Critical thinking is generally understood as the ability to analyse, evaluate and apply reasoning in a thoughtful way (Leibovitch et al. 2025). In early childhood, it involves developing skills such as questioning, predicting, comparing and explaining (Nussbaum et al. 2021). Although traditionally associated with older learners, researchers emphasise that foundational forms of critical thinking can and should be nurtured in young learners through play, inquiry and guided reflection (Leibovitch et al. 2025). Developing critical thinking in the early years supports lifelong learning, fosters problem-solving abilities and prepares learners for active participation in society (O’Reilly et al. 2022). Rapti and Sapounidis (2024) recognise critical thinking as a transversal competence, essential for navigating complex social, academic and emotional challenges.

Transversal competencies prepare learners to navigate the complexities of the modern world (Rapti & Sapounidis 2024). Critical thinking, especially, is an indispensable foundational competency that has garnered widespread recognition for its role in promoting cognitive and metacognitive development (Angelianawati et al. 2024). Originating from John Dewey’s work How We Think (Dewey 1910), it involves the ability to reason and reflect and to gather, analyse, synthesise and evaluate ideas (Leibovitch et al. 2025), as well as reinforcing opinions with arguments (Rapti & Sapounidis 2024). It also promotes independent and reflective thought (Ennis 1987; Facione 1990; Paul & Elder 2006). According to Robert Ennis (2018:166) critical thinking is ‘reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do’. Leibovitch et al. (2025) further support the view of critical thinking as guiding belief and action.

As a key transversal competency, critical thinking, along with other transversal skills, is foundational to education and for enabling lifelong learning (Leibovitch et al. 2025). Critical thinking is not an instant knowledge transfer to learners, but a common-sense behaviour that is learned by the learners as they grow up (Angelianawati et al. 2024). In spite of the lengthy research tradition of critical thinking as a foundational skill, little is known about how to integrate it into early years education. In South Africa, the early years refer to learners between 6 and 9 years of age in the foundation phase from the reception year (Grade R) to the fourth school year (Grade 3). The foundation phase is critical to establishing literacy, numeracy and life skills (Rapti & Sapounidis 2024) and an important time to foster critical thinking skills that align with the learners’ developmental stage (Pollarolo et al. 2023). It is during this stage that young learners’ intellectual and social development begins to be shaped (Rapti & Sapounidis 2024).

It is well-acknowledged that South African classrooms generally suffer from overcrowding (West & Meier 2020), curriculum overload (Thornhill-Miller et al. 2023), time constraints (O’Reilly et al. 2022), and a lack of resources in the form of teaching and learning materials (Leibovitch et al. 2025). In addition, some scholars also argue that cultural norms can serve to inhibit critical thinking and inquiry (O Reilly et al. 2022).

The presence of overcrowded classrooms significantly hinders the cultivation of critical thinking in the foundation phase, as it limits the delivery of individualised attention that is essential for dialogic and inquiry models of teaching (West & Meier 2020). In spite of various policy initiatives to address learner-to-teacher ratios, overcrowding is a pervasive and systemic problem in South African public schools, especially in quintile 1 to 3 schools, where class sizes frequently exceed 40 learners, which is common in low-quintile schools in South Africa (Tshangana et al. 2023). These conditions greatly hinder the implementation of effective classroom management, differentiated instruction strategies, and learner-centred pedagogical practices. This issue is not unique to South Africa; even economically prosperous nations such as the United States have challenges of this nature because of increased enrollment levels (West & Meier 2020). In South Africa, the issue is worsened by the long-standing scarcity of skilled teachers and the dearth of economic resources, with some extreme instances having early childhood classes comprising over 50 learners, far from the ideal ratio of 15 to 20 learners per class (West & Meier 2020). Classroom overcrowding significantly reduces teachers’ capacity to involve learners in open-ended questioning and extended discussions, both of which are essential for higher-order thinking development. In addition, teachers consistently indicate that the discrepancy between teaching staff and learner enrollment magnifies the pressure of an already demanding curriculum, further destroying the environment required to advance critical thinking.

