensus on a definition of collaboration, scholars often see it as mutual engagement in a coordinated effort to achieve a common goal that involves the sharing of goals, resources, and representations relating to the joint activity of participants; and other important aspects relate to mutual respect, trust, responsibilities, and accountability within situational rules and norms ( Détienne et al. 2012 ).

In the teamwork research literature, skills are commonly described across three classes most often labeled Knowledge, Behavior, and Attitudes (e.g., Cannon-Bowers et al. 1995 ). Knowledge competencies refer to the skills related to elaborating the knowledge content required for the group to process and successfully achieve the task/goal to which they are assigned. Behavior includes skills related to the actualization of actions, coordination, communication, and interactions within the group as well as with any other relevant interlocutors for the task at hand. Note here that effective collaboration involves skills that have also been identified elsewhere as essential competencies, including communication, creativity, and critical thinking. Finally, several attitudes have been evidenced or hypothesized as desirable competencies in the team context, for example, attitude towards teamwork, collective orientation, cohesion/team morale, etc. Another common distinction lies between teamwork and taskwork. Teamwork refers to the collaborative, communicative, or social skills required to coordinate the work within the participants in order to achieve the task, whereas taskwork refers to specific aspects related to solving the task such as using the tools and knowing the procedure, policies, and any other task-related activities ( Salas et al. 2015 ; Graesser et al. 2018 ). Furthermore, collaborative competences can have specific (to a group of people or to a task) and general dimensions (i.e., easily transferable to any group or team situation and to other tasks). For example, skills related to communication, information exchange, conflict management, maintaining attention and motivation, leadership, etc. are present and transferable to a large number of group work situations and tasks (team-generic and task-contingent skills). Other skills can, on the other hand, be more specific to a team or group, such as internal organization, motivation, knowledge of the skills distributed in the team, etc.

2.4.1. Individual Assessment of Collaboration

Assessing collaboration requires capturing the dynamic and multi-level nature of the collaboration process, which is not as easily quantifiable as group/team inputs and outputs (task performance, satisfaction, and changes at group/team and individual level). There are indeed multiple interactions between the context, the collaboration processes, the task processes, and their (various) outcomes ( Détienne et al. 2012 ). The integrative concept of “quality of collaboration” ( Burkhardt et al. 2009 ) encapsulates much of what is currently known about collaborative processes and what constitutes effective collaboration. According to this approach, collaborative processes can be grouped along several dimensions concerning communication processes such as grounding, task-related processes (e.g., exchanges of knowledge relevant for the task at hand), and organization/coordination processes ( Burkhardt et al. 2009 ). Communication processes are most important for ensuring the construction of a common referential within a group of collaborators. Task-related processes relate to how the group resolves the task at hand by sharing and co-elaborating knowledge, by confronting their various perspectives, and by converging toward negotiated solutions. Collaboration also involves group management activities such as: (a) common goal management and coordination activities, e.g., allocation and planning of tasks; (b) meeting/interaction management activities, e.g., ordering and postponing of topics in the meeting. Finally, the ability to pursue reflexive activity, in the sense of reflecting not only on the content of a problem or solution but on one’s collaboration and problem-solving strategies, is critical for the development of the team and supports them in changing and improving their practices. Graesser et al. ( 2018 ) identify collaborative skills based on the combination of these dimensions with a step in the problem-solving process.

A large body of methodology developed to assess collaboration processes and collaborative tools has been focused on quantifying a restricted subset of fine-grained interactions (e.g., number of speakers’ turns; number of words spoken; number of interruptions; amount of grounding questions). This approach has at least two limitations. First, because these categories of analysis are often ad hoc with respect to the considered situation, they are difficult to apply in all situations and make it difficult to compare between studies. Second, quantitative variations of most of these indicators are non-univocal: any increase or decrease of them could signify either an interactive–intensive collaboration or else evidence of major difficulties in establishing and/or maintaining the collaboration ( Détienne et al. 2012 ). Alternatively, qualitative approaches based on multidimensional views of collaboration provide a more elaborated or nuanced view of collaboration and are useful for identifying potential relationships between distinctive dimensions of collaboration and aspects of team performance, in order to identify processes that could be improved. Based on the method of Spada et al. ( 2005 ) in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) research, Burkhardt et al. ( 2009 ) have proposed a multi-dimensional rating scheme for evaluating the quality of collaboration (QC) in technology-mediated design. QC distinguishes seven dimensions, grouped along five aspects, identified as central for collaboration in a problem-solving task such as design: communication (1, 2), task-oriented processes (3, 4), group-oriented processes (5), symmetry in interaction—an orthogonal dimension—(6), and individual task orientation (7). This method has recently been adapted for use in the context of assessing games as a support to collaborative skills learning.

2.4.2. Institutional and Environmental Support for Development of Collaboration and Collaborative Skills

Support for individuals’ development of collaborative skills provided by institutions and programs can take a variety of forms: (a) through the social impact of the physical structure of the organization, (b) the nature of the work required within the curriculum, (c) content within the curriculum focusing on collaboration and collaborative skills, and (d) the existence and promotion of extracurricular and inter-institutional opportunities for collaboration.

For instance, institutional support for collaboration has taken a variety of forms in various fields such as healthcare, engineering, public participation, and education. Training and education programs such as Interprofessional Education or Team Sciences in the health domain ( World Health Organization 2010 ; Hager et al. 2016 ; O’Carroll et al. 2021 ), Peer-Led Team Learning in chemistry and engineering domains ( Wilson and Varma-Nelson 2016 ), or Collaborative Problem Solving in education ( Peña-López 2017 ; Taddei 2009 ) are notable examples.

Contextual support recently arose from the deployment of online digital media and new mixed realities in the workplace, in the learning environments and in society at large—obviously stimulated and accentuated with the COVID-19 pandemic. This has led many organizations to invest in proposing support for synchronous and asynchronous collaboration (notably remote, between employees, between students and educators or within group members, etc.) in various ways, including the provision of communication hardware and software, computer-supported cooperative work and computer-supported collaborative learning platforms, training and practical guides, etc. Users can collaborate through heterogeneous hybrid collaborative interaction spaces that can be accessed through virtual or augmented reality, but also simple video conferencing or even a voice-only or text-only interface. These new spaces for collaboration are, however, often difficult to use and less satisfactory than face-to-face interactions, suggesting the need for more research on collaborative activities and on how to support them ( Faidley 2018 ; Karl et al. 2022 ; Kemp and Grieve 2014 ; Singh et al. 2022 ; Waizenegger et al. 2020 ).

A substantive body of literature on teams, collaborative learning, and computer-supported technologies provides evidence related to individual, contextual, and technological factors impacting the collaboration quality and efficiency. For example, teacher-based skills that are critical for enhancing collaboration are, among others, the abilities to plan, monitor, support, consolidate, and reflect upon student interaction in group work ( Kaendler et al. 2016 ). Research focuses also on investigating the most relevant tasks and evaluating the possibilities offered by technology to support, to assess (e.g., Nouri et al. 2017 ; Graesser et al. 2018 ), and/or to learn the skills involved in pursuing effective and satisfying collaboration (see e.g., Schneider et al. 2018 ; Doyle 2021 ; Ainsworth and Chounta 2021 ).

3. Labelization: Valorization of the 4Cs and Assessing Support for Their Development

Moving from the nature of the 4Cs and their individual assessment and towards the ways in which institutions can support their development in individuals, we can now address the fundamentally important question of how best to support and promote this 21st century educational mission within and among institutions themselves. This also raises the question of the systemic recognition of educational settings that are conducive to the development of the 4Cs. In response to these questions, the nature and value of labelization is now presented.

A label is “a special mark created by a trusted third party and displayed on a product intended for sale, to certify its origin, to guarantee its quality and to ensure its conformity with the standards of practices in force” ( Renard 2005 ). A label is therefore a way of informing the public about the objective properties and qualities of a product, service, or system. The label is usually easily identifiable and can be seen as a proof that a product or service, a company, or an organization complies with defined criteria. Its effectiveness is therefore closely linked to the choice of requirements set out in its specifications, as well as to the independence and rigor of the body that verifies compliance with the criteria.

3.1. Labeling as a Means of Trust and Differentiation

As a sign of recognition established by a third party, the label or certification can constitute a proof of trust aiming to reassure the final consumer. According to Sutter ( 2005 ), there are different means of signaling trust. First, the brand name of a product or service and its reputation can, in itself, constitute a label when this brand name is recognized on the market. Second, various forms of self-declaration, such as internal company charters, though not statements assessed by a third party, show an internal commitment that can provide reassurance. Finally, there is certification or labeling, which is awarded by an external body and requires a third-party assessment by a qualified expert, according to criteria set out in a specific reference framework. It is this external body, a trusted third party, which guarantees the reliability of the label and constitutes a guarantee of credibility. Its objectivity and impartiality are meant to guarantee that the company, organization, product, or service meets defined quality or reliability criteria ( Jahn et al. 2005 ).

Research on populations around the world (e.g., Amron 2018 ; Sasmita and Suki 2015 ) show that the buying decisions of consumers are heavily influenced by the trust they have in a brand. More specifically, third-party assurances and labelization have been shown to strongly influence customer buying intentions and purchasing behavior (e.g., Kimery and McCord 2002 ; Lee et al. 2004 ). Taking France as an example, research shows that quality certification is seen as “important” or “significant” by 76% of companies ( Chameroy and Veran 2014 ), and decision makers feel more confident and are more willing to invest with the support of third-party approval than if their decision is merely based on the brand’s reputation or its demonstrated level of social responsibility ( Etilé and Teyssier 2016 ). Indeed, French companies with corporate social responsibility labels have been shown to have higher than average growth rates, and the adoption of quality standards is linked with a 7% increase in the share of export turnover ( Restout 2020 ).

3.2. Influence on Choice and Adoption of Goods and Services

Studies diverge in this area, but based on the seminal work of Parkinson ( 1975 ); Chameroy and Veran ( 2014 ), in their research on the effect of labels on willingness to pay, found that in 75% of cases, products with labels are chosen and preferred to those without labels, demonstrating the impact of the label on customer confidence—provided that it is issued by a recognized third party. Thus, brands that have good reputations tend to be preferred over cheaper new brands, because they are more accepted and valued by the individual social network ( Zielke and Dobbelstein 2007 ).

3.3. Process of Labelizing Products and Services

The creation of a label may be the result of a customer or market need, a request from a private sector of activity or from the government. Creating a label involves setting up a working group including stakeholders who are experts in the field, product managers, and a certification body in order to elaborate a reference framework. This is then reviewed by a specialized committee and validated by the stakeholders. The standard includes evaluation criteria that must be clearly defined ( Mourad 2017 ). An audit system is set up by a trusted third party. It must include the drafting of an audit report, a system for making decisions on labeling, and a system for identifying qualified assessors. The validity of the assessment process is reinforced by this double evaluation: a first level of audit carried out by a team of experts according to a clearly defined set of criteria and a second level of decision making assuring that the methodology and the result of the audit are in conformity with the defined reference framework.

3.4. Labelization of 21st Century Skills

The world of education is particularly concerned by the need to develop and assess 21st century skills, because it represents the first link in the chain of skills acquisition, preparing the human resources of tomorrow. One important means of simultaneously offering a reliable, independent assessment of 21st century skills and valorizing them by making them a core target within an educational system (schools, universities, and teaching and training programs of all kinds) is labelization. Two examples of labelization processes related to 21st century skills were recently developed by the International Institute for Competency Development ( 2021 ; see iicd.net; accessed on 20 November 2022) working with international experts, teachers, and researchers from the University of Paris Cité (formerly Université Sorbonne Paris Cité), Oxford University, and AFNOR UK (an accredited certification body and part of AFNOR International, a subsidiary of the AFNOR group, the only standards body in France).

The last two or three decades has seen the simultaneous rise of international ranking systems and an interest in quality assurance and assessment in an increasingly competitive educational market ( Sursock 2021 ). The aim of these labelization frameworks is to assist in the development of “quality culture” in education by offering individual programs, institutions, and systems additional independent, reliable means of benchmarking, charting progress, and distinguishing themselves based on their capacity to support and promote the development of crucial skills. Importantly, the external perspectives provided by such assessment system should be capable of being individually adapted and applied in a manner that can resist becoming rigidly imposed external standards ( Sursock and Vettori 2017 ). Similarly, as we have seen in the literature review, the best approach to understanding and assessing a particular C is from a combination of different levels and perspectives in context. For example, important approaches to critical thinking have been made from educationally, philosophically, and psychologically focused vantage points ( Lai 2011 ). We can also argue that understandings of creativity are also results of different approaches: the major models in the literature (e.g., the “4Ps” and “7Cs” models; see Lubart and Thornhill-Miller 2019 ) explicitly result from and include the objectives of different education-focused, process-focused, and “ingredient” or component-focused approaches.

The two assessment frameworks outlined in the sections that follow were formulated with these different perspectives and objective needs in mind. Given the complexity and very different natures of their respective targets (i.e., one assessing entire formal educational contexts such as institutions or programs, whereas the other targets the less multi-dimensional, informal educational activities represented by games), the assessment of the individual Cs also represents what experts consider a target-appropriate balance of education- and curriculum-focused, process-focused, and component-focused criteria for assessing each different C.

4. The International Institute for Competency Development’s 21st Century Competencies 4Cs Assessment Framework for Institutions and Programs

One comprehensive attempt to operationalize programmatic-level and institutional-level support for the development of the 4Cs is the International Institute for Competency Development’s 4Cs Assessment Framework ( International Institute for Competency Development 2021 ). Based upon expert opinion and a review of the available literature, this evaluation grid is a practical tool that divides each of the 4Cs into three “user-friendly” but topic-covering components (see Table 1 and definitions and further discussion in the sections that follow). Each of these components is then assessed across seven dimensions (see Table 2 , below), designed to cover concisely the pedagogical process and the educational context. Examples for each point level are provided within the evaluation grid in order to offer additional clarity for educational stakeholders and expert assessors.

Three different components of each C in IICD’s 21st Century Skills 4Cs Assessment Framework.

Seven dimensions evaluated for the 3 different components of each C.

* Educational-level dependent and potentially less available for younger students or in some contexts.

The grid itself can be used in several important and different ways by different educational stakeholders: (1) by the institution itself in its self-evaluation and possible preparation for a certification or labelization process, (2) as an explicit list of criteria for external evaluation of the institution and its 4Cs-related programs, and (3) as a potential long-term development targeting tool for the institution or the institution in dialogue with the labelization process.

4.1. Evaluation Grid for Creativity

Dropping the component of “creative person” that is not relevant at the institutional level, this evaluation grid is based on Rhodes’ ( 1961 ) classic “4P” model of creativity, which remains the most concise model today ( Lubart and Thornhill-Miller 2019 ). The three “P” components retained are: creative process , creative environment , and creative product . Creative process refers to the acquisition of a set of tools and techniques that students can use to enhance the creativity of their thinking and work. Creative environment (also called “Press” in earlier literature) is about how the physical and social surroundings of students can help them be more creative. Finally, creative product refers to the evaluation of actual “productions” (e.g., a piece of art, text, speech, etc.) generated through the creative process.

4.2. Evaluation Grid for Critical Thinking

Our evaluation grid divides critical thinking into three main components: critical thinking about the world , critical thinking about oneself (self-reflection), as well as critical action and decision making . The first component refers to having an evidence-based view of the exterior world, notably by identifying and evaluating sources of information and using them to question current understandings and solve problems. Self-reflection refers to thinking critically about one’s own life situation, values, and actions; it presupposes the autonomy of thought and a certain distance as well as the most objective observation possible with regard to one’s own knowledge (“meta-cognition”). The third and final component, critical action and decision making, is about using critical thinking skills more practically in order to make appropriate life decisions as well as to be open to different points of view. This component also addresses soft skills and attitudes such as trusting information.

Our evaluation framework for critical thinking was in part inspired by Barnett’s “curriculum for critical being” (2015), whose model distinguishes two axes: one defined by the qualitative differences in the level of criticality attained and the second comprised of three different domains of application: formal knowledge, the self, and the world. The first two components of our framework (and the seven dimensions on which they are rated) reflect and encompass these three domains. Similar to Barrett’s proposal, our third rubric moves beyond the “skills-plus-dispositions” model of competency implicit in much theorizing about critical thinking and adds the importance of “action”—not just the ability to think critically and the disposition to do so, but the central importance of training and practicing “critical doing” ( Barnett 2015 ). Critical thinking should also be exercised collectively by involving students in collective thinking, facilitating the exchange of ideas and civic engagement ( Huber and Kuncel 2016 ).

4.3. Evaluation Grid for Collaboration

The first component of collaboration skills in the IICD grid is engagement and participation , referring to the active engagement in group work. Perspective taking and openness concerns the flexibility to work with and accommodate other group members and their points of view. The final dimension— social regulation —is about being able to reach for a common goal, notably through compromise and negotiation, as well as being aware of the different types of roles that group members can hold ( Hesse et al. 2015 ; Rusdin and Ali 2019 ; Care et al. 2016 ). (These last two components include elements of leadership, character, and emotional intelligence as sometimes described in other soft-skill and competency-related systems.) Participation, social regulation, and perspective taking have been identified as central social skills in collaborative problem solving ( Hesse et al. 2015 ). Regarding social regulation in this context, recognizing and profiting from group diversity is key ( Graesser et al. 2018 ). When describing an assessment in an educational setting of collaborative problem solving (with a task in which two or more students have to collaborate in order to solve it, each using a different set of resources), two main underpinning skills were described for the assessment: the social skill of audience awareness (“how to adapt one’s own behavior to suit the needs of the task and the partner’s requirements”, Care et al. 2016, p. 258 ) and the cognitive skill of planning and executing (developing a plan to reach for a goal) ( Care et al. 2016 ). The former is included in the perspective taking and openness rubric and the latter in the social regulation component in the IICD grid. Evans ( 2020 ) identified four main collaboration skills consistently mentioned in the scientific literature that are assessed in the IICD grid: the ability to plan and make group decisions (example item from the IICD grid: teachers provide assistance to students to overcome differences and reach a common goal during group work); the ability to communicate about thinking with the group (assessed notably in the meta-reflection strand of the IICD grid); the ability to contribute resources, ideas, and efforts and support group members (included notably in the engagement and participation as well as the social regulation components); and finally, the ability to monitor, reflect, and adapt individual and group processes to benefit the group (example item from the IICD grid: students use perspective-taking tools and techniques in group activities).

4.4. Evaluation Grid for Communication

The evaluation grid for communication is also composed of three dimensions: message formulation, message delivery, and message and communication feedback . Message formulation refers to the ability to design and structure a message to be sent, such as outlining the content of an argument. Message delivery is about effectively transmitting verbal and non-verbal aspects of a message. Finally, message and communication feedback refers to the ability of students and teachers to understand their audience, analyze their social surroundings, and interpret information in context. Other components of communication skills such as theory of mind, empathy, or emotional intelligence are also relevant and included in the process of applying the grid. Thompson ( 2020 ) proposes a four-component operationalized definition of communication for its assessment in students. First, they describe a comprehension strand covering the understanding and selection of adequate information from a range of sources. Message formulation in the IICD grid captures this dimension through its focus on content analysis and generation. Second, the presentation of information and ideas is mentioned in several different modes, adjusted to the intended audience, verbally as well as non-verbally. The message delivery component of the IICD grid focuses on these points. Third, the authors note the importance of communication technology and its advanced use. The IICD grid also covers the importance of technology use in its tools and techniques category, with, for example, an item that reads: students learn to effectively use a variety of formats of communication (social media, make a video, e-mail, letter writing, creating a document). Finally, Thompson ( 2020 ) describes the recognition of cultural and other differences as an important aspect of communication. The IICD grid aims at incorporating these aspects, notably in the meta-reflection category under each of the three dimensions.

5. Assessing the 4Cs in Informal Educational Contexts: The Example of Games

5.1. the 4cs in informal educational contexts.

So far, the focus has been on rather formal ways of nurturing the 4Cs. Although institutions and training programs are perhaps the most significant and necessary avenues of education, they are not the sole context in which 4Cs’ learning and improvement can manifest. One other important potential learning context is game play. Games are activities that are present and participated in throughout human society—by those of all ages, genders, and socio-economic statuses ( Bateson and Martin 2013 ; Huizinga 1949 ; Malaby 2007 ). This informal setting can also provide favorable conditions to help improve the 4Cs ( van Rosmalen et al. 2014 ) and should not be under-appreciated. Games provide a unique environment for learning, as they can foster a space to freely explore possibilities and one’s own potential ( de Freitas 2006 ). We argue that games are a significant potential pathway for the improvement of the 4Cs, and as such, they merit the same attention as more formal ways of learning and developing competencies.

5.2. 4Cs Evaluation Framework for Games

Compared to schools and educational institutions, the focus of IICD’s evaluation framework for games (see International Institute for Competency Development 2021 ) is more narrow. Thus, it is fundamentally different from the institutional grid: games, complex and deep as they can sometimes be, cannot directly be compared to the complexity of a school curriculum and all the programs it contains. The evaluation of a game’s effectiveness for training/improving a given C rests on the following principle: if a game presents affordances conducive to exercising a given skill, engaged playing of that game should help improve that skill.

The game’s evaluation grid is scored based on two criteria. For example, as a part of a game’s rating as a tool for the development of creativity, we determine the game must first meet two conditions. First, whether or not the game allows the opportunity for creativity to manifest itself: if creativity cannot occur in the game, it is obviously not eligible to receive ratings for that C. Second, whether or not creativity is needed in order to perform well in the game: if the players can win or achieve success in the game without needing creativity, this also means it cannot receive a rating for that C. If both conditions are met, however, the game will be considered potentially effective to improve creativity through the practice of certain components of creative behavior. This basic principle applies for all four of the Cs.

As outlined in Table 3 , below, the evaluation grid for each of the four Cs is composed of five components relevant to games that are different for each of the Cs. The grid works as follows: for each of the five components of each C, we evaluate the game on a list of sub-components using two yes/no scales: one for whether it is “possible” for that subcomponent to manifest and one for whether that sub-component is “required for success” in the game. This evaluation is done for all sub-components. After this, each general component is rated on the same two indicators. If 60% (i.e., three out of five) or more sub-components are positively rated as required, the general component is considered required. Then, the game is evaluated on its effectiveness for training and improving each of the 4Cs. If 60% or more components are positively rated as required, the game will be labelized as having the potential to be effective for training and improving the corresponding C.