Compounding the challenge of overcrowded classrooms is the issue of curriculum overload, which further restricts the time and flexibility needed to implement critical thinking strategies effectively. It has recently been pointed out by Thornhill-Miller et al. (2023) that curriculum overload in South Africa, particularly in the foundation phase, is a pressing issue that negatively impacts teaching and learning outcomes. In particular, the overload refers to the overwhelming number of learning objectives, subjects and assessments that teachers are required to cover in a restricted time, leaving little room for deep learning and learner-centred approaches. Compared to international benchmarks such as Finland’s play-based early childhood model as described by Nikkola et al. (2022), South Africa’s curriculum is rather content-heavy and assessment-driven, placing significant pressure on teachers and learners alike (Nussbaum et al. 2021). Recent research by O’Reilly et al. (2022) highlights that, internationally, teachers in early childhood settings suffer a high risk of burnout because of overloaded curricula, potentially leading to high turnover rates and poor educational outcomes for young learners.

South Africa’s Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) is more prescriptive and content-heavy than many international early childhood curricula (Nikkola et al. 2022), contributing to the challenges teachers face in integrating transversal competencies. The CAPS demand a structured, assessment-driven approach in the early grades, and Leibovitch et al. (2025) observe that such practices can drive teachers to prioritise curriculum completion over engaging learners in meaningful, interactive and critical thinking activities. Rusdin and Ali (2019) opine that the prescriptive aspect of CAPS can limit creativity to learners’ developmental requirements, making it more demanding than some internationally recognised early childhood frameworks, as a result, teachers are compelled to rush through content to meet curriculum requirements (O Reilly et al. 2022), leaving minimal time for reflective teaching practices, creativity or the integration of critical thinking strategies.

Time available for teaching critical thinking is also a significant factor. Teachers must balance administrative tasks, extracurricular activities and diverse learner needs, which leaves little time for critical thinking lessons (O’Reilly et al. 2022) and leads to teachers prioritising content in favour of higher order thinking (Leibovitch et al. 2025). Nussbaum et al. (2021) agree and add that this challenge is worsened by insufficient numbers of support staff, with the workload of teachers leading to stress and emotional exhaustion (Nussbaum et al. 2021). This issue extends beyond South Africa, as seen in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, where time constraints and curricular demands hinder critical thinking integration (Rapti & Sapounidis 2024). Similarly, Nussbaum et al. (2021) found that rigid educational structures emphasise standardised testing, leading South African teachers to prioritise memorisation over critical thinking because of limited resources. These time limitations are made worse by the lack of appropriate resources, which further hinders the implementation of engaging, thought-provoking activities.

The lack of teaching and learning materials in many South African classrooms compounds the difficulty of promoting critical thinking, especially in under-resourced schools (Rusdin & Ali 2019). As pointed out by Rusdin and Ali (2019), a key challenge appears to be the lack of resources such as textbooks, learning materials and assessment tools. Leibovitch et al. (2025) report that learners often have to share a textbook in groups of eight and cannot complete homework, particularly in disadvantaged community schools where teachers lack training (Makeleni et al. 2023). Leibovitch et al. (2025) argue that teacher education programmes tend to emphasise rote memorisation and fundamental material knowledge instead of teaching methods that promote higher-order thinking, making it difficult for teachers to incorporate critical thinking. The problem is worsened by a lack of understanding and a restricted incorporation of critical thinking into teacher education programmes (Rusdin & Ali 2019). Yet even when resources are available, another significant and often overlooked barrier to fostering critical thinking lies in entrenched cultural norms and beliefs about teaching, learning and authority in the classroom.

Cultural norms prevalent in most South African societies, and more broadly in many international contexts, can constrain the development of critical thinking, especially in early childhood education (Vandeyar & Mohale 2022). As Akabor and Phasha (2022) mention, where deference to authority is highly prized, teachers are often seen as unquestionable figures of knowledge, and learners may be discouraged from challenging ideas or asking critical questions. In accordance with Vandeyar and Mohale (2022), this kind of hierarchical organisation tends to reinforce obedience and memorisation instead of discussion, questioning and exploration of critical thinking. Vandeyar and Mohale (2022) further illustrate that collaborative learning environments guided by ubuntu principles can support learner engagement despite these constraints. In certain cultural contexts, learners are socialised to value group harmony over individual expression, and this may constrain them from speaking up in a group or expressing different opinions (O’Reilly et al. 2022). For teachers in the foundation phase, working with these dynamics not only demands pedagogical expertise but also cultural sensitivity because promoting critical thinking can be seen to promote disrespect and disobedience (Akabor & Phasha 2022). Therefore, in the absence of professional guidance and contextualised approaches, cultural expectations can serve to entrench passivity of learning and counter the intentions of a critically oriented curriculum (Vandeyar & Mohale 2022).