Five different components evaluated for each C by the 4Cs assessment framework for games.

The evaluation grid for creativity is based on the multivariate model of creative potential (see Section 2.1.1 and Lubart et al. 2013 for more information) and is composed of four cognitive factors and one conative factor: originality , divergent thinking , convergent thinking , mental flexibility , and creative dispositions . Originality refers to the generation of ideas that are novel or unexpected, depending on the context. Divergent thinking corresponds to the generation of multiple ideas or solutions. Convergent thinking refers to the combination of multiple ideas and the selection of the most creative idea. Mental flexibility entails changing perspectives on a given problem and breaking away from initial ideas. Finally, creative dispositions concerns multiple personality-related factors conducive to creativity, such as openness to experience or risk taking.

The evaluation grid for critical thinking echoes Halpern’s ( 1998 ) as well as Marin and Halpern’s ( 2011 ) considerations for teaching this skill, that is, taking into consideration thinking skills, metacognition, and dispositions. The five components of the critical thinking grid are: goal-adequate discernment, objective thinking, metacognition, elaborate reasoning, and uncertainty management. Goal-adequate discernment entails the formulation of inferences and the discernment of contradictions when faced with a problem. Objective thinking corresponds to the suspension of one’s own judgment and the analysis of affirmations and sources in the most objective manner possible. Metacognition, here, is about questioning and reassessing information, as well as the awareness of one’s own cognitive biases. Elaborate reasoning entails reasoning in a way that is cautious, thorough, and serious. Finally, uncertainty management refers to the dispositional propensity to tolerate ambiguity and accept doubt.

The evaluation grid for collaboration is based on the quality of collaboration (QC) method ( Burkhardt et al. 2009 ; see Section 2.4.2 for more details) and is composed of the following five components: collaboration fluidity, well-argued deliberation and consensus-based decision, balance of contribution, organization and coordination, and cognitive syncing, input, and support. Collaboration fluidity entails the absence of speech overlap and the presence of a good flow in terms of turns to speak. Well-argued deliberation and consensus-based decision is about contributing to the discussion and task at hand, as well as participating in discussions and arguments, in order to obtain a consensus. Balance of contribution refers to having equal or equivalent contributions to organization, coordination, and decision making. Organization and coordination refers to effective management of roles, time, and “deadlines”, as well as the attribution of roles depending on participants’ skills. Finally, cognitive syncing, input, and support is about bringing ideas and resources to the group, as well as supporting and reinforcing other members of the group.

The five components used to evaluate communication in games include both linguistic, pragmatic, and social aspects. Linguistic skills per se are captured by the mastery of written and spoken language component. This component assesses language comprehension and the appropriate use of vocabulary. Pragmatic skills are captured by the verbal and non-verbal communication components and refer to the efficient use of verbal and body signals in the context of the game to achieve one’s communicative goals ( Grassmann 2014 ; Matthews 2014 ). Finally, the grid also evaluates social skills with its two last components, social interactions and social cognition, which, respectively, refer to the ability to interact with others appropriately—including by complying with the rules of the game—and to the understanding of other people’ mental states ( Tomasello 2005 ).

6. Discussion and Conclusions

Each of the 4Cs is a broad, multi-faceted concept that is the subject of a tremendous amount of research and discussion by a wide range of stakeholders in different disciplines, professions, and parts of the educational establishment. The development of evaluation frameworks to allow support for the 4Cs to be assessed and publicly recognized, using a label, is an important step for promoting and fostering these skills in educational contexts. As illustrated by IICD’s 4Cs Framework for educational institutions and programs, as well as its games/activities evaluation grid, the specific criteria to detect support for each C can vary depending upon the educational context (e.g., formal and institutional level or informal and at the activity level). Yet considering the 4Cs together highlights some additional observations, current challenges, and opportunities for the future that are worthy of discussion.

6.1. Interrelationships between the 4Cs and a New Model for Use in Pedagogy and Policy Promotion

One very important issue for understanding the 4Cs and their educational implementation that can be simultaneously a help and a hindrance for teaching them—and also a challenge when assessing them—is their multidimensionality and interrelatedness. In other words, the 4Cs are not entirely separate entities but instead, as Figure 2 shows, should be seen as four interlinked basic “elements” for future-oriented education that can help individuals in their learning process and, together, synergistically “bootstrap” the development of their cognitive potentials. Lamri and Lubart ( 2021 ), for example, found a certain base level of creativity was a necessary but not sufficient condition for success in managerial tasks, but that high-level performance required a combination of all four Cs. Some thinkers have argued that one cannot be creative without critical thinking, which also requires creativity, for example, to come up with alternative arguments (see Paul and Elder 2006 ). Similarly, among many other interrelationships, there is no collaboration without communication—and even ostensibly individual creativity is a “collaboration” of sorts with the general culture and precursors in a given field. As a result, it ranges from impossible to suboptimal to teach (or teach towards) one of the 4Cs without involving one or more of the others, and this commingling also underscores the genuine need and appropriateness of assessing them together.

“‘Crea-Critical-Collab-ication’: a Dynamic Interactionist Model of the 4Cs”. (Illustration of the interplay and interpenetration of creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication shown in dimensional space according to their differing cognitive/individual vs. social/interpersonal emphases; (© 2023, Branden Thornhill-Miller. All Rights Reserved. thornhill-miller.com; accessed on 20 January 2023)).

From this perspective, Thornhill-Miller ( 2021 ) proposed a “dynamic interactionist model of the 4Cs” and their interrelated contributions to the future of education and work. Presented in Figure 2 , this model is meant to serve as a visual and conceptual aid for understanding the 4Cs and their interrelationships, thereby also promoting better use and understanding of them in pedagogical and policy settings. In addition to suggesting the portmanteau of “crea-critical thinking” as a new term to describe the overlap of much of the creative and critical thinking processes, the title of this model, “Crea-Critical-Collab-ication”, is a verbal representation of the fluid four-way interrelationship between the 4Cs visually represented in Figure 2 (a title meant to playfully repackage the 4Cs for important pedagogical and policy uses). This model goes further to suggest some dimensional differences in emphases that, roughly speaking, also often exist among the 4Cs: that is to say, the frequently greater emphasis on cognitive or individual elements at play in creativity and critical thinking in comparison to the social and interpersonal aspects more central to communication and collaboration ( Thornhill-Miller 2021 ).

Similarly focused on the need to promote a phase change towards future-oriented education, Lucas ( 2019 ) and colleagues have suggested conflating creative thinking and critical thinking in order to propose “3Cs” (creative thinking, communication, and collaboration) as new “foundational literacies” to symmetrically add to the 3Rs (Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic) of previous educational eras. Although we applaud these efforts, from our applied research perspective, we believe that the individual importance of, and distinct differences between, creative thinking and critical thinking support preserving them both as separate constructs in order to encourage the greatest development of each of them. Moreover, if only three categories were somehow required or preferable, one could argue that uniting communication and collaboration (as “collab-ication” suggests) might be preferable—particularly also given the fact that substantial aspects of communication are already covered within the 3Rs. In any case, we look forward to more such innovations and collaborations in this vibrant and important area of work at the crossroads between research, pedagogy, and policy development.

6.2. Limitations and Future Work

The rich literature in each of the 4Cs domains shows the positive effects of integrating these dimensions into educational and professional curricula. At the same time, the complexity of their definitions makes them difficult to assess, both in terms of reliability (assessment must not vary from one measurement to another) and of validity (tests must measure that which they are intended to measure). However, applied research in this area is becoming increasingly rigorous, with a growing capacity to provide the necessary tools for evidence-based practice. The development of these practices should involve interdisciplinary teams of teachers and other educational practitioners who are equipped and trained accordingly. Similarly, on the research side, further exploration and clarification of subcomponents of the 4Cs and other related skills will be important. Recent efforts to clarify the conceptual overlap and hierarchical relations of soft skills for the future of education and work, for example, have been helpful and promising (e.g., Joie-La Marle et al. 2022 ; Lamri et al. 2022 ). But the most definitive sort of taxonomy and measurement model that we are currently lacking might only be established based on the large-scale administration of a comprehensive battery of skill-measuring psychometric tests on appropriate cross sections of society.

The rapid development and integration of new technologies will also aid and change the contexts, resources, and implementation of the 4Cs. For example, the recent developments make it clear that the 4Cs will be enhanced and changed by interaction with artificially intelligence, even as 4Cs-related skills will probably, for the same reason, increasingly constitute the core of available human work in the future (see, e.g., Ross 2018 ). Similarly, research on virtual reality and creativity suggest that VR environments assist and expand individual and collaborative creativity ( Bourgeois-Bougrine et al. 2022 ). Because VR technologies offer the possibility of enhanced and materially enriched communication, collaboration, and information availability, they not only allow for the enhancement of creativity techniques but also for similar expansions and improvements on almost all forms of human activity (see Thornhill-Miller and Dupont 2016 )—including the other three Cs.

6.3. Conclusion: Labelization of the 4Cs and the Future of Education and Work

Traditional educational approaches cannot meet the educational needs of our emergent societies if they do not teach, promote, and assess in line with the new learner characteristics and contexts of the 21st century ( Sahin 2009 ). The sort of future-oriented change and development required by this shift in institutional practices, programming, and structure will likely meet with significant resistance from comfortably entrenched (and often outdated) segments of traditional educational and training establishments. Additional external evaluation and monitoring is rarely welcome by workers in any context. We believe, however, that top-down processes from the innovative and competition-conscious administrative levels will be met by bottom-up demands from students and education consumers to support these institutional changes. And we contend that efforts such as labelizing 4C processes will serve to push educators and institutions towards more relevant offerings, oriented towards the future of work and helping build a more successful future for all.

In the end, the 4Cs framework seems to be a manageable, focused model for modernizing education, and one worthy of its growing prevalence in the educational and research marketplace for a number of reasons. These reasons include the complexity and cumbersome nature of larger alternative systems and the 4Cs’ persuasive presence at the core of a number of early and industry-driven frameworks. In addition, the 4Cs have benefitted from their subsequent promotion by organizations such as the OECD and the World Economic Forum, as well as some more direct support from recent empirical research. The promotion, teaching, and assessment of the 4Cs will require a complex social intervention and mobilization of educational resources—a major shift in pedagogy and institutional structures. Yet the same evolving digital technologies that have largely caused the need for these massive, rapid changes can also assist in the implementation of solutions ( van Laar et al. 2017 ). To the extent that future research also converges on such a model (that has already been found pedagogically useful and policy-friendly by so many individuals and organizations), the 4Cs framework has the potential to become a manageable core for 21st century skills and the future of education and work—one that stakeholders with various agendas can already begin building on for a better educational and economic future together.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.T.-M. and T.L.; writing—original draft preparation, B.T.-M., A.C., M.M., J.-M.B., T.M., S.B.-B., S.E.H., F.V., M.A.-L., C.F., D.S., F.M.; writing—review and editing, B.T.-M., A.C., T.L., J.-M.B., C.F.; visualization, B.T.-M.; supervision, B.T.-M., T.L.; project administration, B.T.-M., T.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

B.T.-M. and T.L. are unpaid academic co-founder and project collaborator for the International Institute for Competency Development, whose labelization frameworks (developed in cooperation with Afnor International and the LaPEA lab of Université Paris Cité and Université Gustave Eiffel) are used as examples in this review. S.E.H. and M.A.-L. are employees of AFNOR International. No funding was received to support this research or article, which reflects the views of the scientists and researchers and not their organizations or companies.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

• Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Eugene, Waddington David I., Wade C. Anne, Persson Tonje. Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015; 85 :275–314. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• AbuSeileek Ali Farhan. The Effect of Computer-Assisted Cooperative Learning Methods and Group Size on the EFL Learners’ Achievement in Communication Skills. Computers & Education. 2012; 58 :231–39. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahern Aoife, Dominguez Caroline, McNally Ciaran, O’Sullivan John J., Pedrosa Daniela. A Literature Review of Critical Thinking in Engineering Education. Studies in Higher Education. 2019; 44 :816–28. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586325. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ainsworth Shaaron E., Chounta Irene-Angelica. The roles of representation in computer-supported collaborative learning. In: Cress Ulrike, Rosé Carolyn, Wise Alyssa Friend, Oshima Jun., editors. International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Springer; Cham: 2021. pp. 353–69. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alsaleh Nada J. Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Literature Review. [(accessed on 1 November 2022)]; The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 2020 19 :21–39. Available online: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1239945.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Samarraie Hosam, Hurmuzan Shuhaila. A Review of Brainstorming Techniques in Higher Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2018; 27 :78–91. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amabile Teresa M. Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982; 43 :997–1013. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amron Manajemen Pemasaran. The influence of brand image, brand trust, product quality, and price on the consumer’s buying decision of MPV cars. European Scientific Journal. 2018; 14 :228–39. doi: 10.19044/esj.2018.v14n13p228. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ananiadoui Katerina, Claro Magdalean. 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries. OECD Publishing; Paris: 2009. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailin Sharon. Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity. Springer; Dordrecht: 1988. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandyopadhyay Subir, Szostek Jana. Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking: Assessing Critical Thinking of Business Students Using Multiple Measures. Journal of Education for Business. 2019; 94 :259–70. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2018.1524355. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barber Herbert F. Developing Strategic Leadership: The US Army War College Experience. Journal of Management Development. 1992; 11 :4–12. doi: 10.1108/02621719210018208. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett Ronald. The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan US; New York: 2015. A Curriculum for Critical Being; pp. 63–76. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bateson Patrick, Martin Paul. Play, Playfulness, Creativity and Innovation. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batey Mark. The Measurement of Creativity: From Definitional Consensus to the Introduction of a New Heuristic Framework. Creativity Research Journal. 2012; 24 :55–65. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.649181. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Battelle for Kids Framework for 21st Century Learning Definitions. 2022. [(accessed on 1 November 2022)]. Available online: http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework_DefinitionsBFK.pdf
• Bellaera Lauren, Weinstein-Jones Yana, Ilie Sonia, Baker Sara T. Critical Thinking in Practice: The Priorities and Practices of Instructors Teaching in Higher Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2021; 41 :100856. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100856. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blessinger Patrick, Anchan John P. In: Democratizing Higher Education: International Comparative Perspectives. 1st ed. Blessinger Patrick, Anchan John P., editors. Routledge; London: 2015. [(accessed on 1 November 2022)]. Available online: https://www.routledge.com/Democratizing-Higher-Education-International-Comparative-Perspectives/Blessinger-Anchan/p/book/9781138020955 [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloom Benjamin Samuel., editor. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain. Longmans; New York: 1956. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourgeois-Bougrine Samira. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2022. Design Thinking. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourgeois-Bougrine Samira, Bonnardel Nathalie, Burkhardt Jean-Marie, Thornhill-Miller Branden, Pahlavan Farzaneh, Buisine Stéphanie, Guegan Jérôme, Pichot Nicolas, Lubart Todd. Immersive Virtual Environments’ Impact on Individual and Collective Creativity: A Review of Recent Research. European Psychologist. 2022; 27 :237–53. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000481. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourke Sharon L., Cooper Simon, Lam Louisa, McKenna Lisa. Undergraduate Health Professional Students’ Team Communication in Simulated Emergency Settings: A Scoping Review. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2021; 60 :42–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2021.07.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brookfield Stephen D. Assessing Critical Thinking. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 1997; 75 :17–29. doi: 10.1002/ace.7502. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burkhardt Jean-Marie, Détienne Françoise, Hébert Anne-Marie, Perron Laurence. Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2009. Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg: 2009. Assessing the ‘Quality of Collaboration’ in Technology-Mediated Design Situations with Several Dimensions; pp. 157–60. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Camarda Anaëlle, Bouhours Lison, Osmont Anaïs, Masson Pascal Le, Weil Benoît, Borst Grégoire, Cassotti Mathieu. Opposite Effect of Social Evaluation on Creative Idea Generation in Early and Middle Adolescents. Creativity Research Journal. 2021; 33 :399–410. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2021.1902174. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cannon-Bowers Janis, Tannenbaum Scott I., Salas Eduardo, Volpe Catherine E. Defining team competencies and establishing team training requirements. In: Guzzo Richard A., Salas Eduardo., editors. Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations. Jossey-Bass; San Francisco: 1995. pp. 333–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Care Esther, Scoular Claire, Griffin Patrick. Assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving in Education Environments. Applied Measurement in Education. 2016; 29 :250–64. doi: 10.1080/08957347.2016.1209204. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Care Esther, Kim Helyn, Vista Alvin, Anderson Kate. Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment. Brookings Institution; Washington, DC: 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carmichael Erst, Farrell Helen. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Online Resources in Developing Student Critical Thinking: Review of Literature and Case Study of a Critical Thinking Online Site. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 2012; 9 :38–55. doi: 10.53761/1.9.1.4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carson Shelley H., Peterson Jordan B., Higgins Daniel M. Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal. 2005; 17 :37–50. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey Betty J., Getz Sarah, Galvan Adriana. The Adolescent Brain. Developmental Review: DR. 2008; 28 :62–77. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassotti Mathieu, Camarda Anaëlle, Poirel Nicolas, Houdé Olivier, Agogué Marine. Fixation Effect in Creative Ideas Generation: Opposite Impacts of Example in Children and Adults. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2016; 19 :146–52. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chameroy Fabienne, Veran Lucien. Immatérialité de La Qualité et Effet Des Labels Sur Le Consentement à Payer. Management International. 2014; 18 :32–44. doi: 10.7202/1025088ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiu Fa-Chung. Improving Your Creative Potential without Awareness: Overinclusive Thinking Training. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2015; 15 :1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.11.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chulvi Vicente, Mulet Elena, Chakrabarti Amaresh, López-Mesa Belinda, González-Cruz Carmen. Comparison of the Degree of Creativity in the Design Outcomes Using Different Design Methods. Journal of Engineering Design. 2012; 23 :241–69. doi: 10.1080/09544828.2011.624501. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cinque Maria. ‘Lost in Translation’. Soft Skills Development in European Countries. Tuning Journal for Higher Education. 2016; 3 :389–427. doi: 10.18543/tjhe-3(2)-2016pp389-427. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cömert Musa, Zill Jördis Maria, Christalle Eva, Dirmaier Jörg, Härter Martin, Scholl Isabelle. Assessing Communication Skills of Medical Students in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) - A Systematic Review of Rating Scales. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11 :e0152717. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152717. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corazza Giovanni Emanuele. Potential Originality and Effectiveness: The Dynamic Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 2016; 28 :258–67. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corazza Giovanni Emanuele, Darbellay Frédéric, Lubart Todd, Panciroli Chiara. Developing Intelligence and Creativity in Education: Insights from the Space–Time Continuum. In: Lemmetty Soila, Collin Kaija, Glăveanu Vlad, Forsman Panu., editors. Creativity and Learning. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2021. pp. 69–87. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cotter Katherine N., Beghetto Ronald A., Kaufman James C. Creativity in the Classroom: Advice for Best Practices. In: Lubart Todd, Botella Marion, Bourgeois-Bougrine Samira, Caroff Xavier, Guégan Jérôme, Mouchiroud Christohe, Nelson Julien, Zenasni Franck., editors. Homo Creativus. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2022. pp. 249–64. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Curtis J. Randall, Back Anthony L., Ford Dee W., Downey Lois, Shannon Sarah E., Doorenbos Ardith Z., Kross Erin K., Reinke Lynn F., Feemster Laura C., Edlund Barbara, et al. Effect of Communication Skills Training for Residents and Nurse Practitioners on Quality of Communication with Patients with Serious Illness: A Randomized Trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2013; 310 :2271. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282081. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D’Alimonte Laura, McLaney Elizabeth, Prospero Lisa Di. Best Practices on Team Communication: Interprofessional Practice in Oncology. Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care. 2019; 13 :69–74. doi: 10.1097/SPC.0000000000000412. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Freitas Sara. Learning in Immersive Worlds: A Review of Game-Based Learning. JISC; Bristol: 2006. [(accessed on 1 November 2022)]. Available online: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearninginnovation/gamingreport_v3.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Détienne Françoise, Baker Michael, Burkhardt Jean-Marie. Perspectives on Quality of Collaboration in Design. CoDesign. 2012; 8 :197–99. doi: 10.1080/15710882.2012.742350. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diedrich Jennifer, Jauk Emanuel, Silvia Paul J., Gredlein Jeffrey M., Neubauer Aljoscha C., Benedek Mathias. Assessment of Real-Life Creativity: The Inventory of Creative Activities and Achievements (ICAA) Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2018; 12 :304–16. doi: 10.1037/aca0000137. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doyle Denise. Creativity in the Twenty First Century. Edited by Anna Hui and Christian Wagner. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2021. Creative and Collaborative Practices in Virtual Immersive Environments; pp. 3–19. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drisko James W. Competencies and Their Assessment. Journal of Social Work Education. 2014; 50 :414–26. doi: 10.1080/10437797.2014.917927. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dul Jan, Ceylan Canan. Work Environments for Employee Creativity. Ergonomics. 2011; 54 :12–20. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2010.542833. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dumitru Daniela, Bigu Dragos, Elen Jan, Ahern Aoife, McNally Ciaran, O’Sullivan John. A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions. UTAD; Vila Real: 2018. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: http://repositorio.utad.pt/handle/10348/8320 [ Google Scholar ]
• Edelman Jonathan, Owoyele Babajide, Santuber Joaquin. Design Thinking in Education. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2022. Beyond Brainstorming: Introducing Medgi, an Effective, Research-Based Method for Structured Concept Development; pp. 209–32. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Etilé Fabrice, Teyssier Sabrina. Signaling Corporate Social Responsibility: Third-Party Certification versus Brands: Signaling CSR: Third-Party Certification versus Brands. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 2016; 118 :397–432. doi: 10.1111/sjoe.12150. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans Carla. Measuring Student Success Skills: A Review of the Literature on Collaboration. National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment; Dover: 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione Peter Arthur. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test–College Level. Technical Report# 1. Experimental Validation and Content Validity. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]; 1990a Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED327549.pdf
• Facione Peter Arthur. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations. ERIC, Institute of Education Sciences; Washington, DC: 1990b. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. pp. 1–112. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED315423 [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione Peter Arthur. Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment. 2011; 2007 :1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faidley Joel. Ph.D. dissertation. East Tennessee State University; Johnson City, TN, USA: 2018. Comparison of Learning Outcomes from Online and Face-to-Face Accounting Courses. [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman Hershey H. Cognitive Biases That Interfere with Critical Thinking and Scientific Reasoning: A Course Module. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2017:1–60. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2958800. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fryer-Edwards Kelly, Arnold Robert M., Baile Walter, Tulsky James A., Petracca Frances, Back Anthony. Reflective Teaching Practices: An Approach to Teaching Communication Skills in a Small-Group Setting. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2006; 81 :638–44. doi: 10.1097/01.ACM.0000232414.43142.45. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glăveanu Vlad Petre. Rewriting the Language of Creativity: The Five A’s Framework. Review of General Psychology: Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association. 2013; 17 :69–81. doi: 10.1037/a0029528. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glăveanu Vlad Petre. The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading. Creativity Theories Research Applications. 2014; 1 :10–32. doi: 10.15290/ctra.2014.01.01.02. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldenberg Olga, Wiley Jennifer. Quality, Conformity, and Conflict: Questioning the Assumptions of Osborn’s Brainstorming Technique. The Journal of Problem Solving. 2011; 3 :96–118. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1093. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graesser Arthur C., Sabatini John P., Li Haiying. Educational Psychology Is Evolving to Accommodate Technology, Multiple Disciplines, and Twenty-First-Century Skills. Annual Review of Psychology. 2022; 73 :547–74. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-113042. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graesser Arthur C., Fiore Stephen M., Greiff Samuel, Andrews-Todd Jessica, Foltz Peter W., Hesse Friedrich W. Advancing the Science of Collaborative Problem Solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2018; 19 :59–92. doi: 10.1177/1529100618808244. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grassmann Susanne. The pragmatics of word learning. In: Matthews Danielle., editor. Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition. John Benjamins Publishing Company; Amsterdam: 2014. pp. 139–60. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hager Keri, St Hill Catherine, Prunuske Jacob, Swanoski Michael, Anderson Grant, Lutfiyya May Nawal. Development of an Interprofessional and Interdisciplinary Collaborative Research Practice for Clinical Faculty. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2016; 30 :265–67. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2015.1092951. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F. Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring. The American Psychologist. 1998; 53 :449–55. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Dunn Dana S. Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems. Journal of Intelligence. 2021; 9 :22. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9020022. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanover Research A Crosswalk of 21st Century Skills. 2012. [(accessed on 15 August 2022)]. Available online: http://www.hanoverresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/A-Crosswalk-of-21st-Century-Skills-Membership.pdf
• Hathaway Julia R., Tarini Beth A., Banerjee Sushmita, Smolkin Caroline O., Koos Jessica A., Pati Susmita. Healthcare Team Communication Training in the United States: A Scoping Review. Health Communication. 2022:1–26. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2022.2036439. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hesse Friedrich, Care Esther, Buder Juergen, Sassenberg Kai, Griffin Patrick. A Framework for Teachable Collaborative Problem Solving Skills. In: Griffin Patrick, Care Esther., editors. Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Springer Netherlands; Dordrecht: 2015. pp. 37–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hitchcock David. Critical Thinking. In: Edward Nouri Zalta., editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition) Stanford University; Stanford: 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Houdé Olivier. Inhibition and cognitive development: Object, number, categorization, and reasoning. Cognitive Development. 2000; 15 :63–73. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00015-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Houdé Olivier, Borst Grégoire. Measuring inhibitory control in children and adults: Brain imaging and mental chronometry. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014; 5 :616. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00616. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huber Christopher R., Kuncel Nathan R. Does College Teach Critical Thinking? A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2016; 86 :431–68. doi: 10.3102/0034654315605917. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huizinga Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Elements in Culture. Routledge; London: 1949. [ Google Scholar ]
• Humphrey Neil, Curran Andrew, Morris Elisabeth, Farrell Peter, Woods Kevin. Emotional Intelligence and Education: A Critical Review. Educational Psychology. 2007; 27 :235–54. doi: 10.1080/01443410601066735. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• International Institute for Competency Development 21st Century Skills 4Cs Labelization. 2021. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: https://icd-hr21.org/offers/21st-century-competencies/
• Jackson Denise. Business Graduate Performance in Oral Communication Skills and Strategies for Improvement. The International Journal of Management Education. 2014; 12 :22–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2013.08.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jahn Gabriele, Schramm Matthias, Spiller Achim. The Reliability of Certification: Quality Labels as a Consumer Policy Tool. Journal of Consumer Policy. 2005; 28 :53–73. doi: 10.1007/s10603-004-7298-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jauk Emanuel, Benedek Mathias, Neubauer Aljoscha C. The Road to Creative Achievement: A Latent Variable Model of Ability and Personality Predictors. European Journal of Personality. 2014; 28 :95–105. doi: 10.1002/per.1941. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joie-La Marle Chantal, Parmentier François, Coltel Morgane, Lubart Todd, Borteyrou Xavier. A Systematic Review of Soft Skills Taxonomies: Descriptive and Conceptual Work. 2022. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: [ CrossRef ]
• Jones Stanley E., LeBaron Curtis D. Research on the Relationship between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication: Emerging Integrations. The Journal of Communication. 2002; 52 :499–521. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02559.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaendler Celia, Wiedmann Michael, Leuders Timo, Rummel Nikol, Spada Hans. Monitoring Student Interaction during Collaborative Learning: Design and Evaluation of a Training Program for Pre-Service Teachers. Psychology Learning & Teaching. 2016; 15 :44–64. doi: 10.1177/1475725716638010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman Daniel. A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality. The American Psychologist. 2003; 58 :697–720. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan; New York: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karl Katherine A., Peluchette Joy V., Aghakhani Navid. Virtual Work Meetings during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Good, Bad, and Ugly. Small Group Research. 2022; 53 :343–65. doi: 10.1177/10464964211015286. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keefer Kateryna V., Parker James D. A., Saklofske Donald H. The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2018. Three Decades of Emotional Intelligence Research: Perennial Issues, Emerging Trends, and Lessons Learned in Education: Introduction to Emotional Intelligence in Education; pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kemp Nenagh, Grieve Rachel. Face-to-Face or Face-to-Screen? Undergraduates’ Opinions and Test Performance in Classroom vs. Online Learning. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014; 5 :1278. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimery Kathryn, McCord Mary. Third-Party Assurances: Mapping the Road to Trust in E-retailing. The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application. 2002; 4 :63–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohn Nicholas W., Smith Steven M. Collaborative Fixation: Effects of Others’ Ideas on Brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2011; 25 :359–71. doi: 10.1002/acp.1699. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kowaltowski Doris C. C. K., Bianchi Giovana, de Paiva Valéria Teixeira. Methods That May Stimulate Creativity and Their Use in Architectural Design Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2010; 20 :453–76. doi: 10.1007/s10798-009-9102-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruijver Irma P. M., Kerkstra Ada, Francke Anneke L., Bensing Jozien M., van de Wiel Harry B. M. Evaluation of Communication Training Programs in Nursing Care: A Review of the Literature. Patient Education and Counseling. 2000; 39 :129–45. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00096-8. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lai Emily R. Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Research Reports. 2011; 6 :40–41. doi: 10.25148/lawrev.11.2.3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamri Jérémy, Lubart Todd. Creativity and Its’ Relationships with 21st Century Skills in Job Performance. Kindai Management Review. 2021; 9 :75–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamri Jérémy, Barabel Michel, Meier Olivier, Lubart Todd. Le Défi Des Soft Skills: Comment les Développer au XXIe Siècle? Dunod; Paris: 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Landa Rebecca J. Assessment of Social Communication Skills in Preschoolers: Assessing Social Communication Skills in Children. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 2005; 11 :247–52. doi: 10.1002/mrdd.20079. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee Sang M., Choi Jeongil, Lee Sang-Gun. The impact of a third-party assurance seal in customer purchasing intention. Journal of Internet Commerce. 2004; 3 :33–51. doi: 10.1300/J179v03n02_03. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis Arthur, Smith David. Defining Higher Order Thinking. Theory into Practice. 1993; 32 :131–37. doi: 10.1080/00405849309543588. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu Ou Lydia, Frankel Lois, Roohr Katrina Crotts. Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Current State and Directions for next-Generation Assessment: Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education. ETS Research Report Series. 2014; 2014 :1–23. doi: 10.1002/ets2.12009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart Todd. The 7 C’s of Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2017; 51 :293–96. doi: 10.1002/jocb.190. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart Todd, Thornhill-Miller Branden. Creativity: An Overview of the 7C’s of Creative Thought. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing. 2019 doi: 10.17885/HEIUP.470.C6678. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart Todd, Barbot Baptiste, Besançon Maud. Creative Potential: Assessment Issues and the EPoC Battery/Potencial Creativo: Temas de Evaluación y Batería EPoC. Estudios de Psicologia. 2019; 40 :540–62. doi: 10.1080/02109395.2019.1656462. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart Todd, Zenasni Franck, Barbot Baptiste. Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal of Talent Development and Creativity. 2013; 1 :41–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart Tubart, Thornhill-Miller Branden. Creativity in Law: Legal Professions and the Creative Profiler Approach. In: Masson Antoine, Robinson Gavin., editors. Mapping Legal Innovation: Trends and Perspectives. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2021. pp. 1–19. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubin Jeffrey, Hendrick Stephan, Thornhill-Miller Branden, Mercier Maxence, Lubart Todd. Creativity in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Forthcoming.
• Lucas Bill. Why We Need to Stop Talking about Twenty-First Century Skills. Centre for Strategic Education; Melbourne: 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas Bill. Creative Thinking in Schools across the World. The Global Institute of Creative Thinking; London: 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas Bill, Claxton Guy. Wider Skills for Learning: What Are They, How Can They Be Cultivated, How Could They Be Measured and Why Are They Important for Innovation? NESTA; London: 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malaby Thomas M. Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games. Games and Culture. 2007; 2 :95–113. doi: 10.1177/1555412007299434. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marin Lisa M., Halpern Diane F. Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2011; 6 :1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathieu John E., Hollenbeck John R., van Knippenberg Daan, Ilgen Daniel R. A Century of Work Teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2017; 102 :452–67. doi: 10.1037/apl0000128. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthews Danielle. Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 2014 doi: 10.1075/tilar.10. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald Skye, Gowland Alison, Randall Rebekah, Fisher Alana, Osborne-Crowley Katie, Honan Cynthia. Cognitive Factors Underpinning Poor Expressive Communication Skills after Traumatic Brain Injury: Theory of Mind or Executive Function? Neuropsychology. 2014; 28 :801–11. doi: 10.1037/neu0000089. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore Brooke Noel, Parker Richard. Critical Thinking. 20th ed. McGraw-Hill Education; New York: 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morreale Sherwyn P., Valenzano Joseph M., Bauer Janessa A. Why Communication Education Is Important: A Third Study on the Centrality of the Discipline’s Content and Pedagogy. Communication Education. 2017; 66 :402–22. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2016.1265136. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mourad Maha. Quality Assurance as a Driver of Information Management Strategy: Stakeholders’ Perspectives in Higher Education. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2017; 30 :779–94. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-06-2016-0104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Education Association . Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society: An Educator’s Guide to the “Four Cs”. National Education Association; Alexandria: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nouri Jalal, Åkerfeldt Anna, Fors Uno, Selander Staffan. Assessing Collaborative Problem Solving Skills in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments—The PISA Framework and Modes of Communication. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET) 2017; 12 :163. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v12i04.6737. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Carroll Veronica, Owens Melissa, Sy Michael, El-Awaisi Alla, Xyrichis Andreas, Leigh Jacqueline, Nagraj Shobhana, Huber Marion, Hutchings Maggie, McFadyen Angus. Top Tips for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice Research: A Guide for Students and Early Career Researchers. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2021; 35 :328–33. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2020.1777092. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving. OECD Publishing; Paris: 2017. PISA 2015 collaborative problem-solving framework. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . Framework for the Assessment of Creative Thinking in PISA 2021: Third Draft. OECD; Paris: 2019a. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2021-creative-thinking-framework.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . Future of Education and Skills 2030: A Series of Concept Notes. OECD Learning Compass; Paris: 2019b. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborn A. F. Applied Imagination. Charles Scribner’s Sons; New York: 1953. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parkinson Thomas L. The Role of Seals and Certifications of Approval in Consumer Decision-Making. The Journal of Consumer Affairs. 1975; 9 :1–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.1975.tb00545.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Partnership for 21st Century Skills . 21st Century Skills Education and Competitiveness: A Resource and Policy Guide. Partnership for 21st Century Skills; Tuscon: 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pasquinelli Elena, Bronner Gérald. Éduquer à l’esprit critique. Bases théoriques et indications pratiques pour l’enseignement et la formation. Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de la JEUNESSE et des Sports; Paris: 2021. Rapport du Conseil Scientifique de l’Éducation Nationale. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pasquinelli Elena, Farina Mathieu, Bedel Audrey, Casati Roberto. Naturalizing Critical Thinking: Consequences for Education, Blueprint for Future Research in Cognitive Science. Mind, Brain and Education: The Official Journal of the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society. 2021; 15 :168–76. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12286. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul Richard, Elder Linda. Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education. 2006; 30 :34–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus Paul B., Yang Huei-Chuan. Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2000; 82 :76–87. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2888. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus Paul B., Kenworthy Jared B. Effective brainstorming. In: Paulus Paul B., Nijstad Bernard A., editors. The Oxford Handbook of Group Creativity and Innovation. Oxford University Press; New York: 2019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus Paul B., Dzindolet Mary T. Social Influence Processes in Group Brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 64 :575–86. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.575. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus Paul B., Brown Vincent R. Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social-Motivational Perspective of Brainstorming: Cognitive-Social-Motivational View of Brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2007; 1 :248–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peddle Monica, Bearman Margaret, Radomski Natalie, Mckenna Lisa, Nestel Debra. What Non-Technical Skills Competencies Are Addressed by Australian Standards Documents for Health Professionals Who Work in Secondary and Tertiary Clinical Settings? A Qualitative Comparative Analysis. BMJ Open. 2018; 8 :e020799. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020799. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peña-López Ismaël. PISA 2015 Results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving. PISA, OECD Publishing; Paris: 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popil Inna. Promotion of Critical Thinking by Using Case Studies as Teaching Method. Nurse Education Today. 2011; 31 :204–7. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2010.06.002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pornpitakpan Chanthika. The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2004; 34 :243–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Possin Kevin. Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score. Informal Logic. 2014; 34 :393–416. doi: 10.22329/il.v34i4.4141. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor Robert W., Dutta Addie. Skill Acquisition and Human Performance. Sage Publications, Inc.; Thousand Oaks: 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Putman Vicky L., Paulus Paul B. Brainstorming, Brainstorming Rules and Decision Making. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2009; 43 :29–40. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01304.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reiman Joey. Success: The Original Handbook. Longstreet Press; Atlanta: 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ren Xuezhu, Tong Yan, Peng Peng, Wang Tengfei. Critical Thinking Predicts Academic Performance beyond General Cognitive Ability: Evidence from Adults and Children. Intelligence. 2020; 82 :101487. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Renard Marie-Christine. Quality Certification, Regulation and Power in Fair Trade. Journal of Rural Studies. 2005; 21 :419–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Restout Emilie. Labels RSE: Un décryptage des entreprises labellisées en France. Goodwill Management. 2020. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: https://goodwill-management.com/labels-rse-decryptage-entreprises-labellisees/
• Rhodes Mel. An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan. 1961; 42 :305–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rider Elizabeth A., Keefer Constance H. Communication Skills Competencies: Definitions and a Teaching Toolbox: Communication. Medical Education. 2006; 40 :624–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02500.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riemer Marc J. Communication Skills for the 21st Century Engineer. Global Journal of Engineering Education. 2007; 11 :89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rietzschel Eric F., Nijstad Bernard A., Stroebe Wolfgang. Productivity Is Not Enough: A Comparison of Interactive and Nominal Brainstorming Groups on Idea Generation and Selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2006; 42 :244–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross David. Why the Four Cs Will Become the Foundation of Human-AI Interface. 2018. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: https://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/03/04/why-the-4cs-will-become-the-foundation-of-human-ai-interface/
• Rothermich Kathrin. Social Communication Across the Lifespan: The Influence of Empathy [Preprint] SocArXiv. 2020 doi: 10.31235/osf.io/adgmy. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusdin Norazlin Mohd, Ali Siti Rahaimah. Practice of Fostering 4Cs Skills in Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2019; 9 :1021–35. doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i6/6063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rychen Dominique Simone, Hersch Salganik Laura., editors. Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society. Hogrefe and Huber; Cambridge: 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sahin Mehmet Can. Instructional Design Principles for 21st Century Learning Skills. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2009; 1 :1464–68. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.258. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salas Eduardo, Stagl Kevin C., Burke C. Shawn. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; Chichester: 2004. 25 Years of Team Effectiveness in Organizations: Research Themes and Emerging Needs; pp. 47–91. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salas Eduardo, Shuffler Marissa L., Thayer Amanda L., Bedwell Wendy L., Lazzara Elizabeth H. Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide. Human Resource Management. 2015; 54 :599–622. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21628. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmi Jamil. The Tertiary Education Imperative: Knowledge, Skills and Values for Development. Springer; Cham: 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Samani Sanaz Ahmadpoor, Rasid Siti Zaleha Binti Abdul, bt Sofian Saudah. A Workplace to Support Creativity. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems. 2014; 13 :414–20. doi: 10.7232/iems.2014.13.4.414. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saroyan Alenoush. Fostering Creativity and Critical Thinking in University Teaching and Learning: Considerations for Academics and Their Professional Learning. OECD; Paris: 2022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sasmita Jumiati, Suki Norazah Mohd. Young consumers’ insights on brand equity: Effects of brand association, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and brand image. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 2015; 43 :276–92. doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-02-2014-0024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel Claudia, Woermann Ulrich, Shaha Maya, Rethans Jan-Joost, van der Vleuten Cees. Effects of Communication Training on Real Practice Performance: A Role-Play Module versus a Standardized Patient Module. The Journal of Nursing Education. 2012; 51 :16–22. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20111116-02. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schleicher Andreas. Why Creativity and Creative Teaching and Learning Matter Today and for Tomorrow’s World. GloCT in Collaboration with OECD CERI; Paris: 2022. Creativity in Education Summit 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider Bertrand, Sharma Kshitij, Cuendet Sebastien, Zufferey Guillaume, Dillenbourg Pierre, Pea Roy. Leveraging Mobile Eye-Trackers to Capture Joint Visual Attention in Co-Located Collaborative Learning Groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2018; 13 :241–61. doi: 10.1007/s11412-018-9281-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schultz David M. Eloquent Science: A course to improve scientific and communication skills; Paper presented at the 19th Symposium on Education; Altanta, GA, USA. January 18–21; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scialabba George. Mindplay. Harvard Magazine. 1984; 16 :19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott Ginamarie, Leritz Lyle E., Mumford Michael D. The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal. 2004; 16 :361–88. doi: 10.1080/10400410409534549. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sigafoos Jeff, Schlosser Ralf W., Green Vanessa A., O’Reilly Mark, Lancioni Giulio E. Communication and Social Skills Assessment. In: Matson Johnny L., editor. Clinical Assessment and Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorders. Elsevier; Amsterdam: 2008. pp. 165–92. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simonton Dean Keith. Creativity from a Historiometric Perspective. In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1999. pp. 116–34. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh Pallavi, Bala Hillol, Dey Bidit Lal, Filieri Raffaele. Enforced Remote Working: The Impact of Digital Platform-Induced Stress and Remote Working Experience on Technology Exhaustion and Subjective Wellbeing. Journal of Business Research. 2022; 151 :269–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.002. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spada Hans, Meier Anne, Rummel Nikol, Hauser Sabine. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Learning 2005: The next 10 Years!—CSCL’05, Taipei, Taiwan, May 30–June 4. Association for Computational Linguistics; Morristown: 2005. A New Method to Assess the Quality of Collaborative Process in CSCL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spitzberg Brian H. Methods of interpersonal skill assessment. In: Greene John O., Burleson Brant R., editors. The Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Mahwah: 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg Robert. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Creativity: Three Is Better than One. Educational Psychologist. 1986; 21 :175–90. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2103_2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg Robert J., Funke Joachim. The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction. Heidelberg University Publishing (heiUP); Heidelberg: 2019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sursock Andrée. Quality assurance and rankings: Some European lessons. In: Hazelkorn Ellen, Mihut Georgiana., editors. Research Handbook on University Rankings. Edward Elgar Publishing; Cheltenham: 2021. pp. 185–96. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sursock Andrée, Vettori Oliver. Qualitätskultur. Ein Blick in Die Gelebte Praxis der Hochschulen. Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation; Vienna: 2017. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Quo vadis, quality culture? Theses from different perspectives; pp. 13–18. Available online: https://www.aq.ac.at/de/ueber-uns/publikationen/sonstige-publikationen.php [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutter Éric. Certification et Labellisation: Un Problème de Confiance. Bref Panorama de La Situation Actuelle. Documentaliste-Sciences de l Information. 2005; 42 :284–90. doi: 10.3917/docsi.424.0284. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taddei François. Training Creative and Collaborative Knowledge-Builders: A Major Challenge for 21st Century Education. OCDE; Paris: 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas Keith, Lok Beatrice. Teaching Critical Thinking: An Operational Framework. In: Davies Martin, Barnett Ronald., editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan US; New York: 2015. pp. 93–105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson Jeri. Measuring Student Success Skills: A Review of the Literature on Complex Communication. National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment; Dover: 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorndahl Kathrine L., Stentoft Diana. Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking and Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Scoping Review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 14. 2020 doi: 10.14434/ijpbl.v14i1.28773. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornhill-Miller Branden. ‘Crea-Critical-Collab-ication’: A Dynamic Interactionist Model of the 4Cs (Creativity, Critical Thinking, Collaboration and Communication) 2021. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: http://thornhill-miller.com/newWordpress/index.php/current-research/
• Thornhill-Miller Branden, Dupont Jean-Marc. Virtual Reality and the Enhancement of Creativity and Innovation: Underrecognized Potential Among Converging Technologies? Journal for Cognitive Education and Psychology. 2016; 15 :102–21. doi: 10.1891/1945-8959.15.1.102. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornhill-Miller Branden, Millican Peter. The Common-Core/Diversity Dilemma: Revisions of Humean Thought, New Empirical Research, and the Limits of Rational Religious Belief. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 2015; 7 :1–49. doi: 10.24204/ejpr.v7i1.128. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomasello Michael. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press; Cambridge: 2005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uribe-Enciso Olga Lucía, Uribe-Enciso Diana Sofía, Vargas-Daza María Del Pilar. Pensamiento Crítico y Su Importancia En La Educación: Algunas Reflexiones. Rastros Rostros. 2017; 19 doi: 10.16925/ra.v19i34.2144. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Vleuten Cees, van den Eertwegh Valerie, Giroldi Esther. Assessment of Communication Skills. Patient Education and Counseling. 2019; 102 :2110–13. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.07.007. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Klink Marcel R., Boon Jo. Competencies: The triumph of a fuzzy concept. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management. 2003; 3 :125–37. doi: 10.1504/IJHRDM.2003.002415. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Laar Ester, Van Deursen Alexander J. A. M., Van Dijk Jan A. G. M., de Haan Jos. The Relation between 21st-Century Skills and Digital Skills: A Systematic Literature Review. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 72 :577–88. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Rosmalen Peter, Boyle Elizabeth A., Nadolski Rob, van der Baaren John, Fernández-Manjón Baltasar, MacArthur Ewan, Pennanen Tiina, Manea Madalina, Star Kam. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2014. Acquiring 21st Century Skills: Gaining Insight into the Design and Applicability of a Serious Game with 4C-ID; pp. 327–34. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vincent-Lancrin Stéphan, González-Sancho Carlos, Bouckaert Mathias, de Luca Federico, Fernández-Barrerra Meritxell, Jacotin Gwénaël, Urgel Joaquin, Vidal Quentin. Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. OECD Publishing; Paris: 2019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Voogt Joke, Roblin Natalie Pareja. A Comparative Analysis of International Frameworks for 21st Century Competences: Implications for National Curriculum Policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2012; 44 :299–321. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2012.668938. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waizenegger Lena, McKenna Brad, Cai Wenjie, Bendz Taino. An Affordance Perspective of Team Collaboration and Enforced Working from Home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems: An Official Journal of the Operational Research Society. 2020; 29 :429–42. doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2020.1800417. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson Goodwin. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Psychological Corporation; San Antonio: 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson Goodwin, Glaser Edwin M. Technical Manual and User’s Guide. Pearson; Kansas City: 2010. Watson-Glaser TM II critical thinking appraisal. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weick Karl E. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1993; 38 :628–52. doi: 10.2307/2393339. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West Richard F., Toplak Maggie E., Stanovich Keith E. Heuristics and Biases as Measures of Critical Thinking: Associations with Cognitive Ability and Thinking Dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008; 100 :930–41. doi: 10.1037/a0012842. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitmore Paul G. What are soft skills; Paper presented at the CONARC Soft Skills Conference; Fort Bliss, TX, USA. December 12–13; 1972. pp. 12–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willingham Daniel T. Critical Thinking: Why Is It so Hard to Teach? Arts Education Policy Review. 2008; 109 :21–32. doi: 10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson Sarah Beth, Varma-Nelson Pratibha. Small Groups, Significant Impact: A Review of Peer-Led Team Learning Research with Implications for STEM Education Researchers and Faculty. Journal of Chemical Education. 2016; 93 :1686–702. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00862. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winterton Jonathan, Deist Françoise Delamare-Le, Stringfellow Emma. Typology of Knowledge, Skills and Competences: Clarification of the Concept and Prototype. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; Luxembourg: 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum . New Vision for Education: Unlocking the Potential of Technology. World Economic Forum; Geneva: 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum The Future of Jobs Report 2020. 2020. [(accessed on 2 November 2022)]. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020
• World Health Organization . Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice. World Health Organization; Geneva: 2010. No. WHO/HRH/HPN/10.3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yue Meng, Zhang Meng, Zhang Chunmei, Jin Changde. The Effectiveness of Concept Mapping on Development of Critical Thinking in Nursing Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nurse Education Today. 2017; 52 :87–94. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.02.018. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zielke Stephan, Dobbelstein Thomas. Customers’ Willingness to Purchase New Store Brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 2007; 16 :112–21. doi: 10.1108/10610420710739982. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zlatić Lidija, Bjekić Dragana, Marinković Snežana, Bojović Milevica. Development of Teacher Communication Competence. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 116 :606–10. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.265. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• PubMed/Medline
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education.