To address restrictive cultural norms hindering inquiry-based learning, targeted professional development, flexible curricula and improved resource allocation are essential (Akabor & Phasha 2022). For example, professional development must equip teachers with strategies to challenge passive learning behaviour and foster an environment where questioning and critical engagement are encouraged. Similarly, O’Reilly et al. (2022) note the importance of training teachers to navigate cultural sensitivities while introducing learner-centred pedagogies that promote inquiry. Flexible curricula are critical because they allow teachers to move beyond rigid, content-heavy structures that prioritise rote learning and standardised assessments (Pollarolo et al. 2023). The curriculum must provide time for discussion and problem-solving (Thornhill-Miller et al. 2023) with resources allocated effectively.

Based on the preceding analysis, we identified the following key barriers to the teaching of critical thinking in the foundation phase, namely: (1) overcrowded classrooms, (2) overloaded curriculum, (3) time constraints, (4) limited resources and inadequate teacher training (Leibovitch et al. 2025; Pollarolo et al. 2023). These challenges do not exist in isolation; rather, they interact to create a complex teaching environment that limits the effective implementation of inquiry-based, learner-centred approaches essential for the development of critical thinking.

Many foundation phase teachers struggle to teach critical thinking effectively, despite its emphasis in the national curriculum as a transversal competence (Leibovitch et al. 2025). This is concerning because critical thinking is foundational to early cognitive development and essential for lifelong learning. In the light of these challenges, we formulated the following research question: What support, resources and professional development do foundation phase teachers need to teach critical thinking skills? This overarching question, along with related interview questions, is anchored in the conceptual framework, which shaped both the focus of the inquiry and the structure of data collection and analysis. Ultimately, the goal is to provide practical recommendations for supporting teachers in overcoming these barriers and promoting the integration of critical thinking into everyday foundation phase teaching practices.

This study is guided by Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological theory (Navarro & Tudge 2023), with a focus on the microsystem, the classroom environment where teachers operate. While the model informs our perspective, the conceptual framework is derived from the theory to examine teacher-level challenges in implementing critical thinking in the foundation phase. Thus, the conceptual framework operationalises theoretical principles into measurable constructs relevant to this study, and should not be conflated with the model itself. The focus is on five core challenges impacting the teaching of critical thinking: overcrowded classrooms, curriculum overload, time constraints, limited resources and inadequate teacher support. These interconnected domains reflect the core challenges that impact the effective teaching of critical thinking skills in the foundation phase. Rather than relying on a single formal theory, this framework was developed through a synthesis of key literature that explores both systemic and pedagogical barriers in early childhood education. It is informed by the work of scholars such as Pollarolo et al. (2023), Leibovitch et al. (2025) and O’Reilly et al. (2022), whose research highlights persistent issues in global and South African contexts, most notably, the lack of access to quality early learning environments, inadequate teacher preparation and professional development and the impact of socio-economic inequality on learning outcomes. The framework not only informed the design of interview questions but also shaped the coding and interpretation of the qualitative data.

This conceptual framework (presented in Table 1) provided a structured lens through which to examine teacher experiences and perceptions (O’Reilly et al. 2022). It also served as a guide during the analysis phase, supporting the identification of patterns in the data and allowing us to align findings with recurring themes in the literature (Nussbaum et al. 2021). Each theme in the framework represents a critical area that may either support or constrain the teaching of critical thinking as a transversal competence in the foundation phase. The domains of the conceptual framework are linked to Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model: teacher understanding and teaching strategies operate at the micro-system (classroom), resources and parental involvement span the meso- and exosystems (school and community), and professional development is situated in the exosystem, reflecting systemic support for fostering critical thinking.

The first author conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions to learn about teachers’ experiences, challenges and solutions for teaching critical thinking (O’Reilly et al. 2022). The interviews were scheduled in person to guarantee convenience and meaningful participation. To maintain consistency, the same semi-structured interview guide and protocol were used for all participants, with audio recordings and verbatim transcriptions ensuring accurate and reliable data capture. The questions were created to help researchers better identify foundation phase teachers’ support, resource and professional development needs. Questions were based on existing literature on critical thinking and educational methods, with an emphasis on core concerns affecting teachers’ abilities to encourage critical thinking while avoiding extraneous themes to ensure relevance.