1. Introduction

“21st century skills”, “soft skills”, and the “4cs”, 2. the 4cs, assessment, and support for development, 2.1. creativity, 2.1.1. individual assessment of creativity, 2.1.2. institutional and environmental support for development of creativity, 2.2. critical thinking, 2.2.1. individual assessment of critical thinking, 2.2.2. institutional and environmental support for development of critical thinking skills, 2.3. communication, 2.3.1. individual assessment of communication, 2.3.2. institutional and environmental support for development of communication skills, 2.4. collaboration, 2.4.1. individual assessment of collaboration, 2.4.2. institutional and environmental support for development of collaboration and collaborative skills, 3. labelization: valorization of the 4cs and assessing support for their development, 3.1. labeling as a means of trust and differentiation, 3.2. influence on choice and adoption of goods and services, 3.3. process of labelizing products and services, 3.4. labelization of 21st century skills, 4. the international institute for competency development’s 21st century competencies 4cs assessment framework for institutions and programs, 4.1. evaluation grid for creativity, 4.2. evaluation grid for critical thinking, 4.3. evaluation grid for collaboration, 4.4. evaluation grid for communication, 5. assessing the 4cs in informal educational contexts: the example of games, 5.1. the 4cs in informal educational contexts, 5.2. 4cs evaluation framework for games, 6. discussion and conclusions, 6.1. interrelationships between the 4cs and a new model for use in pedagogy and policy promotion, 6.2. limitations and future work, 6.3. conclusion: labelization of the 4cs and the future of education and work, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Persson. 2015. Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research 85: 275–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• AbuSeileek, Ali Farhan. 2012. The Effect of Computer-Assisted Cooperative Learning Methods and Group Size on the EFL Learners’ Achievement in Communication Skills. Computers & Education 58: 231–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahern, Aoife, Caroline Dominguez, Ciaran McNally, John J. O’Sullivan, and Daniela Pedrosa. 2019. A Literature Review of Critical Thinking in Engineering Education. Studies in Higher Education 44: 816–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ainsworth, Shaaron E., and Irene-Angelica Chounta. 2021. The roles of representation in computer-supported collaborative learning. In International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning . Edited by Ulrike Cress, Carolyn Rosé, Alyssa Friend Wise and Jun Oshima. Cham: Springer, pp. 353–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alsaleh, Nada J. 2020. Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Literature Review. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 19: 21–39. Available online: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1239945.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
• Al-Samarraie, Hosam, and Shuhaila Hurmuzan. 2018. A Review of Brainstorming Techniques in Higher Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity 27: 78–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amabile, Teresa M. 1982. Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43: 997–1013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amron, Manajemen Pemasaran. 2018. The influence of brand image, brand trust, product quality, and price on the consumer’s buying decision of MPV cars. European Scientific Journal 14: 228–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ananiadoui, Katerina, and Magdalean Claro. 2009. 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries . OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bailin, Sharon. 1988. Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity . Dordrecht: Springer. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bandyopadhyay, Subir, and Jana Szostek. 2019. Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking: Assessing Critical Thinking of Business Students Using Multiple Measures. Journal of Education for Business 94: 259–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barber, Herbert F. 1992. Developing Strategic Leadership: The US Army War College Experience. Journal of Management Development 11: 4–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barnett, Ronald. 2015. A Curriculum for Critical Being. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education . New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 63–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bateson, Patrick, and Paul Martin. 2013. Play, Playfulness, Creativity and Innovation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Batey, Mark. 2012. The Measurement of Creativity: From Definitional Consensus to the Introduction of a New Heuristic Framework. Creativity Research Journal 24: 55–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Battelle for Kids. 2022. Framework for 21st Century Learning Definitions. Available online: http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework_DefinitionsBFK.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
• Bellaera, Lauren, Yana Weinstein-Jones, Sonia Ilie, and Sara T. Baker. 2021. Critical Thinking in Practice: The Priorities and Practices of Instructors Teaching in Higher Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity 41: 100856. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blessinger, Patrick, and John P. Anchan. 2015. Democratizing Higher Education: International Comparative Perspectives , 1st ed. Edited by Patrick Blessinger and John P. Anchan. London: Routledge. Available online: https://www.routledge.com/Democratizing-Higher-Education-International-Comparative-Perspectives/Blessinger-Anchan/p/book/9781138020955 (accessed on 1 November 2022).
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, ed. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain . New York: Longmans. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourgeois-Bougrine, Samira. 2022. Design Thinking. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible . Cham: Springer International Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bourgeois-Bougrine, Samira, Nathalie Bonnardel, Jean-Marie Burkhardt, Branden Thornhill-Miller, Farzaneh Pahlavan, Stéphanie Buisine, Jérôme Guegan, Nicolas Pichot, and Todd Lubart. 2022. Immersive Virtual Environments’ Impact on Individual and Collective Creativity: A Review of Recent Research. European Psychologist 27: 237–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bourke, Sharon L., Simon Cooper, Louisa Lam, and Lisa McKenna. 2021. Undergraduate Health Professional Students’ Team Communication in Simulated Emergency Settings: A Scoping Review. Clinical Simulation in Nursing 60: 42–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brookfield, Stephen D. 1997. Assessing Critical Thinking. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 75: 17–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burkhardt, Jean-Marie, Françoise Détienne, Anne-Marie Hébert, and Laurence Perron. 2009. Assessing the ‘Quality of Collaboration’ in Technology-Mediated Design Situations with Several Dimensions. In Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2009 . Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 157–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Camarda, Anaëlle, Lison Bouhours, Anaïs Osmont, Pascal Le Masson, Benoît Weil, Grégoire Borst, and Mathieu Cassotti. 2021. Opposite Effect of Social Evaluation on Creative Idea Generation in Early and Middle Adolescents. Creativity Research Journal 33: 399–410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cannon-Bowers, Janis, Scott I. Tannenbaum, Eduardo Salas, and Catherine E. Volpe. 1995. Defining team competencies and establishing team training requirements. In Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations . Edited by Richard A. Guzzo and Eduardo Salas. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 333–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Care, Esther, Claire Scoular, and Patrick Griffin. 2016. Assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving in Education Environments. Applied Measurement in Education 29: 250–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Care, Esther, Helyn Kim, Alvin Vista, and Kate Anderson. 2018. Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carmichael, Erst, and Helen Farrell. 2012. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Online Resources in Developing Student Critical Thinking: Review of Literature and Case Study of a Critical Thinking Online Site. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 9: 38–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carson, Shelley H., Jordan B. Peterson, and Daniel M. Higgins. 2005. Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal 17: 37–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casey, Betty J., Sarah Getz, and Adriana Galvan. 2008. The Adolescent Brain. Developmental Review: DR 28: 62–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cassotti, Mathieu, Anaëlle Camarda, Nicolas Poirel, Olivier Houdé, and Marine Agogué. 2016. Fixation Effect in Creative Ideas Generation: Opposite Impacts of Example in Children and Adults. Thinking Skills and Creativity 19: 146–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chameroy, Fabienne, and Lucien Veran. 2014. Immatérialité de La Qualité et Effet Des Labels Sur Le Consentement à Payer. Management International 18: 32–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Chiu, Fa-Chung. 2015. Improving Your Creative Potential without Awareness: Overinclusive Thinking Training. Thinking Skills and Creativity 15: 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chulvi, Vicente, Elena Mulet, Amaresh Chakrabarti, Belinda López-Mesa, and Carmen González-Cruz. 2012. Comparison of the Degree of Creativity in the Design Outcomes Using Different Design Methods. Journal of Engineering Design 23: 241–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cinque, Maria. 2016. ‘Lost in Translation’. Soft Skills Development in European Countries. Tuning Journal for Higher Education 3: 389–427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cömert, Musa, Jördis Maria Zill, Eva Christalle, Jörg Dirmaier, Martin Härter, and Isabelle Scholl. 2016. Assessing Communication Skills of Medical Students in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) - A Systematic Review of Rating Scales. PLoS ONE 11: e0152717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corazza, Giovanni Emanuele. 2016. Potential Originality and Effectiveness: The Dynamic Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal 28: 258–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Corazza, Giovanni Emanuele, Frédéric Darbellay, Todd Lubart, and Chiara Panciroli. 2021. Developing Intelligence and Creativity in Education: Insights from the Space–Time Continuum. In Creativity and Learning . Edited by Soila Lemmetty, Kaija Collin, Vlad Glăveanu and Panu Forsman. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 69–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cotter, Katherine N., Ronald A. Beghetto, and James C. Kaufman. 2022. Creativity in the Classroom: Advice for Best Practices. In Homo Creativus . Edited by Todd Lubart, Marion Botella, Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine, Xavier Caroff, Jérôme Guégan, Christohe Mouchiroud, Julien Nelson and Franck Zenasni. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 249–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Curtis, J. Randall, Anthony L. Back, Dee W. Ford, Lois Downey, Sarah E. Shannon, Ardith Z. Doorenbos, Erin K. Kross, Lynn F. Reinke, Laura C. Feemster, Barbara Edlund, and et al. 2013. Effect of Communication Skills Training for Residents and Nurse Practitioners on Quality of Communication with Patients with Serious Illness: A Randomized Trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 310: 2271. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Alimonte, Laura, Elizabeth McLaney, and Lisa Di Prospero. 2019. Best Practices on Team Communication: Interprofessional Practice in Oncology. Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care 13: 69–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Freitas, Sara. 2006. Learning in Immersive Worlds: A Review of Game-Based Learning . Bristol: JISC. Available online: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearninginnovation/gamingreport_v3.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
• Détienne, Françoise, Michael Baker, and Jean-Marie Burkhardt. 2012. Perspectives on Quality of Collaboration in Design. CoDesign 8: 197–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Diedrich, Jennifer, Emanuel Jauk, Paul J. Silvia, Jeffrey M. Gredlein, Aljoscha C. Neubauer, and Mathias Benedek. 2018. Assessment of Real-Life Creativity: The Inventory of Creative Activities and Achievements (ICAA). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 12: 304–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Doyle, Denise. 2021. Creative and Collaborative Practices in Virtual Immersive Environments. In Creativity in the Twenty First Century. Edited by Anna Hui and Christian Wagner . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 3–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Drisko, James W. 2014. Competencies and Their Assessment. Journal of Social Work Education 50: 414–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dul, Jan, and Canan Ceylan. 2011. Work Environments for Employee Creativity. Ergonomics 54: 12–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dumitru, Daniela, Dragos Bigu, Jan Elen, Aoife Ahern, Ciaran McNally, and John O’Sullivan. 2018. A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions . Vila Real: UTAD. Available online: http://repositorio.utad.pt/handle/10348/8320 (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Edelman, Jonathan, Babajide Owoyele, and Joaquin Santuber. 2022. Beyond Brainstorming: Introducing Medgi, an Effective, Research-Based Method for Structured Concept Development. In Design Thinking in Education . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 209–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Etilé, Fabrice, and Sabrina Teyssier. 2016. Signaling Corporate Social Responsibility: Third-Party Certification versus Brands: Signaling CSR: Third-Party Certification versus Brands. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 118: 397–432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evans, Carla. 2020. Measuring Student Success Skills: A Review of the Literature on Collaboration . Dover: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione, Peter Arthur. 1990a. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test–College Level. Technical Report# 1. Experimental Validation and Content Validity. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED327549.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Facione, Peter Arthur. 1990b. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations ; Washington, DC: ERIC, Institute of Education Sciences, pp. 1–112. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED315423 (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Facione, Peter Arthur. 2011. Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment 2007: 1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faidley, Joel. 2018. Comparison of Learning Outcomes from Online and Face-to-Face Accounting Courses. Ph.D. dissertation, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman, Hershey H. 2017. Cognitive Biases That Interfere with Critical Thinking and Scientific Reasoning: A Course Module. SSRN Electronic Journal , 1–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fryer-Edwards, Kelly, Robert M. Arnold, Walter Baile, James A. Tulsky, Frances Petracca, and Anthony Back. 2006. Reflective Teaching Practices: An Approach to Teaching Communication Skills in a Small-Group Setting. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 81: 638–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glăveanu, Vlad Petre. 2013. Rewriting the Language of Creativity: The Five A’s Framework. Review of General Psychology: Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association 17: 69–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glăveanu, Vlad Petre. 2014. The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading. Creativity Theories Research Applications 1: 10–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Goldenberg, Olga, and Jennifer Wiley. 2011. Quality, Conformity, and Conflict: Questioning the Assumptions of Osborn’s Brainstorming Technique. The Journal of Problem Solving 3: 96–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Graesser, Arthur C., John P. Sabatini, and Haiying Li. 2022. Educational Psychology Is Evolving to Accommodate Technology, Multiple Disciplines, and Twenty-First-Century Skills. Annual Review of Psychology 73: 547–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Graesser, Arthur C., Stephen M. Fiore, Samuel Greiff, Jessica Andrews-Todd, Peter W. Foltz, and Friedrich W. Hesse. 2018. Advancing the Science of Collaborative Problem Solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 19: 59–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Grassmann, Susanne. 2014. The pragmatics of word learning. In Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition . Edited by Danielle Matthews. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 139–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hager, Keri, Catherine St Hill, Jacob Prunuske, Michael Swanoski, Grant Anderson, and May Nawal Lutfiyya. 2016. Development of an Interprofessional and Interdisciplinary Collaborative Research Practice for Clinical Faculty. Journal of Interprofessional Care 30: 265–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Halpern, Diane F. 1998. Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring. The American Psychologist 53: 449–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Halpern, Diane F., and Dana S. Dunn. 2021. Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems. Journal of Intelligence 9: 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hanover Research. 2012. A Crosswalk of 21st Century Skills. Available online: http://www.hanoverresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/A-Crosswalk-of-21st-Century-Skills-Membership.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2022).
• Hathaway, Julia R., Beth A. Tarini, Sushmita Banerjee, Caroline O. Smolkin, Jessica A. Koos, and Susmita Pati. 2022. Healthcare Team Communication Training in the United States: A Scoping Review. Health Communication , 1–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hesse, Friedrich, Esther Care, Juergen Buder, Kai Sassenberg, and Patrick Griffin. 2015. A Framework for Teachable Collaborative Problem Solving Skills. In Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills . Edited by Patrick Griffin and Esther Care. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 37–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hitchcock, David. 2020. Critical Thinking. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition) . Edited by Nouri Zalta Edward. Stanford: Stanford University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Houdé, Olivier. 2000. Inhibition and cognitive development: Object, number, categorization, and reasoning. Cognitive Development 15: 63–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Houdé, Olivier, and Grégoire Borst. 2014. Measuring inhibitory control in children and adults: Brain imaging and mental chronometry. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 616. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Huber, Christopher R., and Nathan R. Kuncel. 2016. Does College Teach Critical Thinking? A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research 86: 431–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huizinga, Johan. 1949. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Elements in Culture . London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Humphrey, Neil, Andrew Curran, Elisabeth Morris, Peter Farrell, and Kevin Woods. 2007. Emotional Intelligence and Education: A Critical Review. Educational Psychology 27: 235–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• International Institute for Competency Development. 2021. 21st Century Skills 4Cs Labelization. Available online: https://icd-hr21.org/offers/21st-century-competencies/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Jackson, Denise. 2014. Business Graduate Performance in Oral Communication Skills and Strategies for Improvement. The International Journal of Management Education 12: 22–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jahn, Gabriele, Matthias Schramm, and Achim Spiller. 2005. The Reliability of Certification: Quality Labels as a Consumer Policy Tool. Journal of Consumer Policy 28: 53–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jauk, Emanuel, Mathias Benedek, and Aljoscha C. Neubauer. 2014. The Road to Creative Achievement: A Latent Variable Model of Ability and Personality Predictors. European Journal of Personality 28: 95–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joie-La Marle, Chantal, François Parmentier, Morgane Coltel, Todd Lubart, and Xavier Borteyrou. 2022. A Systematic Review of Soft Skills Taxonomies: Descriptive and Conceptual Work. Available online: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mszgj (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Jones, Stanley E., and Curtis D. LeBaron. 2002. Research on the Relationship between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication: Emerging Integrations. The Journal of Communication 52: 499–521. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaendler, Celia, Michael Wiedmann, Timo Leuders, Nikol Rummel, and Hans Spada. 2016. Monitoring Student Interaction during Collaborative Learning: Design and Evaluation of a Training Program for Pre-Service Teachers. Psychology Learning & Teaching 15: 44–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kahneman, Daniel. 2003. A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality. The American Psychologist 58: 697–720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow . New York: Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karl, Katherine A., Joy V. Peluchette, and Navid Aghakhani. 2022. Virtual Work Meetings during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Good, Bad, and Ugly. Small Group Research 53: 343–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Keefer, Kateryna V., James D. A. Parker, and Donald H. Saklofske. 2018. Three Decades of Emotional Intelligence Research: Perennial Issues, Emerging Trends, and Lessons Learned in Education: Introduction to Emotional Intelligence in Education. In The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kemp, Nenagh, and Rachel Grieve. 2014. Face-to-Face or Face-to-Screen? Undergraduates’ Opinions and Test Performance in Classroom vs. Online Learning. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kimery, Kathryn, and Mary McCord. 2002. Third-Party Assurances: Mapping the Road to Trust in E-retailing. The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 4: 63–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohn, Nicholas W., and Steven M. Smith. 2011. Collaborative Fixation: Effects of Others’ Ideas on Brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology 25: 359–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kowaltowski, Doris C. C. K., Giovana Bianchi, and Valéria Teixeira de Paiva. 2010. Methods That May Stimulate Creativity and Their Use in Architectural Design Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 20: 453–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kruijver, Irma P. M., Ada Kerkstra, Anneke L. Francke, Jozien M. Bensing, and Harry B. M. van de Wiel. 2000. Evaluation of Communication Training Programs in Nursing Care: A Review of the Literature. Patient Education and Counseling 39: 129–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Lai, Emily R. 2011. Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Research Reports 6: 40–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lamri, Jérémy, and Todd Lubart. 2021. Creativity and Its’ Relationships with 21st Century Skills in Job Performance. Kindai Management Review 9: 75–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamri, Jérémy, Michel Barabel, Olivier Meier, and Todd Lubart. 2022. Le Défi Des Soft Skills: Comment les Développer au XXIe Siècle? Paris: Dunod. [ Google Scholar ]
• Landa, Rebecca J. 2005. Assessment of Social Communication Skills in Preschoolers: Assessing Social Communication Skills in Children. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 11: 247–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, Sang M., Jeongil Choi, and Sang-Gun Lee. 2004. The impact of a third-party assurance seal in customer purchasing intention. Journal of Internet Commerce 3: 33–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lewis, Arthur, and David Smith. 1993. Defining Higher Order Thinking. Theory into Practice 32: 131–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Ou Lydia, Lois Frankel, and Katrina Crotts Roohr. 2014. Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Current State and Directions for next-Generation Assessment: Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education. ETS Research Report Series 2014: 1–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubart, Todd. 2017. The 7 C’s of Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior 51: 293–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubart, Todd, and Branden Thornhill-Miller. 2019. Creativity: An Overview of the 7C’s of Creative Thought. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubart, Todd, Baptiste Barbot, and Maud Besançon. 2019. Creative Potential: Assessment Issues and the EPoC Battery/Potencial Creativo: Temas de Evaluación y Batería EPoC. Estudios de Psicologia 40: 540–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubart, Todd, Franck Zenasni, and Baptiste Barbot. 2013. Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal of Talent Development and Creativity 1: 41–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart, Tubart, and Branden Thornhill-Miller. 2021. Creativity in Law: Legal Professions and the Creative Profiler Approach. In Mapping Legal Innovation: Trends and Perspectives . Edited by Antoine Masson and Gavin Robinson. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubin, Jeffrey, Stephan Hendrick, Branden Thornhill-Miller, Maxence Mercier, and Todd Lubart. Forthcoming. Creativity in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy.
• Lucas, Bill. 2019. Why We Need to Stop Talking about Twenty-First Century Skills . Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas, Bill. 2022. Creative Thinking in Schools across the World . London: The Global Institute of Creative Thinking. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas, Bill, and Guy Claxton. 2009. Wider Skills for Learning: What Are They, How Can They Be Cultivated, How Could They Be Measured and Why Are They Important for Innovation? London: NESTA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malaby, Thomas M. 2007. Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games. Games and Culture 2: 95–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Marin, Lisa M., and Diane F. Halpern. 2011. Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity 6: 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mathieu, John E., John R. Hollenbeck, Daan van Knippenberg, and Daniel R. Ilgen. 2017. A Century of Work Teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The Journal of Applied Psychology 102: 452–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matthews, Danielle. 2014. Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McDonald, Skye, Alison Gowland, Rebekah Randall, Alana Fisher, Katie Osborne-Crowley, and Cynthia Honan. 2014. Cognitive Factors Underpinning Poor Expressive Communication Skills after Traumatic Brain Injury: Theory of Mind or Executive Function? Neuropsychology 28: 801–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moore, Brooke Noel, and Richard Parker. 2016. Critical Thinking , 20th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morreale, Sherwyn P., Joseph M. Valenzano, and Janessa A. Bauer. 2017. Why Communication Education Is Important: A Third Study on the Centrality of the Discipline’s Content and Pedagogy. Communication Education 66: 402–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mourad, Maha. 2017. Quality Assurance as a Driver of Information Management Strategy: Stakeholders’ Perspectives in Higher Education. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 30: 779–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• National Education Association. 2011. Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society: An Educator’s Guide to the “Four Cs” . Alexandria: National Education Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nouri, Jalal, Anna Åkerfeldt, Uno Fors, and Staffan Selander. 2017. Assessing Collaborative Problem Solving Skills in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments—The PISA Framework and Modes of Communication. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET) 12: 163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• O’Carroll, Veronica, Melissa Owens, Michael Sy, Alla El-Awaisi, Andreas Xyrichis, Jacqueline Leigh, Shobhana Nagraj, Marion Huber, Maggie Hutchings, and Angus McFadyen. 2021. Top Tips for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice Research: A Guide for Students and Early Career Researchers. Journal of Interprofessional Care 35: 328–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OECD. 2017. PISA 2015 collaborative problem-solving framework. In PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving . Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OECD. 2019a. Framework for the Assessment of Creative Thinking in PISA 2021: Third Draft . Paris: OECD. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2021-creative-thinking-framework.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• OECD. 2019b. Future of Education and Skills 2030: A Series of Concept Notes . Paris: OECD Learning Compass. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Osborn, A. F. 1953. Applied Imagination . New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parkinson, Thomas L. 1975. The Role of Seals and Certifications of Approval in Consumer Decision-Making. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 9: 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2008. 21st Century Skills Education and Competitiveness: A Resource and Policy Guide . Tuscon: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pasquinelli, Elena, and Gérald Bronner. 2021. Éduquer à l’esprit critique. Bases théoriques et indications pratiques pour l’enseignement et la formation ; Rapport du Conseil Scientifique de l’Éducation Nationale. Paris: Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de la JEUNESSE et des Sports.
• Pasquinelli, Elena, Mathieu Farina, Audrey Bedel, and Roberto Casati. 2021. Naturalizing Critical Thinking: Consequences for Education, Blueprint for Future Research in Cognitive Science. Mind, Brain and Education: The Official Journal of the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society 15: 168–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paul, Richard, and Linda Elder. 2006. Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education 30: 34–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus, Paul B., and Huei-Chuan Yang. 2000. Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82: 76–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paulus, Paul B., and Jared B. Kenworthy. 2019. Effective brainstorming. In The Oxford Handbook of Group Creativity and Innovation . Edited by Paul B. Paulus and Bernard A. Nijstad. New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paulus, Paul B., and Mary T. Dzindolet. 1993. Social Influence Processes in Group Brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64: 575–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paulus, Paul B., and Vincent R. Brown. 2007. Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social-Motivational Perspective of Brainstorming: Cognitive-Social-Motivational View of Brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1: 248–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peddle, Monica, Margaret Bearman, Natalie Radomski, Lisa Mckenna, and Debra Nestel. 2018. What Non-Technical Skills Competencies Are Addressed by Australian Standards Documents for Health Professionals Who Work in Secondary and Tertiary Clinical Settings? A Qualitative Comparative Analysis. BMJ Open 8: e020799. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Peña-López, Ismaël. 2017. PISA 2015 Results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving . Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popil, Inna. 2011. Promotion of Critical Thinking by Using Case Studies as Teaching Method. Nurse Education Today 31: 204–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pornpitakpan, Chanthika. 2004. The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34: 243–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Possin, Kevin. 2014. Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score. Informal Logic 34: 393–416. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Proctor, Robert W., and Addie Dutta. 1995. Skill Acquisition and Human Performance . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Putman, Vicky L., and Paul B. Paulus. 2009. Brainstorming, Brainstorming Rules and Decision Making. The Journal of Creative Behavior 43: 29–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reiman, Joey. 1992. Success: The Original Handbook . Atlanta: Longstreet Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ren, Xuezhu, Yan Tong, Peng Peng, and Tengfei Wang. 2020. Critical Thinking Predicts Academic Performance beyond General Cognitive Ability: Evidence from Adults and Children. Intelligence 82: 101487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Renard, Marie-Christine. 2005. Quality Certification, Regulation and Power in Fair Trade. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 419–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Restout, Emilie. 2020. Labels RSE: Un décryptage des entreprises labellisées en France. Goodwill Management . Available online: https://goodwill-management.com/labels-rse-decryptage-entreprises-labellisees/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Rhodes, Mel. 1961. An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan 42: 305–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rider, Elizabeth A., and Constance H. Keefer. 2006. Communication Skills Competencies: Definitions and a Teaching Toolbox: Communication. Medical Education 40: 624–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Riemer, Marc J. 2007. Communication Skills for the 21st Century Engineer. Global Journal of Engineering Education 11: 89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rietzschel, Eric F., Bernard A. Nijstad, and Wolfgang Stroebe. 2006. Productivity Is Not Enough: A Comparison of Interactive and Nominal Brainstorming Groups on Idea Generation and Selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42: 244–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ross, David. 2018. Why the Four Cs Will Become the Foundation of Human-AI Interface. Available online: https://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/03/04/why-the-4cs-will-become-the-foundation-of-human-ai-interface/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Rothermich, Kathrin. 2020. Social Communication Across the Lifespan: The Influence of Empathy [Preprint]. SocArXiv . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rusdin, Norazlin Mohd, and Siti Rahaimah Ali. 2019. Practice of Fostering 4Cs Skills in Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 9: 1021–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Rychen, Dominique Simone, and Salganik Laura Hersch, eds. 2003. Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society . Cambridge: Hogrefe and Huber. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sahin, Mehmet Can. 2009. Instructional Design Principles for 21st Century Learning Skills. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences 1: 1464–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Salas, Eduardo, Kevin C. Stagl, and C. Shawn Burke. 2004. 25 Years of Team Effectiveness in Organizations: Research Themes and Emerging Needs. In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 47–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salas, Eduardo, Marissa L. Shuffler, Amanda L. Thayer, Wendy L. Bedwell, and Elizabeth H. Lazzara. 2015. Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide. Human Resource Management 54: 599–622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salmi, Jamil. 2017. The Tertiary Education Imperative: Knowledge, Skills and Values for Development . Cham: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Samani, Sanaz Ahmadpoor, Siti Zaleha Binti Abdul Rasid, and Saudah bt Sofian. 2014. A Workplace to Support Creativity. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems 13: 414–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Saroyan, Alenoush. 2022. Fostering Creativity and Critical Thinking in University Teaching and Learning: Considerations for Academics and Their Professional Learning . Paris: OECD. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sasmita, Jumiati, and Norazah Mohd Suki. 2015. Young consumers’ insights on brand equity: Effects of brand association, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and brand image. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 43: 276–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schlegel, Claudia, Ulrich Woermann, Maya Shaha, Jan-Joost Rethans, and Cees van der Vleuten. 2012. Effects of Communication Training on Real Practice Performance: A Role-Play Module versus a Standardized Patient Module. The Journal of Nursing Education 51: 16–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schleicher, Andreas. 2022. Why Creativity and Creative Teaching and Learning Matter Today and for Tomorrow’s World . Creativity in Education Summit 2022. Paris: GloCT in Collaboration with OECD CERI. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider, Bertrand, Kshitij Sharma, Sebastien Cuendet, Guillaume Zufferey, Pierre Dillenbourg, and Roy Pea. 2018. Leveraging Mobile Eye-Trackers to Capture Joint Visual Attention in Co-Located Collaborative Learning Groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 13: 241–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schultz, David M. 2010. Eloquent Science: A course to improve scientific and communication skills. Paper presented at the 19th Symposium on Education, Altanta, GA, USA, January 18–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scialabba, George. 1984. Mindplay. Harvard Magazine 16: 19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott, Ginamarie, Lyle E. Leritz, and Michael D. Mumford. 2004. The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal 16: 361–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sigafoos, Jeff, Ralf W. Schlosser, Vanessa A. Green, Mark O’Reilly, and Giulio E. Lancioni. 2008. Communication and Social Skills Assessment. In Clinical Assessment and Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorders . Edited by Johnny L. Matson. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 165–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simonton, Dean Keith. 1999. Creativity from a Historiometric Perspective. In Handbook of Creativity . Edited by Robert J. Sternberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 116–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, Pallavi, Hillol Bala, Bidit Lal Dey, and Raffaele Filieri. 2022. Enforced Remote Working: The Impact of Digital Platform-Induced Stress and Remote Working Experience on Technology Exhaustion and Subjective Wellbeing. Journal of Business Research 151: 269–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Spada, Hans, Anne Meier, Nikol Rummel, and Sabine Hauser. 2005. A New Method to Assess the Quality of Collaborative Process in CSCL. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Learning 2005: The next 10 Years!—CSCL’05, Taipei, Taiwan, May 30–June 4 . Morristown: Association for Computational Linguistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spitzberg, Brian H. 2003. Methods of interpersonal skill assessment. In The Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills . Edited by John O. Greene and Brant R. Burleson. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg, Robert. 1986. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Creativity: Three Is Better than One. Educational Psychologist 21: 175–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sternberg, Robert J., and Joachim Funke. 2019. The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction . Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing (heiUP). [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sursock, Andrée. 2021. Quality assurance and rankings: Some European lessons. In Research Handbook on University Rankings . Edited by Ellen Hazelkorn and Georgiana Mihut. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 185–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sursock, Andrée, and Oliver Vettori. 2017. Quo vadis, quality culture? Theses from different perspectives. In Qualitätskultur. Ein Blick in Die Gelebte Praxis der Hochschulen . Vienna: Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation, pp. 13–18. Available online: https://www.aq.ac.at/de/ueber-uns/publikationen/sonstige-publikationen.php (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Sutter, Éric. 2005. Certification et Labellisation: Un Problème de Confiance. Bref Panorama de La Situation Actuelle. Documentaliste-Sciences de l Information 42: 284–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Taddei, François. 2009. Training Creative and Collaborative Knowledge-Builders: A Major Challenge for 21st Century Education . Paris: OCDE. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas, Keith, and Beatrice Lok. 2015. Teaching Critical Thinking: An Operational Framework. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education . Edited by Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 93–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thompson, Jeri. 2020. Measuring Student Success Skills: A Review of the Literature on Complex Communication . Dover: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorndahl, Kathrine L., and Diana Stentoft. 2020. Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking and Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Scoping Review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 14 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thornhill-Miller, Branden. 2021. ‘Crea-Critical-Collab-ication’: A Dynamic Interactionist Model of the 4Cs (Creativity, Critical Thinking, Collaboration and Communication). Available online: http://thornhill-miller.com/newWordpress/index.php/current-research/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Thornhill-Miller, Branden, and Jean-Marc Dupont. 2016. Virtual Reality and the Enhancement of Creativity and Innovation: Underrecognized Potential Among Converging Technologies? Journal for Cognitive Education and Psychology 15: 102–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thornhill-Miller, Branden, and Peter Millican. 2015. The Common-Core/Diversity Dilemma: Revisions of Humean Thought, New Empirical Research, and the Limits of Rational Religious Belief. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7: 1–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tomasello, Michael. 2005. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uribe-Enciso, Olga Lucía, Diana Sofía Uribe-Enciso, and María Del Pilar Vargas-Daza. 2017. Pensamiento Crítico y Su Importancia En La Educación: Algunas Reflexiones. Rastros Rostros 19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• van der Vleuten, Cees, Valerie van den Eertwegh, and Esther Giroldi. 2019. Assessment of Communication Skills. Patient Education and Counseling 102: 2110–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Klink, Marcel R., and Jo Boon. 2003. Competencies: The triumph of a fuzzy concept. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management 3: 125–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Laar, Ester, Alexander J. A. M. Van Deursen, Jan A. G. M. Van Dijk, and Jos de Haan. 2017. The Relation between 21st-Century Skills and Digital Skills: A Systematic Literature Review. Computers in Human Behavior 72: 577–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Rosmalen, Peter, Elizabeth A. Boyle, Rob Nadolski, John van der Baaren, Baltasar Fernández-Manjón, Ewan MacArthur, Tiina Pennanen, Madalina Manea, and Kam Star. 2014. Acquiring 21st Century Skills: Gaining Insight into the Design and Applicability of a Serious Game with 4C-ID. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 327–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal. 2019. Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School . Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Voogt, Joke, and Natalie Pareja Roblin. 2012. A Comparative Analysis of International Frameworks for 21st Century Competences: Implications for National Curriculum Policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies 44: 299–321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Waizenegger, Lena, Brad McKenna, Wenjie Cai, and Taino Bendz. 2020. An Affordance Perspective of Team Collaboration and Enforced Working from Home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems: An Official Journal of the Operational Research Society 29: 429–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Watson, Goodwin. 1980. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal . San Antonio: Psychological Corporation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edwin M. Glaser. 2010. Watson-Glaser TM II critical thinking appraisal. In Technical Manual and User’s Guide . Kansas City: Pearson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weick, Karl E. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 628–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• West, Richard F., Maggie E. Toplak, and Keith E. Stanovich. 2008. Heuristics and Biases as Measures of Critical Thinking: Associations with Cognitive Ability and Thinking Dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology 100: 930–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Whitmore, Paul G. 1972. What are soft skills. Paper presented at the CONARC Soft Skills Conference, Fort Bliss, TX, USA, December 12–13; pp. 12–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willingham, Daniel T. 2008. Critical Thinking: Why Is It so Hard to Teach? Arts Education Policy Review 109: 21–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilson, Sarah Beth, and Pratibha Varma-Nelson. 2016. Small Groups, Significant Impact: A Review of Peer-Led Team Learning Research with Implications for STEM Education Researchers and Faculty. Journal of Chemical Education 93: 1686–702. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Winterton, Jonathan, Françoise Delamare-Le Deist, and Emma Stringfellow. 2006. Typology of Knowledge, Skills and Competences: Clarification of the Concept and Prototype . Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum. 2015. New Vision for Education: Unlocking the Potential of Technology . Geneva: World Economic Forum. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum. 2020. The Future of Jobs Report 2020. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020 (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• World Health Organization. 2010. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice . No. WHO/HRH/HPN/10.3. Geneva: World Health Organization. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yue, Meng, Meng Zhang, Chunmei Zhang, and Changde Jin. 2017. The Effectiveness of Concept Mapping on Development of Critical Thinking in Nursing Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nurse Education Today 52: 87–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zielke, Stephan, and Thomas Dobbelstein. 2007. Customers’ Willingness to Purchase New Store Brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management 16: 112–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zlatić, Lidija, Dragana Bjekić, Snežana Marinković, and Milevica Bojović. 2014. Development of Teacher Communication Competence. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences 116: 606–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Thornhill-Miller, B.; Camarda, A.; Mercier, M.; Burkhardt, J.-M.; Morisseau, T.; Bourgeois-Bougrine, S.; Vinchon, F.; El Hayek, S.; Augereau-Landais, M.; Mourey, F.; et al. Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education. J. Intell. 2023 , 11 , 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

Thornhill-Miller B, Camarda A, Mercier M, Burkhardt J-M, Morisseau T, Bourgeois-Bougrine S, Vinchon F, El Hayek S, Augereau-Landais M, Mourey F, et al. Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education. Journal of Intelligence . 2023; 11(3):54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

Thornhill-Miller, Branden, Anaëlle Camarda, Maxence Mercier, Jean-Marie Burkhardt, Tiffany Morisseau, Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine, Florent Vinchon, Stephanie El Hayek, Myriam Augereau-Landais, Florence Mourey, and et al. 2023. "Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education" Journal of Intelligence 11, no. 3: 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Critical Thinking for Team Collaboration: A Guide to Effective Problem-Solving

Critical thinking is an essential skill that enhances a team’s ability to collaborate efficiently and effectively. By honing their critical thinking skills, team members can analyze information, solve problems, and make well-informed decisions. In the context of teamwork, critical thinking also plays a crucial role in improving communication, generating creativity, and fostering a shared understanding among members.

Furthermore, critical thinking in a team setting goes beyond addressing complex problems. Incorporating these skills in everyday communication and decision-making processes can yield significant benefits for professional development and remote work environments. Encouraging a culture that values critical thinking will not only promote enhanced collaboration but also prepare individuals for future challenges and opportunities within their respective fields.

Key Takeaways

Understanding critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a vital skill for effective team collaboration. It involves the ability to analyze information, question assumptions and biases, and reflect on one’s beliefs in order to make informed decisions and foster innovation. This skill set can greatly enhance a team’s ability to solve problems and reach their goals.

One important aspect of critical thinking is recognizing and challenging one’s own biases and assumptions. All individuals possess a unique set of beliefs that can potentially cloud their judgment and decision-making. Within a team, acknowledging and addressing these biases can lead to more effective collaboration, as team members learn to consider diverse perspectives and views.

Another key component of critical thinking is the ability to analyze information. Conducting a thorough analysis of information enables teams to evaluate the relevance, validity, and reliability of facts. This helps the team make informed conclusions, ensuring that decisions are based on accurate and trustworthy data.

In addition, critical thinkers excel at drawing inferences from available data. Making accurate inferences is an essential skill for problem-solving and decision-making, as it allows team members to make connections between seemingly unrelated information in order to generate new ideas or solutions.

The Role of Critical Thinking in Team Collaboration

In a collaborative environment, teamwork and cooperation are key factors that contribute to the overall success of the team. Team members should be able to think critically to evaluate different options, prioritize tasks, and allocate resources efficiently. This way, they can optimize their efforts and time to achieve the set goals in a timely manner.

In conclusion, the integration of critical thinking in team collaboration not only enhances productivity but also promotes innovation, effective decision-making, and open communication. By developing these essential skills, teams can work together more cohesively, ultimately achieving their desired goals.

Communication and Critical Thinking

Information and communication technologies, such as collaborative tools and digital platforms, play a significant role in facilitating communication and critical thinking in team settings. They help streamline processes, enable the sharing of resources, and support remote team members in staying connected. Utilizing such technologies can lead to more efficient decision-making and problem-solving, ultimately enhancing overall team performance.

In summary, nurturing both communication and critical thinking skills within a team leads to more effective collaboration and increased productivity. By incorporating open dialogue, constructive feedback, and the use of information and communication technologies, team members can create a supportive environment that fosters growth and promotes success.

Generating Creativity in Team Collaboration

During brainstorming sessions, it’s important for participants to keep an open mind and be willing to explore different paths before settling on a specific strategy. This process of exploration allows for the emergence of unique and unconventional ideas, which are key ingredients of creativity. Encouraging team members to think divergently and approach problems from various angles can lead to more effective and innovative solutions.

While exploring different ideas, it’s also crucial to ensure that team members maintain a neutral and objective mindset. This helps in critically evaluating each idea and selecting the most viable option, while keeping biases and personal preferences at bay.

Tools and Resources for Critical Thinking

Technology plays a significant role in enhancing critical thinking within a team. Online platforms such as LinkedIn offer various resources on how to encourage critical thinking, though the use of peer reviews, surveys, polls, brainstorming sessions, debriefs, and retrospectives. These tools enable team members to exchange ideas, evaluate different approaches, and draw conclusions based on the collective wisdom of the group.

Organizational infrastructure also plays a crucial role in fostering critical thinking. Creating a culture of open communication and collaboration is essential in enabling team members to engage in constructive debate, express their thoughts, and evaluate different perspectives. Establishing channels for feedback, such as regular team meetings and one-on-one sessions, can help reinforce critical thinking behaviors.

In conclusion, leveraging technology, education, knowledge management systems, and the right organizational infrastructure can significantly impact a team’s ability to think critically and collaborate effectively. By providing the necessary tools and resources, organizations can foster a culture that values critical thinking and ultimately improve team performance.

Experience and Perspective in Critical Thinking

In a collaborative setting, considering multiple perspectives allows the team to weigh different options and contemplate a range of possible outcomes. Each team member’s unique background and personal experiences can provide new insights that might not have been considered otherwise. As individuals synthesize information and share their opinions, they effectively expand the entire team’s collective knowledge base.

Collaborative critical thinking thus greatly benefits from the richness of team member experiences and the varied opinions they bring to the table. By thoroughly examining these perspectives and objectively synthesizing the information, teams can ensure that their decisions are both robust and well-considered.

Decision Making and Problem Solving Through Critical Thinking

One essential aspect of critical thinking in decision-making is the evaluation of pros and cons. By thoroughly examining the strengths and weaknesses of different alternatives, teams can make informed decisions aligned with their objectives. They can also anticipate and mitigate potential negative consequences, thereby supporting a stronger and more effective collaboration.

These techniques enable teams to gather diverse perspectives, analyze information, and decide on the most appropriate course of action.

Critical Thinking in Remote Work

A crucial aspect of fostering critical thinking in remote teams is ensuring that team members have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. With increased autonomy, remote workers must be able to analyze tasks, identify potential challenges, and make informed decisions. Open communication channels, regular check-ins, and performance evaluations can support this process.

By focusing on these aspects of remote work, employers can create an environment where critical thinking flourishes. Teams with strong critical thinking abilities tend to produce better quality work, make more informed decisions, and collaborate more effectively, ultimately benefiting both the individual team members and the organization as a whole.

Benefits of Critical Thinking for Professional Development

In terms of productivity, incorporating critical thinking in team collaboration leads to streamlined operations and reduces time spent on unnecessary tasks. Collaborative learning and critical thinking go hand in hand, fostering an environment where team members effectively communicate, share ideas, and work together to solve problems. This increased efficiency leads to higher overall productivity.

Finally, critical thinking enhances individual accountability by encouraging a thoughtful, reflective approach to work. This mindset promotes taking responsibility for one’s actions and decisions, and understanding the impact on the team and organization as a whole. Engaging in critical thinking practices keeps professionals grounded and focused on their actions’ consequences.

Frequently Asked Questions

What skills are essential for collaborative critical thinking, how can critical thinking be applied in a team setting.

Applying critical thinking in a team setting involves asking the right questions, challenging assumptions, evaluating evidence, and fostering a culture of open-mindedness. Teams must encourage members to think critically by creating an environment that promotes the sharing of diverse perspectives, fosters openness and curiosity, and emphasizes clear and concise reasoning.

How does collaboration promote critical thinking?

Why is critical thinking important for teamwork, what are some effective critical thinking training activities for teams.

Effective critical thinking training activities for teams may include workshops on problem-solving and decision-making strategies, group brainstorming sessions, role playing exercises, and team building activities that promote problem-solving and decision-making skills . These activities encourage team members to think critically, collaborate, and learn from one another in a supportive environment.

Can you recommend any books or resources on critical thinking for team collaboration?

You may also like, 8 real-world applications of critical thinking in everyday decision making, effective argumentation techniques: mastering persuasive communication, best careers for problem solving: top opportunities for critical thinkers, the relationship between empathy and critical thinking: a balanced approach, download this free ebook.

Collaboration

Communication, critical thinking.

Increasingly it is recognized that American education should focus on those skills required to be successful in the 21st century.  Most important of all will be the ability to deal with change, learn new things, and preserve one’s mental balance in unfamiliar situations.(see Yuval Noah Harari, “21 Lessons for the 21st Century,” p. 266).

Experts in the field of education and the sciences suggest the focus of education should be on the “four Cs”: collaboration, communication, critical thinking and creativity.  Clearly we recognize that when students are taught to “ collaborate “, they learn to  work within teams that enhance knowledge utilization and dissemination.  The intellect of the team far outstrips the intellect of the individual.  Learning to “ communicate ” through writing, speaking, the arts, text and computers will lead to broader abilities to engage with local, national and international communities.  “ Critical thinking ” is one of the most important skills students can learn.  It involves analysis and evaluation of facts, data, evidence, arguments and observation to form and inform judgments.  “ Creativity ” is the synthesis of ideas and thought that enables the act of turning new and imaginative concepts into reality. It is characterized by finding new ways to find hidden patterns, to make connections, to form new products, expressions and to solve problems.  It is considered to be the highest level on Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy used to classify educational learning. 

• DOI: 10.59324/ejtas.2023.1(5).34
• Corpus ID: 263640093

Critical Thinking, Collaboration, Creativity and Communication Skills among School Students: A Review Paper

• Mohammad Ismail Stanikzai
• Published in European Journal of… 1 September 2023
• European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences

Tables from this paper

2 Citations

Aligning maritime education: enhancing industry relevance through lecturer internship programs, effectiveness of contextual teaching and learning (ctl) through differentiated instruction on students’ critical thinking skills in economics, 76 references, transforming traditional teaching practices with 21st century skills in k-12 classrooms, the complexities in fostering critical thinking through school-based curriculum innovation: research evidence from singapore, integrating the 4 cs in the learning of science and mathematics, student negotiated learning, student agency and general capabilities in the 21st century: the delorean project, project-based learning for the 21st century: skills for the future, effecting change on students’ critical thinking in problem solving, innovative pedagogies in higher education to become effective teachers of 21st century skills: unpacking the learning and innovations skills domain of the new learning paradigm, collaborative learning: increasing students' engagement outside the classroom, a study of student technological creativity using online problem-solving activities, how do students value the importance of twenty-first century skills, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Collaborative Learning and Critical Thinking

• Reference work entry
• Cite this reference work entry

• Anu A. Gokhale 2  

2486 Accesses

28 Citations

Cooperative learning ; Creative thinking ; Problem-solving

The term “collaborative learning” refers to an instruction method in which students at various performance levels work together in small groups toward a common goal. Collaborative learning is a relationship among learners that fosters positive interdependence, individual accountability, and interpersonal skills. “Critical thinking” involves asking appropriate questions, gathering and creatively sorting through relevant information, relating new information to existing knowledge, reexamining beliefs, reasoning logically, and drawing reliable and trustworthy conclusions.

Theoretical Background

The advent of revolutionary information and communication technologies has effected changes in the organizational infrastructure and altered the characteristics of the workplace putting an increased emphasis on teamwork and processes that require individuals to pool their resources and integrate specializations. The...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

American Philosophical Association. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. ERIC document ED (pp. 315–423).

Google Scholar  

Cooper, J., Prescott, S., Cook, L., Smith, L., Mueck, R., & Cuseo, J. (1990). Cooperative learning and college instruction: Effective use of student learning teams . Long Beach: California State University Foundation.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7 (1), 22–30.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research . Edina: Interaction Book Company.

Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. (2006). Collaboration scripts – A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18 (2), 159–185.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Technology, Illinois State University, Campus Box 5100, Normal, IL, 61790-5110, USA

Dr. Anu A. Gokhale

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anu A. Gokhale .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Economics and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Education, University of Freiburg, 79085, Freiburg, Germany

Norbert M. Seel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Gokhale, A.A. (2012). Collaborative Learning and Critical Thinking. In: Seel, N.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_910

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_910

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4419-1427-9

Online ISBN : 978-1-4419-1428-6

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Health Science
• Business Education
• Computer Applications
• Career Readiness
• Teaching Strategies

«  View All Posts

Communication Skills | 21st Century Skills

What Are the 4 C's of 21st Century Skills?

• Share This Article

March 26th, 2024 | 9 min. read

Brad Hummel

Coming from a family of educators, Brad knows both the joys and challenges of teaching well. Through his own teaching background, he’s experienced both firsthand. As a writer for iCEV, Brad’s goal is to help teachers empower their students by listening to educators’ concerns and creating content that answers their most pressing questions about career and technical education.

Print/Save as PDF

As a middle or high school career readiness teacher, you likely need to teach 21st century skills as part of your curriculum.

While all twelve of those skills are necessary to teach, the "four C's" are often considered to be the most important. 

The four C’s of 21st Century skills  are:

• Critical thinking
• Collaboration
• Communication

These four skills are essential for modern students to succeed in school and the workplace.

They often make the biggest impact in terms of setting your students apart when applying for positions and starting their careers.

In this article, you'll discover what each skill entails and why they are so important to teach.

You'll also be able to download a free guide on how you can teach the 4 C's of 21st Century skills in middle or high school courses.

1. Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the practice of solving problems, among other qualities.

In addition to working through problems , solving puzzles, and similar activities, critical thinking also includes an element of skepticism.

This is important in the 21st Century because it’s harder than ever to verify accurate information (mostly thanks to the internet).

Critical thinking empowers students to discover the truth in assertions, especially when it comes to separating fact from opinion.

With critical thinking, students don’t just learn a set of facts or figures. Instead, they learn how to discover the facts and figures for themselves.

Through asking questions, learners become engaged in the world around them. Then they can help spread their knowledge to their peers, helping others to think critically, too. Students sharing the knowledge they've mastered with others might be the most important aspect of developing critical thinking skills.

Whether they learn how to think critically from spending time online or simply asking “Why?” in everyday life, this skill prepares students for a life of independence and purposeful thought.

Still, critical thinking is just one of the four C’s in 21st Century skills.

It works just fine when students use it alone. But when students combine it with the   next   skill, the sky is the limit to what they can achieve. 

2. Creativity

Creativity is the practice of thinking outside the box.

While creativity is often treated like a you-have-it-or-you-don’t quality, students can   learn   how to be creative by solving problems, creating systems, or just trying something they haven’t tried before. 

That doesn’t mean every student will become an artist or a writer. Instead, it means they’ll be able to look at a problem from multiple perspectives — including those that others may not see.

Creativity allows students to embrace their inner strengths from big-picture planning to meticulous organization . As students learn about their creativity, they also learn how to express it in healthy and productive ways.

More importantly, they also become   motivated   to share that creativity with others. Just like with critical thinking, that makes creativity contagious.

When a student creates an interesting or innovative  solution to a problem , the next student can become inspired to try something similar.

That’s not to say every single creative endeavor will be a ringing success. Students will fail at some point, and some of their ideas simply won’t work. But that’s okay.

The point of creativity is to encourage students to think differently than convention demands. They don’t have to do things the way they’ve always been done. Instead, they can figure out a better way.

Students don’t have to embrace their creativity alone, either. In fact, creativity works best when combined with the next 21st Century skill .

3. Collaboration

Collaboration   is the practice of working together to achieve a common goal.

Collaboration   is important because whether students realize it or not, they’ll probably work with other people for the rest of their lives.

Virtually every job requires someone to work with another person at some point, even if it’s for something as simple as what to get for lunch.

Practicing collaboration and teamwork helps students understand how to address a problem, pitch solutions, and decide the best course of action.

It’s also helpful for them to learn that other people don’t always have the same ideas that they do. In fact, as students practice collaboration more and more, they’ll learn that they have almost   none   of the same ideas that others do.

This can affect students in one of two ways. First, it could discourage them since nobody seems to agree with them that often. Second, it could embolden them because they realize they’re bringing something unique to every conversation.

As a teacher, it’s crucial that you encourage students to look at themselves through that second lens. That way, students learn that they should speak up when they have an idea.

Even when their ideas aren't the best suited to the problem, speaking up and sharing their solutions can help them when collaborating with others.

4. Communication

Communication is the practice of conveying ideas quickly and clearly.

Communication   is often taken for granted in today’s society. After all, if you say something, that means you conveyed an idea, right?

But in the age of text-based communications — including texting, emails, and social media — it’s never been more important for students to learn how to convey their thoughts in a way that others can understand them.

That’s because text-based communications lack   tone , which is critical to understanding the context of someone’s words.

Still, even in situations where vocal tone is available, students need to learn how to communicate effectively. That includes minimizing tangents, speaking directly to an idea, and checking other participants to make sure they’re engaged.

Reading an audience — even if it’s just two other people in a group discussion — lets students determine whether they should keep expanding on an idea or wrap up their point. Their audience could even be their family at Thanksgiving dinner.

The point is that as students practice communication, they become better at efficiently conveying an idea without losing their point—or their audience.

When they master the art of effective communication, students can streamline their ideas and make a positive impression on those around them.

Still, it’s important to note that communication isn’t enough on its own to help students with 21st Century skills. To really succeed, students need to use all four of these skills together.

How Do the Four C’s Work Together?

The four C’s of 21st Century skills work together as a system to help students comprehensively understand subjects and navigate living and working in the 21st century.

Because each of the four C's are general skills that help students throughout their personal and professional lives, they are essential qualities that people need to succeed in a wide range of situations.

Each of the four C's cover interrelated concepts paramount to being an educated person:

• Critical thinking teaches students to question claims and seek truth.
• Creativity teaches students to think in a way that’s unique to them.
• Collaboration teaches students that groups can create something bigger and better than you can on your own.
• Communication teaches students how to efficiently convey ideas.

Combined, the four C’s empower students to be discerning people capable of expressing themselves and working with others to find insightful solutions to everyday challenges.

When working together, learners who have mastered the four C's of 21st century skills have ability to make a profound impact on both their professional workplaces and their communities.

How Do You Teach the Four C's of 21st Century Skills?

Now you know what the four C's of 21st Century skills are and why employers want new hires to have them.

So now you're probably wondering how to teach 21st Century skills in your daily middle and high school classes.

Click below to get your free guide on teaching  critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication!

• Browse by Subjects
• New Releases
• Coming Soon
• Chases's Calendar
• Browse by Course
• Instructor's Copies
• Monographs & Research
• Intelligence & Security
• Library Services
• Business & Leadership
• Museum Studies
• Pastoral Resources
• Psychotherapy

Collaboration, Communications, and Critical Thinking

A stem-inspired path across the curriculum, dennis adams and mary hamm, also available.

• Schedule a call
• Sign up for FREE

Nearpod Blog

• Instructional resources
• Social & emotional learning

How to implement the 4Cs in education to teach 21st-century skills

What are the 4cs in education.

The 4Cs in education are collaboration, communication, creation, and critical thinking, which represent the knowledge, skills, and expertise students need today to prepare for tomorrow’s workforce. The Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21) claims that with the influx of technology and trends in our global economy, students need more interpersonal and intrapersonal skills to achieve professional and personal success. In its Frameworks for 21st Century Learning, P21 describes how the 4Cs of 21st-century skills are foundational for learning and innovation and are skills that everyone needs to practice and hone throughout schooling. These skills are not independent — they are entwined with one another when promoting progress in the classroom.

What is the importance of 4Cs in education?

The 4Cs approach to teaching and learning focuses on whole child education and makes it easier for a school to establish a positive school culture and build a common community among its stakeholders: students, families, and teachers. Most educators will not be surprised by this perspective, as whole child education has been a constant thread in schools for decades. In whole child education , teachers seek to support not just the academic but also the emotional and social skills of individual children. Since the days of Dewey, educators have sought to support children’s overall well-being while inciting their curiosity to become lifelong learners. In addition to a mastery of key subjects, P21 wove in interdisciplinary themes such as global awareness and civic literacy as part of their framework. However, it was their learning and innovation skills that took hold. Many educators now lean on this idea of the 4Cs in constructing their curriculum and daily activities. The importance of 4Cs in education has even led many to personalize the 4Cs by adding a fifth, sixth, or seventh C—whether that C stands for Community, Citizenship, or Character.

Teaching the 4Cs with technology tools: Nearpod

When it comes to technology, nowadays, students can find an answer with a click of a button. The clout of memorization has lost its hold, as students are now challenged to apply their newfound knowledge and expand upon it—not just recite it. Educational trends have shifted, especially with the influx of digital technologies, and classrooms must step up to prepare students to be effective and engaging contributors. Start teaching the 4Cs with technology using Nearpod . Platforms like Nearpod support educators in providing rich content while also challenging students to analyze, apply, evaluate, and create through active learning strategies and formative assessment, all to drive student engagement. Nearpod encourages students and teachers alike to take a personalized approach to education by leveraging the 4Cs in education through working with the whole class, small groups, and individuals. Students are more actively engaged in learning when presented with media-rich content and interactive functionality. Plus, educators receive real-time assessment data from their classrooms, enabling them to pivot and be more responsive in their teaching methods.

New to Nearpod? Teachers can sign up for free below to access these resources, interactive activities, and engaging lessons.

Nearpod’s 21st Century Readiness Curriculum Program

Nearpod’s 21st Century Readiness Program includes over 400 SEL lessons, activities, and videos built on CASEL’s five core competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making.

Provide educators with an easy way to integrate SEL practices like positive interactions, gratitude, and reflective moments into daily learning to help create safe, inclusive, and effective classroom environments. Administrators can schedule a call with an expert to explore Nearpod’s 21st Century Readiness Program  and  unlock the full power of Nearpod for schools and districts.

1. Collaboration

From the early days of kindergarten, kids learn the importance of cooperation, which is fundamental to the notion of collaboration, which is when two or more people work together towards a common goal. Good collaboration takes trust and respect to work together, be heard, and make decisions. Traditionally, educators promote collaboration with active learning strategies such as think-pair-share or jigsaw. They build small group work into lesson activities so that students learn and practice such participation and team-building skills.

Nearpod’s Collaborate Board makes it easy for students to share their thinking, comment on their posts, and build upon each other’s ideas in real time. Whether in person or working remotely, students can connect with one another via the interactive board, and teachers can monitor and review all perspectives. Nearpod provides a safe space for such collaboration to occur, and educators can foster such an exchange of ideas in a productive manner.

See Collaborate Board in action through these science lessons about infectious diseases . Use this lesson in high school classrooms to deconstruct sophisticated ideas about transmission and outbreaks of communicable diseases to share in their own words via a Collaborate Board.

Here are some tips from this blog post sharing ways to create collaborative learning experiences in the classroom:

• Make collaborative classroom discussions part of every lesson
• Keep feedback at the center of classroom discussions
• Make collaborative learning visible
• Collaborate and contribute in multiple formats
• Build community and social emotional skills

2. Communication

Part and parcel of collaboration are strong communication skills. Today’s communication skills are more nuanced depending on whether communication is happening in person, in writing, or virtually online. There has been more of a focus on the 21st-century literacy skills of speaking and listening since we have more dynamic communication channels these days. From the science of reading to digital literacy and media literacy , students are schooled in ways to be not only effective but respectful communicators. Teachers strive to promote creative expression so students can find their own voice while appreciating others’. 

Nearpod promotes class discussions within the pre-made lessons to spark meaningful conversations. Polls can be used to initiate discussions. Open-ended questions invite diverse perspective taking for 4Cs education. Students can practice articulating and conveying their ideas, whether they seek to inform, instruct, motivate, or persuade others. Nearpod’s formative interactive assessments , which can be embedded into videos and slides, open up avenues of exchanges, whether in person or through written responses . Students can practice listening effectively and exercise flexibility to promote dialogue, which can occur 24/7 and not just within the hours of a school day.

3. Creativity

Creativity has finally clawed its way to the top of Bloom’s Taxonomy . The apex of higher-order thinking now culminates in creating something new via self-expression. Many teachers strive to take a cross-curricular approach to designing their learning objectives so that students can better digest and make connections with new knowledge; they can then find application in their real world and build upon their own skill sets. Improv and design thinking have long embraced the notion of “Yes, and …” to encourage risk-taking and innovation.

Regarding creativity, Nearpod celebrates all learning styles and provides various ways for students to read, watch, and interact with content. Teachers can add multimedia to their lessons, and in turn, students can use interactive tools like Collaborate Board to brainstorm ideas and respond to or build upon the lesson content. The Draw It tool provides a digital whiteboard for students to draw, type, and add images to communicate and refine their ideas and responses. For instance, when learning about Ancient Greece , students can dive into an article, watch a video, or take a Virtual Reality (VR) Field Trip related to architecture and then be challenged to map out a blueprint or to draw their own interpretation of or enhance a famous relic. Students are able to “show what they know” in original ways in real time.

“Designing a City Zoo,” a 3-lesson experience built in partnership with Freckle , teaches elementary students about whole-number quotients through problem-solving. The lessons for grade 3 invite students to ask their own questions and to answer them creatively with tools such as Drag and Drop and Draw It:

• Designing a City Zoo: Part 1  
• Designing a City Zoo: Part 2  
• Designing a City Zoo: Part 3  

4. Critical thinking

Lastly, but underlining all tasks, is the importance of critical thinking skills. This focus on decision making and problem solving goes beyond mere mathematics by promoting high-order thinking across key subject areas. Critical thinking requires the ability to interpret, analyze, and evaluate information (facts and otherwise!) to refute arguments, make judgments, and think through solutions. Such logic skills also include developing a true willingness to listen to and consider others’ ideas. This iterative mindset is crucial in an ever-changing world that negates one-and-done solutions. Critical thinking skills are key to the other Cs in helping students become thoughtful questioners (communication), helpful participants (collaboration), and transformational contributors (creativity).

Nearpod lessons are built with scaffolded interactive activities designed to help students build toward higher-order critical thinking. Learning objectives are designed to have students analyze, evaluate, explain, problem-solve, and more, which are all components of critical thinking. Teachers can add reflective questions into their lessons, as such systematic thinking behooves us all regarding future personal and professional challenges.

Additionally, specific Nearpod features and content types are designed to encourage critical thinking, such as PhET simulations for math and science instruction .

5. Combining all 4Cs

The 4Cs in education focus on teaching students essential 21st-century skills. The 4Cs in education—collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking—have been vital for two decades and will continue to be, as educators aim to prepare students for future success. Nearpod continues to prepare students for the 21st century by providing an all-in-one platform with interactive lessons, gamified learning, and formative assessments to challenge students’ 4Cs education. Our Corinth high school science lessons incorporate the 4Cs. In the Integumentary System lesson, students can individually explore a 3D model of this system before synthesizing complex information in order to answer a series of questions collaboratively.

Start teaching the 4Cs with Nearpod

We challenge educators daily to design learning experiences that build students into confident and curious learners (two other valuable Cs!). 21st-century learning should look and feel different than a more traditional classroom we might be familiar with and the landscape will continue to evolve so that students develop the knowledge and skills they need. Plus, Nearpod provides professional development to continue improving educators’ skills regarding the 4Cs. These real-world skills of collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creative skills are ever-important as we all seek to be lifelong learners.

New to Nearpod? Make sure you’re signed up to access these lessons and activities!

Teachers can sign up for free below to access and create interactive lessons. Administrators can schedule a call with an expert to explore Nearpod’s 21st Century Readiness Program  and  unlock the full power of Nearpod for schools and districts.

Darri Stephens is a dedicated LX (learning experience) designer, passionate about creating quality content and programs for kids, families, and educators. With MAs in Education from both Harvard and Stanford, and work experience at best-in-class ed tech organizations including Wonder Workshop, Nickelodeon, and Common Sense Education, she is steeped in the design thinking process and committed to agile and iterative project management, which has resulted in multi-award-winning programs and products.

Darri Stephens

What is Nearpod?

Most popular

A guide to universal design for learning (udl) with examples, extend your professional development learning and earn nearpod pd hours, 6 best practices for parent-teacher conference communication, teachers: get started with a free account, administrators: bring nearpod to your school.

How to Use the "4 C's" Rubrics

This excerpt appears in the Buck Institute for Education's book, "PBL for 21st Century Success: Teaching Critical Thinking, Collaboration, Communication, Creativity." Rubrics for each of the "4 C's" are in the book, and we offer guidance below on how to use them in a PBL context. They are also available to download on BIE's website at the following links:

• Upper Elementary School Presentation Rubric
• Middle School Presentation Rubric
• High School Presentation Rubric

What these rubrics assess

These rubrics describe what good critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and creativity & innovation look like in the context of Project Based Learning. The rubrics do not describe these competencies as they are seen generally or in other settings. For example, the Common Core State Standards for English/Language Arts call upon students to think critically when reading literature by making inferences and determining the author’s intent. But since the particular content of projects will vary, the Critical Thinking Rubric for PBL only describes aspects of critical thinking that apply to tasks found in all projects, such as evaluating the reliability of a source of information. The same is true for communication; instead of describing competency in all types of communication, such as writing or listening to a speaker, we have chosen to focus the rubric on making a presentation, a competency common to all projects.

What these rubrics do NOT assess: “content”

These rubrics are designed to assess only the 4 C’s, not subject-area knowledge in, say, math, history, or science. This content should be assessed with a separate rubric—or by adding rows to these rubrics. A “content + 4 C’s” rubric can be created by the teacher for the particular product in the project, and target particular content standards. For example, the Presentation Rubric for PBL includes criteria for how well a student organizes ideas, speaks, and uses presentation aids. However, the rubric does not mention specific terminology, concepts, or subject-area information that should be used in the presentation, as determined by the teacher. The same goes for critical thinking; the rubric does not assess subject area knowledge when teams in a biology class decide if the government should fund gene therapy research or teams in an English class investigate the relevance of Macbeth to modern society. In other words, the rubric is designed to assess critical thinking skills used in projects anchored in subject-area content, but that content should be assessed separately.

How these rubrics align with Common Core State Standards

Competency in critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and creativity is required to meet many of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts and Literacy for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. he 4 C's are reflected in the "Mathematical Practices" section of CCSS, but not in the specific numbered standards, so they are not cited.

In these rubrics, note that:

• Specific ELA standards are cited in the “At Standard” column only, but their intent is reflected in the “Approaching” and “Below” columns too.
• Exact CCSS language is used when possible—which could be useful as a vocabulary-building opportunity for students— but occasionally we used more student-friendly terms.
• The CCSS does not specifically address all of the 21st century competencies used in PBL, so some items appear on the rubrics without “CC” citations.

How to use these rubrics

The primary purpose of these rubrics is to help students reflect on their work and understand more clearly what they need to do to improve. Consider these tips for using the rubrics:

• Teachers may use the rubric as a source of guiding ideas for creating their own rubric, or choose not to use certain rows, or adapt the language to fit the needs of their students and the design of the project.
• Teachers should help students understand the rubric; give examples, explain new vocabulary words, put the language in their own words, and so on. Show models of the performance and have students practice using the rubric to assess them.
• Give students the rubric near the beginning of a project. Have them assess themselves and reflect on their progress at checkpoints and at the end.
• A student’s performance may be described by some items in one column and some in another.

How to find evidence of 21st century competencies

Sources of evidence for 21st century competencies may include journals or other writing in which students document their use of the competency, self- and peer-reflections, and teacher observations.  Another source of evidence is the product students create and/or their explanation of how it was created.  For example, when students share project work with an audience a teacher can, in addition to assessing their competency in making a presentation, ask them to explain how they used critical thinking or followed the process of innovation.

How these rubrics are organized

Two of the rubrics, Critical Thinking and the “Process” section of Creativity & Innovation, are organized by the four phases of a typical project. This is because different aspects of these competencies come into play at different times. The other two rubrics, for Collaboration and Presentation, do not follow the phases of a project. The Presentation Rubric is only used in the last phase of a project, when students share their work with a public audience. However, competency in collaboration is relevant to all phases of a project. For example, a student should complete tasks on time, build on others’ ideas, and show respect for teammates not just at the beginning of the project, but throughout it.

The columns along the top describe levels of quality: 

• Below Standard : What students do when they have not yet shown evidence of the competency.
• Approaching Standard :  What students do when they are showing some evidence of gaining the competency, but still have gaps or deficiencies.
• At Standard : What students do when they show evidence of having gained the competency to an appropriate degree for their age and experience.
• Above Standard : What students do when they go beyond what is expected to demonstrate competency. This column is left blank, with space for making a check mark. See the notes below on how to use this column.

How to use the “Above Standard” column

It’s hard to predict or describe what a student may do when performing “Above Standard” but it’s often the case that “you’ll know it when you see it.” For this reason, we’ve left this column blank. A teacher could wait until it happens, then describe it. For example, an advanced critical thinker might make an especially insightful analysis of a text or source of information. A student with advanced competency in collaboration might show leadership that brings out the talents and efforts of others on a team. A highly skilled presenter might use humor, emotion, stories, metaphors, or interactive features “like a pro.” A creative product might have a “wow factor” or be similar to what an adult professional might create.

A teacher could also involve students in co-constructing language for the “Above Standard” column. Have them analyze samples of work from previous projects or professional products, then describe what makes them “go beyond expectations.”

How to assign scores or grades

These rubrics do not feature a numerical scale—we leave it up to the teacher who uses them to decide how to assign scores or grades. Some dimensions may be given more or less weight. For example, on the Collaboration Rubric, “Helps the Team” might count for more than “Respects Others,” depending on a teacher’s goals.

Within each of the levels of quality described by the rubric, there could be variation, so a teacher may want to allow for a range of scores or points in each. For example, a very weak “Below Standard” performance could be scored a “1” and a “2” could indicate a somewhat weak performance. Similarly, a very advanced or “Above Standard” performance could be scored as a “6” with a “5” being “At Standard.”

Feel free to draw language from the rubrics to create your own scoring guides for use with students, teachers, adult mentors, or presentation audience members.

This short research brief summarizes evidence of the impact of Project Based Learning on student learning in core content areas. The driving question for this brief is based on the most common question that teachers, principals, school leaders, coaches, and grant writers ask us at the PBLWorks about Project Based Learning (PBL): What evidence exists that shows the impact of Project Based Learning on student learning in core content areas.

Citation: Kingston, S. (2018). Project Based Learning & Student Achievement: What Does the Research Tell Us? PBL Evidence Matters. 1(1), 1-11.

Source Organization: PBLWorks

Don't miss a thing! Get PBL resources, tips and news delivered to your inbox.

• Our Mission

Lessons for 21st-Century Learners

Three ideas for fostering collaboration, critical thinking, communication, and creativity with easy-to-use apps and tools.

Collaboration, critical thinking, communication, and creativity are the 4 Cs of a 21st-century learner, according to the Partnership for 21st Century Learning . Given that technology use continues to expand in schools, it’s worthwhile to think of how that technology can function in assignments designed to develop the skills our students need.

Communication and Creativity: Personal Narrative Podcast

Stories are a powerful learning tool in the classroom. For an 11th-grade narrative unit, I asked students to analyze classic narrative essays such as George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” and Amy Tan’s “Mother Tongue” using the traditional plot diagram and paying attention to literary narrative devices. Next, they explored contemporary personal narratives from NPR’s This I Believe series and chose three essays to read based on their interests. Then I asked them to compose their own personal narratives to share an important event in their lives.

Most of my students were not familiar with podcasts, so as a class we explored a few episodes from NPR’s This American Life series—listening to them together and then discussing oral storytelling techniques. Students then individually chose several This I Believe audio clips to further their knowledge of storytelling.

After becoming familiar with the world of podcasting, students used GarageBand to create their own podcasts, integrating elements such as sound effects and music. (I’ve given the names of the tools we used in my class, but there are a lot of others you can use with these kinds of assignments.) Some students chose to work together on interview-style podcasts, while others worked individually to create dramatic renderings of their personal events.

The stories students told were highly engaging and ranged from grieving over a lost grandmother to being surrounded by lions while in a tent on a safari to competing in a swim meet event for the first time. Through creativity and communication, students were able to share a personal event that enriched their lives, and that sharing further connected them as a classroom community.

Critical Thinking and Creativity: Visual Interpretation of Poetry

Like many teachers, I’ve found over the years that students are hesitant to explore poetry. However, doing so is an excellent way to develop critical thinking skills. For a 10th-grade poetry unit, I had students read traditional poems such as Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est” and Emily Dickinson’s “Because I could not stop for Death,” and analyze the poetic devices in them.

To add a visual element, I had students watch selected contemporary poems from the Poetry Foundation’s Poem Videos  series, which we then discussed as a class. I left some time at the end of the lesson for students to explore some of the videos on their own.

They then chose a poem to use in creating a visual interpretation using iMovie or other video-making platforms of their choice. They were elated to be able to choose their poems, selecting texts that were meaningful to them. The only requirement for the video was that it should include an explicit interpretation of the theme or message of the poem.

The videos the students created were representative of their personal interpretations and varied in format from live action to photographic images to personal drawings to stop motion. Giving students agency to choose and analyze a poem resulted in engaging videos that reflected their burgeoning critical thinking and creative skills.

Collaboration: Group Research Paper

While collaborative work is a necessary skill in the 21st century, students are often hesitant to work in groups, fearful of being stuck with all of work. I addressed that fear in an 11th-grade unit on The Merchant of Venice by having students divide an assigned research question into three or four subtopics depending on the number of people in the group—each individual had his or her own responsibility as the groups explored the cultural and contextual background of the play and then wrote a collaborative research paper.

Using NoodleTools , a virtual collaboration environment, groups created a shared project accessible through their individual student accounts. They shared their projects with me, so I was able to monitor group participation and answer any questions they had right there within the project.

Each individual was responsible for creating one virtual source card and three virtual note cards on his or her subtopic. The source and note cards are individually tracked, but are compiled together by groups online, so students were able to easily share and view each other’s work in the virtual environment.

Each group then created and shared a Google Doc through NoodleTools, and students wrote individual sections on one group document. Each group wrote an introduction together and created a reference page in MLA format together. The result for each group was a single research paper with both individual and collaborative input. My students found NoodleTools incredibly easy to use, and no one reported feeling frustrated at having to submit group work that was created by only one or two individuals.

These are just some of the ways the 4 Cs can be developed through technology in the secondary classroom. The beauty of technology nowadays is that there are many variations on how it can enhance student learning and motivation.

The 4 Cs: Collaboration, Creativity, Communication and Critical Thinking

Since Empower Generations’ beginning, we have been committed to helping learners develop into well-rounded, lifelong learners empowered to lead in an ever-changing world. That’s why we focus on the four Cs of 21st-century learning:

• Collaboration: Learners are able to work effectively with diverse groups and exercise flexibility in making compromises to achieve common goals.
• Creativity: Learners are able to generate and improve on original ideas and also work creatively with others.
• Communication: Learners are able to communicate effectively across multiple media and for various purposes.
• Critical thinking: Learners are able to analyze, evaluate, and understand complex systems and apply strategies to solve problems.

These skills enhance the academic growth of Empower Generations’ learners and prepare them to succeed in life.

RECENT POSTS

Free Breakfast and Lunch at Empower Generations

Enrolled learners are invited to enjoy free breakfast and lunch every day they’re at school. We encourage learners to enjoy both meals, ensuring full bellies and nourished minds, ready for Read more…

Activate Your ParentSquare Account

Empower Generations uses ParentSquare for school-to-home communications. Here’s what you can do with ParentSquare: Receive messages from the school via email, text, or app notification. (Download the iOS App or Android Read more…

Upcoming Events

Mon., 9/2: Labor Day Thur., 9/26: Minimum Day Thur.-Fri., 9/26-27: Individualized Learning Plans Thur., 10/4: Individualized Learning Plans Click here for the school year calendar.

Monday Message: Timely News & Information for our Families

For more information.

661-429-3264

Asistencia en español (661) 570-5951

[email protected]

Empower Generations

44236 10th Street West, Ste. 105 Lancaster, CA 93534

• Current Board Agenda

(Physical Copy Of The Approved Charter Available At Learning Center)

Approved by the Accrediting Commission for Schools, Western Association of Schools and Colleges

No Imagery Or Content Contained In This Website May Be Copied Without Owner’s Permission.

Board & Public Information

Learning continuity plan, lcap federal addendum, math policy, privacy policy.

© 2024 iLEAD California. All rights reserved.

• Uncategorized

Communication, Collaboration and Critical Thinking = Quality Outcomes

November / December 2007

By Mary Sue Dailey, RN, MSN, APRN-BC; Barbara B. Loeb, MD, MBA, CPE; and Cheryl Peterman, RN, MS, APRN-BC

Y ou are a nurse on a busy medical-surgical unit, it’s Friday night, and you have just come on duty. You check your patients and become concerned about Mr. Z, who is scheduled for orthopedic surgery tomorrow. His case just does not seem as simple as the previous nurse indicated. Her report was, “This is a 55-year-old male, weighing 285 pounds, who fell at home and heard a loud pop in his ankle. He had previous hardware in that ankle and was admitted through the emergency department. Orthopedics saw the patient and ordered a morphine pump for pain. Surgery is planned for morning. Preoperative labs and x-rays have been done and the consent is signed. The patient was on the blood thinners for a history of blood clots in his lungs that occurred after his previous ankle fracture surgery. Although his blood thinners are on hold for surgery, his blood is still mildly thinned. His other past history is significant for emphysema. He still smokes. He is on low-flow nasal oxygen.”

When you check the patient again, he is responsive, but very groggy. He has been up on the unit for about 4 hours. The morphine pump was started upon arrival. He denies pain. His heart rate and blood pressure are unremarkable. His respirations are shallow. His oxygen saturation is low at 84%, when it should be greater than 90%. Respiratory therapy comes and turns up the oxygen flow. Eventually, his oxygen saturation rises to 93%. You contact the attending physician to report the changes in the patient’s condition. The doctor is not familiar with Mr. Z. He was newly assigned to the case when the patient came to the ER. You know the preoperative chest x-ray was normal. The attending physician believes that Mr. Z just had too much narcotic and tells you to hold the morphine pump and “keep an eye on the patient.” You place a continuous oxygen monitor on Mr. Z’s finger so at least you will know if his oxygen level drops again. You feel a little uneasy but…. “At least the doctor knows.”

At 6:30 am, as you are preparing to give shift report, the patient care technician rushes out to tell you that she is having difficulty arousing Mr. Z. Entering his room, you find him with shallow respirations. You end up calling respiratory therapy and eventually anesthesia because the patient requires a respirator. He is transferred to ICU. Of course, the surgery has to be cancelled.

That scenario is not one that any healthcare team would like to encounter. Fortunately, there are ways to minimize such events. At Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital, we wanted to improve outcomes on our medical and surgical care units. Simultaneously, we wanted to improve nursing satisfaction and retention. In 2004, we embarked on a redesign project for our medical/surgical nursing division with the goal of uncovering weaknesses and opportunities to improve care and satisfaction. As part of this project, we conducted a survey of key physicians and nurses to identify issues they perceived as having a major impact on care. Our survey revealed the following:

• 17% of physicians noted that joint rounding between the physician and nurse would improve the discharge process.

These responses indicated three areas of perceived deficiency that required attention:

• Collaboration and collegiality between physician and nurses.

To improve care, intuition tells us that all three of these areas are worthy of focus. In addition, each one is substantiated by the literature and national patient safety initiatives.

Critical thinking is defined in the nursing literature as “a certain mindset or way of thinking, rather than a method or a set of steps to follow. Critical thinking is clear thinking that is active, focused, persistent, and purposeful. It is a process of choosing, weighing alternatives, and considering what to do. Critical thinking involves looking at reasons for believing one thing rather than another in an open, flexible, attentive way” (Kyzer, 1996). To have critical thinking skills is “to think (and perform) in such a way that staff will see patterns and ramifications beyond a present issue; that they can focus on the goals that they and their patients seek; and that they are able, in a creative and continuous manner, to make good decisions and follow up actively on problems” (Hansten & Washburn, 1999).

According to Hansten & Jackson (2004), use of critical-thinking skills should lead to:

• Improved staff morale and less turnover in all disciplines as interdisciplinary teamwork improves and as all workers feel more empowered to effect change both within the patient care realm and with organizational systems (p.323).

Additionally, the benefits of nursing staff that “get it” and are able to utilize critical thinking skills are tremendous. When a nurse has the ability to analyze a patient’s changing condition and act appropriately, the level of care and patient outcomes improve.

Communication is believed to be the root cause of 60 to 70% of sentinel events (Joint Commission, 2002). Physicians and nurses are trained to communicate differently, which sets up the potential for miscommunication. This factor illustrates the necessity of optimizing communication among the multidisciplinary members of the healthcare team. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) identified communication as a focus to improve outcomes. The 2003 IHI initiative, “Transforming Care at the Bedside,” identified that specific communication models support consistent and clear communication among caregivers and dramatically improve care and staff satisfaction on medical/surgical units.

SBAR is an example of a structured communication technique that helps clinicians share a mental model of a patient’s clinical condition. Developed by Michael Leonard, MD, director of Patient Safety for Colorado Permanente Medical Group and Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, the SBAR acronym stands for Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation and provides a framework for effective communication among members of the healthcare team.

In July 2002, the Joint Commission approved its first set of National Patient Safety Goals (NPSGs) designed to improve the safety of patient care in healthcare organizations. The 2003 goal of “improving the effectiveness of communication among caregivers” sharpened the communication focus. Taking things even further in 2006, healthcare institutions were directed to “implement a standardized approach to ‘hand off’ communications, including an opportunity to ask and respond to questions.” Communication continues to be the primary target for current Joint Commission patient safety initiatives.

Collaborative/collegial relationships between nurses and physicians yield better patient outcomes, as substantiated in the nursing literature. According to Schmalenberg and Kramer (2005), “MD/RN collaboration is associated with decreased patient mortality, fewer transfers back to the ICU, reduced costs, decreased length of stay, higher nurse autonomy, retention, nurse-perceived high-quality care, and nurse job satisfaction.” Larrabee (2003) found that positive MD/RN relationships were a contributing factor to improved nursing job satisfaction and retention.

In addition, negative interactions between physicians and nurses should decrease as their collegiality and mutual respect improves. Rosenstein and O’Daniel (2005) surveyed 1,509 physician, nurses and administrators in 50 VHA hospitals. The aggregate of the three groups’ responses indicated a significant percentage had, at some time, witnessed negative (or what they considered disruptive) behaviors on the part of both physicians (74%) and nurses (68%). Although more than half of the respondents estimated that the actual percentage of physicians and nurses that demonstrate this pattern was low (1 to 3%), the majority believed that such behaviors increased stress and frustration for both nurses and physicians. At the same time, they felt, it decreased concentration, communication, collaboration, information transfer, and workplace relationships for the two groups overall. The end result, in their opinion, was a negative impact on the quality of patient care and patient satisfaction. These factors reinforce the need to continuously cultivate high quality MD-RN relationships.

A Program to Improve Healthcare Delivery Combining our survey results with the knowledge from the literature and patient safety initiatives, the med-surg redesign team set out to develop an action plan. The chief nursing officer and the director of nursing for the division, sought out a physician champion and a group of lead advanced practice nurses (APNs) that were actively engaged in care on the various nursing units. Together they brainstormed a method to improve three target areas: communication, collaboration and critical thinking skills. a new program coined “Communication, Collaboration and Critical Thinking = Quality Outcomes” (CCC) was created.

The mission of CCC was to achieve an even higher level of patient care, safety, quality outcomes, and overall satisfaction by utilizing strategies that cultivate the MD/RN relationship while improving critical thinking skills. The strategy of CCC was physicians and nurses collaborating to collect, communicate, and critically analyze clinical patient information to set the course of care.

The newly formed CCC team came up with a three-component program:

• Development and implementation of the “Share a Teaching Moment” campaign, where MDs and RNs are encouraged to share clinical pearls rather than just orders.

Case Study Program The CCC case study program is offered three to four times per year to the medical and nursing staff, using real patient case studies to discuss the evaluation, differential diagnosis, and plan of care from both the medical and nursing perspective. These forums are designed to improve not only critical-thinking skills of nurses, but communication and collaboration between healthcare workers, which reinforces quality patient outcomes. The case studies incorporate clinical knowledge, as well as highlighting and reinforcing key components of safety initiatives of our organization and other worldwide healthcare quality organizations. Currently we have featured aspects of the Advocate Health Care system-wide “Culture of Safety” as well as JCAHO and IHI initiatives, such as handoff communication and medication reconciliation.

In addition, compliance with best practices, as defined in the Medicare core measures bundles for conditions such as acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and surgical care infection prevention care, is embedded into each presentation. The case studies are presented in a relaxed, open environment, which promotes relationship building between the participants. This type of collaboration models behavior that we endeavor to carry into daily care at the hospital.

Participants are surveyed following every session for feedback regarding cases, room set-up, and presentation style. Changes are made as a result of the recommendations offered. Presentations have become more sophisticated with incorporation of x-rays, CT scans, ultrasounds, echocardiograms, and angiograms. Presentation style has advanced from a single physician to a panel of physicians from various specialties. We are progressing towards having case studies presented by staff RNs in collaboration with physicians. More than 100 participants have attended each program, and More than 80 physicians and 250 nurses have attended at least one CCC case study presentation. Other disciplines such as respiratory therapy and physical therapy have attended, as have the CEO and CFO of the hospital.

Participants have made very positive comments on their evaluations:

• “I am a new employee, and this session was great for me to experience team collaboration and to see ‘the big picture.'”

Physician/Nurse Rounding The “Rounding” and “Teaching Moment” aspects of the program were created in order to formalize the integration of behavior patterns learned through the case study presentations into the daily practice on the nursing units. We wanted these behaviors to happen every day on every nursing unit, not only when scheduled case studies were presented. Unit-based APNs, the unit managers, and the charge nurses continually encourage physician/nurse rounding on both a formal and informal level. Nurses are encouraged on a daily basis to “see the patient with the doctor,” give valid information to the physician, and at the same time, ask important questions about care. Formal rounding is incorporated into unit orientation programs and the new graduate residency program, where a new hire is given the opportunity to “round with a doctor” towards the end of their orientation. This helps both disciplines get to know each other and helps the nurse “see it through the doctor’s eyes” in order to enhance communication when they need to work together to solve specific patient care issues.

Share a Teaching Moment The “Share a Teaching Moment” campaign is an initiative designed to encourage the sharing of information among caregivers. Initially, we had a 1-week “blitz,” which introduced and heightened awareness of this concept. Staff kept notes and nurse managers sent handwritten acknowledgements to each MD who shared a teaching moment. Unit-based APNs use this approach to encourage and promote a questioning and inquisitive atmosphere. Recently, the nursing shared governance awarded the 2007 Friend of Nursing award to the physician that shared the greatest number of teaching moments.

Additional Projects Two additional projects were designed to spread the CCC concept: placement of a designated communication sheet in the patient chart and a program for nurse residents called “Nurse as the Manager of Care.” No longer do the charts have wrinkled “post-its” all over the order sheets and progress notes. One brightly colored sheet is place in a designated area of the chart for the nurse to leave notes for the MD regarding noncritical requests for orders or patient requests. The final aspect has been the participation of an MD-APN team presentation/discussion to new graduates in the nurse residency program. This session, “Nurse as the Manager of Care,” incorporates and reinforces elements of the case studies, rounding, and teaching moment components of CCC tailored to meet the needs of new graduates.

Evaluating Cultural Transformation In 2006, we conducted an open-ended physician satisfaction survey. We asked physicians to list three areas where the hospital was doing well and three where there were opportunities for improvement. One hundred and two surveys were complete. Fifty-five surveys listed nursing as one of the three positive areas at the hospital. No other answer in either a positive or negative area was as frequently listed.

On that same survey, physicians were asked two repeat questions from the 2004 redesign survey:

• Do you feel nurses are timely in their follow through on written orders?

In contrast to the 25% on the original 2 years later, physicians felt that 81% of nurses are knowledgeable of their patients’ condition. They also answered that 86% of the time, nurses are timely in follow through on written orders, as opposed to 50% in 2004. (Figure 1)

A national physician satisfaction survey done by Data Management & Research, Inc, also in 2006, showed that 93% of physicians answered that they were either satisfied (73%) or very satisfied (20%) with nursing. Only 6% said they were dissatisfied, and 0% said they were very dissatisfied. This put the hospital at the 62nd percentile nationally, which was considered very positive by our consultants. 

Many factors enter into measures of nursing satisfaction and turnover. The medical- surgical nursing division showed a decrease in nursing vacancy rates from 2004 (pre-CCC) to present and a continuous improvement in nursing staff perception of MD/RN interactions demonstrated in pre-session survey results.

In addition, quality measures also showed improvement after the redesign. For example, core measure bundle compliance scores for CHF, acute MI, community-acquired pneumonia, and SCIP (formerly SIP) bundles improved since inception of the CCC project. We felt that the CCC program has been complimentary to other strategies used to obtain these results. Since many of the aspects of bundle compliance involve specific MD orders, one can theorize that improved communication has led to easier conversations regarding specific orders needed related to the above categories.

Transforming the culture throughout the medical-surgical nursing division at Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital has been a journey. By cultivating the MD/RN relationship through the Communication, Collaboration and Critical Thinking = Quality Outcomes program and the assignment of unit-based APNs to each unit, along with a number of other initiatives, including rapid response teams, we have changed the very nature of how we do things. The scenario we described at the beginning of this article would look completely different in our practice today. In comparison to the first communication with the MD, the following alternative with the same patient situation illustrates how clear communication can contribute to a safer hospital experience and potentially better outcomes for this patient:

You are the same nurse on the same Friday evening shift. Before calling the MD, you organize data in the SBAR format advocated by JCAHO:

• R (recommendation): You know there is a need to address pain but feel that with the oxygen problems and history of pulmonary embolism, the patient needs closer monitoring than can be given on the med-surg unit. Something has changed since he first got to the floor. Remember, our diagnosed sleep apnea patients go to critical care for monitoring after surgery when they are using narcotics for pain — this situation has some similarities (snoring, body habitus, narcotic use). You clearly convey the information above and your concerns to the attending physician.

Outcome after this communication:

• Successful surgery.

Conclusion Critical thinking on the part of nursing and clear communication between physicians and nurses are paramount in promoting safe outcomes for patients. Creating a culture where nurses and physicians are comfortable with two-way communication regarding a patient’s condition and care needs requires careful planning, assembling of a team of key players, and persistence. Are nurses in your hospital able to put the critical pieces of information together in an organized fashion to present to the physician? Are your physicians receptive to nurses suggesting further interventions based on their assessment? The answer should be yes. If not, consider what needs to be done to begin a cultural transformation.

Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital in Downers Grove, Illinois is an accredited, 324-bed suburban hospital, with more than 700 medical staff members and more than 900 nurses. It is the proud recipient of the Solucient Top 100 Hospital for Cardiovascular Care and the Distinguished Hospital Award for Clinical Excellence by Health Grades. It is the only Level I Trauma Center in Du Page County and is recognized for its Level III NICU. Advanced technologies such as Tomo therapy oncology treatments and 64-slice CT scanning are available. The Good Samaritan Health and Wellness Center, located on Good Samaritan’s campus, is a 90,000 square foot medical model wellness center. The Hospital is part of Advocate Health Care, an organization of physicians and more than 20,000 healthcare professionals dedicated to serving the health needs of individuals, families and communities in northern Illinois. We acknowledge the support of the entire nursing and medical staff of the Med-Surg Division, the guidance of Ginger Diven, director of nursing, Med-Surg Division, Marj Maurer, chief nursing and operating officer and Dave Fox, president and CEO. We recognize the remainder of the CCC Team APNs / CNSs for their dedication and hard work: Sue Durkin, Barb Gulczynski, Annemarie Kallenbach, Marge Kearney, Jennifer Law and Joann Petty. Special thanks to Kathy Patrick, administrative support staff. Mary Sue Dailey is a certified clinical nurse specialist for adult med-surg acute care at Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital, Downers Grove, Illinois. She has over 30 years nursing experience as a staff nurse, clinical faculty, case manager, and CNS. She is a Culture of Safety instructor and member of the CCC leadership team. Barbara Loeb is a practicing internist at Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital with over 24 years of experience. She is board certified in internal medicine and geriatrics. Loeb has served in numerous leadership roles at the Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital and within the Advocate Health Care system including departmental chairman, member of the Corporate Quality Committee for Advocate Health Partners (PHO) and is currently the president elect of the medical staff. In 2005, she became focused on improving nursing quality and the MD/RN relationships. Loeb is the physician champion of the CCC Team and may be contacted at [email protected] . Cheryl Peterman is a certified clinical nurse specialist in adult health. She is the clinical specialist for telemetry at Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital. She has 5 years of nursing experience as a staff nurse, charge nurse, and CNS. She is a Culture of Safety instructor and member of the CCC leadership team. Hanston, R.I, & Jackson, M. (2004). Clinical delegation skills: a handbook for professional practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Hanston, R. I. & Washburn, M. (1999). Individual and organizational Accountability for development of critical thinking. Journal of Nursing Administration, 29 (11), 39-45. Institute for Healthcare Improvement: Guidelines for communicating with physicians using the SBAR Process. http://www.ihi.org/IHI/Topics/PatientSafety/SafetyGeneral/Tools/ SBARTechniqueforCommunicationASituationalBriefingModel.htm (accessed April 23, 2007) Joint Commission. (2002) Joint Commission Perspectives on Patient Safety 2 (9) 4-5 Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations: 2006 Critical Access Hospital and Hospital National Patient Safety Goals. http://www.jcaho.org/accredited+organizations/ patient+safety/06_npsg/06_npsg_cah_hap.html (accessed April 23, 2006) Kyser, S.P. (1996). Sharpening your critical thinking skills. Orthopaedic Nursing, 15 (6), 66-76. Larrabee, L., Janney, M., Ostrow, C., Withrow, M., Hobbs, G. Burant, C. (2003). Predicting registered nurse job satisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Nursing, 33 (5), 271-283. Rosenstein AH, O’Daniel M. (2005). Disruptive behavior & clinical outcomes: Perceptions of nurses and physicians. American Journal of Nursing, 105 (1), 54-64. Schmalenberg, C., Kramer, M., King, C., et al. (2005). Excellence through evidence: Securing collegial/collaborative nurse-physician Relationships, part 1 Journal of Nursing Administration, 35 (10), 450-458. Be the Expert! Share this: More From Forbes 2024 graduates lack skills in communication, collaboration and critical thinking, study finds. Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Share to Linkedin A new study finds that 2024 graduates lack certain skills necessary for job success and what needs ... [+] rectifying. There’s been a lot of discussion about skill-based hiring but little talk about what the needed skills are or the re-skilling should be. Soft skills? AI skills? Other technical skills? As 2024 becomes the year that skills hiring and re-skilling become a major focus, job candidates are left wondering what exact skills they need to compete in today’s job market. According to Microsoft’s new Work Trend Index Report , 76% of employees believe they need AI skills to remain competitive to fit into an AI-focused future of work. Three Skills Graduates Possess And Lack A recent study finds a growing trend where hiring managers are hiring candidates based on skills, instead of traditional education or work experience. With all of the talk about skill-based hiring, there has been so little talk about what those desired skills are. What skills difference is there between college graduates and those who possess the desired soft skills? SHL , a talent acquisition and management platform, says it has found those skills. According to research of approximately 8,000 U.S. graduates and after mapping the skills in demand and growth areas to SHL’s talent framework, the organization finds the following advantages and disadvantages: Graduates rank higher in dependability, strong work ethic and reliability. Graduates rank lower in adaptability and embracing new ideas. Graduates rank lower in communication, collaboration, strategic and critical thinking, building relationships. In a recent piece for Forbes.com , Dr. Anne Snyder points out that Gen Z’s desire for immediate feedback and flexible work environments often clash with traditional practices, further exacerbating workplace tension and reducing overall productivity. She adds that many managers—promoted for technical skills rather than people management—default to a "command-and-control" style of leadership. Without proper training, they often micromanage, stifling the autonomy and innovative thinking that younger workers crave. While it’s essential that companies reshape old practices for Gen Z to thrive , it’s a two-way street. Gen Z graduates are also challenged with focusing on sharpening communication, collaboration, critical thinking and building relationships in order to adapt to the current workplace. Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024 Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024. Matt Kirk, Owner, Talent Acquisition Solutions at SHL, sees many companies looking for people they can teach and mold, employees that are willing to learn. “Speaking to companies around the world, there are so many who say, ‘Well, actually, we're just going to start by profiling our jobs with skills,” he says. “We're not going to change our pay structure based on skills, and we're not going to look at internal ability by skills.” According to Kirk, as AI becomes increasingly impactful in corporate environments, soft skills and behavioral skills will become more critical as external talent becomes increasingly harder to find. “AI is predicted to take away or to to really take over a lot of the kind of efficiencies and the processes,” he explains. “The vast majority of people in those roles are likely to lose their jobs in the next few years, and those jobs will be replaced with new jobs. That's one of the reasons why the skills piece is important, because as AI forces new roles and changes the structure of organization, external talent is hard to find and it's expensive.” Steps Leaders Can Take To Upskill I spoke with Kirk by email, and he identified five steps that need to be taken to rectify the current situation: Reassess success criteria. In light of evolving organizational structures and roles, Kirk believes it's crucial to re-evaluate the skills required for success. He advocates recognizing that today's graduates bring a unique set of skills, which may differ from previously in-demand skills but may fit the roles of the future better. Implement an objective recruitment assessment. He recommends implementing a fair and objective recruitment process that evaluates these critical skills, incorporating methods such as human/soft skills assessments and structured interviews. Invest in skill development. Kirk suggest that leaders be prepared to address any skill gaps from the onset of employment by investing in structured learning & development programs in addition to self-directed leaning. Allow time for new hires to grow and acquire the necessary skills. Conduct performance evaluations . Regularly monitor a new employee’s performance and encourage self-reflection to ensure that identified skills align with job requirements and drive high performance. Understand employee uniqueness . Kirk underscores the importance of developing an awareness of individual strengths and areas for development in relation to job criteria, enables employers to effectively enhance performance through targeted upskilling and learning interventions. Editorial Standards Reprints & Permissions Join The Conversation One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts.  Forbes Community Guidelines Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space. In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil. Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain: False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms. User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in: Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms. So, how can you be a power user? Stay on topic and share your insights Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view. Protect your community. Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules. Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service. Login / Register   Hide/show navigation links Communication Skills for Business Are you an individual learner looking for learning materials, practice tests, or exam vouchers for use in the United States? If so, browse everything for Communications Skills for Business on the Certiport Store and learn how you can earn an industry-recognized certification. Certiport offers the following certifications for Communication Skills for Business (CSB). Professional Communication Exam The Communication Skills for Business (CSB) Professional Communication exam validates that candidates entering the workforce understand key communication principles and skills that are necessary to be effective in a work environment. More information about the Professional Communication Exam English for IT Exam The Communication Skills for Business (CSB) English for IT exam validates a candidate’s ability to work in an IT job setting or in an entry-level IT related work environment using English (B2/GSE 59–75). More information about the English for IT Exam Success is led by the power of communication The Communication Skills for Business (CSB) program is one of the newest certification programs offered through Certiport and now includes the Professional Communication certification and the English for IT certification . Whether verbal (oral or written) communication or nonverbal communication the ability to communicate effectively is a critical skill that all candidates should possess. In every industry, there is a gap between the English skills required and the English language skills that employees have. Also, in today’s workplace, communication skills are consistently one of the top skills employers are looking for and developing these skills can give candidates a big edge on the competition. 1 The CSB certifications are built to validate that candidates entering the workforce understand key communication principles and possess the skills that are necessary to be effective in a work environment. Impact of CSB For students/candidates, Communication Skills for Business certifications are resume builders and help students/candidates become more employable. For educators, the Communication Skills for Business ready-made, self-scoring exams save instructors’ time by using the certification exams as class exams, mid-terms or final exams. For workforce education, the Communication Skills for Business program increases job placement rates and stabilizes/increases funding options. For corporations, the Communication Skills for Business program provides job skill enhancement for employees and saves money by not having poor communications. Why should job candidates seek CSB Certification? Poor communication is very expensive for companies. Studies have been done that estimate businesses with 100 employees lose an average of $420,000 per year due to poor communication between employees. The cost goes up based on the number of employees. 2 The CSB certifications give job candidates the proof they understand good communication and have the skills needed to be effective and efficient in their jobs, while saving the company money by not communicating poorly. The full pathway solution to CSB certification Through Certiport’s full pathway solution you can prepare your students for the CSB certifications with tailored learning materials, resources and GMetrix practice tests. Adding these materials into your curriculum is easy and seamless. 1 Source, Ziprecruiter, The Top Job Skills Employers Are Looking For 2 Source: SHRM, The Cost of Poor Communications, February 2016 Take the next steps 425 IMAGES PPT 4Cs of 21st Century Learning analysis infographic has 6 steps to Collaboration, Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication 4Cs Learning analysis infographic has 4 steps to analyse such as 4Cs of Learning analysis infographic has 6 steps to analyse such as PPT VIDEO The Ultimate Guide to Critical Thinking #bijpada Memory Game 🎮 Critical thinking, collaboration, Confidence The awkwardness of collaboration: Jennifer Chan at TEDxYMCAAcademy UKG: Art and Craft Communication, Collaboration, Creativity, Innovation, and Critical Thinking for Problem Solving Creative Thinking VS Critical Thinking COMMENTS Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration Similarly focused on the need to promote a phase change towards future-oriented education, Lucas and colleagues have suggested conflating creative thinking and critical thinking in order to propose "3Cs" (creative thinking, communication, and collaboration) as new "foundational literacies" to symmetrically add to the 3Rs (Reading ... Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration This article addresses educational challenges posed by the future of work, examining "21st century skills", their conception, assessment, and valorization. It focuses in particular on key soft skill competencies known as the "4Cs": creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. In a section on each C, we provide an overview of assessment at the level of individual ... Critical Thinking and Effective Communication: Enhancing Interpersonal Developing and honing critical thinking and communication skills can lead to increased productivity and a more positive, collaborative environment. Critical Thinking Fundamentals Skill and Knowledge. Critical thinking is an essential cognitive skill that individuals should cultivate in order to master effective communication. PDF Communication † Critical Thinking † Creativity † Collaboration Critical thinking was not only the first among the 21st century skills but is the foundation for three other essential 21st century skills: communication, collaboration, and creative thinking. These skills have been called "the four C's." Critical Thinking for Team Collaboration: A Guide to Effective Problem Critical thinking is an essential skill that enhances a team's ability to collaborate efficiently and effectively. By honing their critical thinking skills, team members can analyze information, solve problems, and make well-informed decisions. In the context of teamwork, critical thinking also plays a crucial role in improving communication ... What Are 21st Century Skills? Critical thinking: Finding solutions to problems; Creativity: Thinking outside the box; Collaboration: Working with others; Communication: Talking to others; Below, we'll consider each of these skills and their implications for students' careers. Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is one the most important qualities for today's professionals ... The 4 C's Experts in the field of education and the sciences suggest the focus of education should be on the "four Cs": collaboration, communication, critical thinking and creativity. Clearly we recognize that when students are taught to " collaborate ", they learn to work within teams that enhance knowledge utilization and dissemination. The ... Developing critical thinking, collective creativity skills and problem Critical thinking, collaboration and communication skills are closely linked. Many participants considered sharing ideas 'a clear and effective communication' and 'a good capacity of cooperating to execute any agreed and organised activity' as enablers for collaboration, which reflects two of Blomqvist and Levy's (2006) collaboration ... [PDF] Critical Thinking, Collaboration, Creativity and Communication The main purpose of this review paper is to highlight existing studies on key soft skill competencies of 21st-century known as the "4 Cs" critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, and communication among school students and to explore various frameworks about 4 Cs in the current literature. Developing critical thinking, collective creativity skills and problem The development of 21st-century learning skills must prioritize collaborative problem-solving abilities. These include critical thinking, creativity, cooperation, and communication (4Cs) and the gender-based difference in the proficiencies of these skill have been reported in literature. Collaborative Learning and Critical Thinking Collaborative learning is a relationship among learners that fosters positive interdependence, individual accountability, and interpersonal skills. "Critical thinking" involves asking appropriate questions, gathering and creatively sorting through relevant information, relating new information to existing knowledge, reexamining beliefs ... (PDF) Critical Thinking, Collaboration, Creativity and Communication Critical Thinking, Collaboration, Creativity and Communication Skills among School Students: A Review Paper September 2023 European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences 1(5):441-453 What Are the 4 C's of 21st Century Skills? While all twelve of those skills are necessary to teach, the "four C's" are often considered to be the most important. The four C's of 21st Century skillsare: Critical thinking. Creativity. Collaboration. Communication. These four skills are essential for modern students to succeed in school and the workplace. They often make the biggest ... Collaboration, Communications, and Critical Thinking Collaboration, Communication, and Critical Thinking analyzes the philosophical underpinnings of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and provides practical approaches and strategies to create transformative learning experiences. This book describes a vision of education that can serve as a catalyst for ... How to implement the 4Cs in education to teach 21st-century skills 5. Combining all 4Cs. The 4Cs in education focus on teaching students essential 21st-century skills. The 4Cs in education—collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking—have been vital for two decades and will continue to be, as educators aim to prepare students for future success. Nearpod continues to prepare students for ... How to Use the "4 C's" Rubrics Competency in critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and creativity is required to meet many of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts and Literacy for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. he 4 C's are reflected in the "Mathematical Practices" section of CCSS, but not in the specific ... Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education Lessons for 21st-Century Learners Collaboration, critical thinking, communication, and creativity are the 4 Cs of a 21st-century learner, according to the Partnership for 21st Century Learning.Given that technology use continues to expand in schools, it's worthwhile to think of how that technology can function in assignments designed to develop the skills our students need. The 4 Cs: Collaboration, Creativity, Communication and Critical Thinking That's why we focus on the four Cs of 21st-century learning: Collaboration: Learners are able to work effectively with diverse groups and exercise flexibility in making compromises to achieve common goals. Creativity: Learners are able to generate and improve on original ideas and also work creatively with others. Communication: Learners are ... "Critical thinking, Communication, Collaboration, Creativity in Critical thinking, Communication, Collaboration, and Creativity are regarded as key skills for today's learners. Interest in robotics usage to develop such competencies in educational settings arises but there hasn't been so far mapping of the research conducted in this field. Communication, Collaboration and Critical Thinking = Quality Outcomes Critical thinking on the part of nursing and clear communication between physicians and nurses are paramount in promoting safe outcomes for patients. Creating a culture where nurses and physicians are comfortable with two-way communication regarding a patient's condition and care needs requires careful planning, assembling of a team of key ... 2024 Graduates Lack Skills In Communication, Collaboration And Critical Graduates rank lower in adaptability and embracing new ideas. Graduates rank lower in communication, collaboration, strategic and critical thinking, building relationships. In a recent piece for ... Communication Skills for Business :: Certiport Candidates for CSB certification will be expected to be able to effectively communicate in a business setting. While the key skill being measured is communication the nature of the exam will also help candidates with the other 3 of "the 4 C's": Critical thinking, Collaboration and Creativity. assignment essay homework phd report review speech thesis