The following questions were posed to participants:

The conceptual framework served as a guiding structure during the data analysis process by helping to identify and interpret the key challenges teachers face when teaching critical thinking in the foundation phase (Pollarolo et al. 2023). Interview transcripts were analysed thematically (Braun & Clarke 2021), with initial codes aligned to the five domains outlined in the framework: overcrowded classrooms, overloaded curriculum, time constraints, limited resources and insufficient teacher support. These categories enabled the researchers to systematically identify patterns across participant responses and to ensure that the analysis remained grounded in issues highlighted by the literature (Pollarolo et al. 2023). Additionally, the framework supported the identification of gaps and emergent themes beyond the predefined domains, allowing for both deductive and inductive insights to surface during the interpretation of findings.

We used both deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis. Deductive analysis used the thematic analysis framework to find and categorise themes linked to the topics (Braun & Clarke 2021). Although teachers were asked to define critical thinking, many struggled to articulate their understanding, and this difficulty was captured under the deductive analysis, as it directly relates to the pre-defined domain of teacher conceptualisation. An inductive technique was then utilised to investigate other patterns not covered by the framework, resulting in a more comprehensive comprehension of the dataset. Table 3 shows the findings of the deductive analysis, with exemplary quotes chosen to illustrate major points.

Table 3 indicates the diverse experiences and difficulties of teachers when cultivating critical thinking across the foundation phase, under the themes Understanding Critical Thinking, Teaching Strategies, Resource and Support Needs and Professional Training.

Understanding of Critical Thinking foregrounds the teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking, regarded as a crucial skill for solving problems, fostering creativity and developing logical thinking (O’Reilly et al. 2022). Teachers acknowledged the importance of critical thinking in the foundation phase; however, when asked to define or explain their understanding, many struggled to conceptualise it. This indicates that while teachers recognise critical thinking as valuable, their comprehension remains limited, highlighting a significant gap in teacher understanding. Teachers emphasised that critical thinking expands beyond memorisation, cheering learners to engage in deeper, more analytical thinking. One teacher commented, ‘Critical thinking is helping learners to solve problems rather than memorize information’. Creativity was identified as a fundamental element of critical thinking, with one teacher explaining, ‘Critical thinking helps learners to think differently and to put forward new ideas’. Another teacher contributed, ‘Critical thinking means helping learners to link ideas and explain the reasons for their points of view’. These different comments reveal teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking as a multifaceted group of skills that includes problem-solving, creativity and analytical thinking.

In conclusion, participants recognise the significance of critical thinking in early childhood education and identify problem-solving, creativity and logical reasoning as essential elements of critical thinking. Nevertheless, they emphasise the necessity of support in the utilisation of critical thinking skills. Therefore, there is a need to address these gaps with targeted professional development and instructional support to enhance the critical thinking abilities of young learners (Leibovitch et al. 2025).

Teaching Strategies discussed methods employed by teachers to stimulate learners’ critical thinking. Group discussion, open questions and play were mentioned and regarded as effective in building critical thinking skills. However, teachers were frustrated with the constraints they faced in implementing these strategies. For example, although group discussions are a typical instructional strategy, one teacher commented, ‘We do group discussions, but it’s hard to give each child attention when the class is so big’.

This observation underscores the challenge posed by large class sizes, which make it impossible for teachers to provide every learner with individualised attention. Although play-based learning was valued for fostering critical thinking, teachers faced time and resource constraints. As one teacher noted, ‘Play-based learning is good for critical thinking, but we do not have enough time or resources’.

This reveals the challenge that exists between ideal pedagogical approaches and organisational constraints for teachers. With this in mind, teachers acknowledge and try to apply strategies to foster critical thinking, but challenges such as overcrowding, resource constraints and time limitations undermine their efficacy. Tackling these strategies through structural support, in-service training and adaptive curricula will be essential in fostering the teaching of critical thinking in the foundation phase.

Resources and Support Needs reveal teachers’ concerns about insufficient resources, a lack of parental involvement, and inadequate classroom infrastructure that hinder the ability to teach critical thinking. Teachers reported that limited parental involvement constrains the development of learners’ critical thinking. One teacher explained, ‘When parents are not involved, learners struggle to apply classroom activities, making it harder to develop reasoning and problem-solving skills’.

This highlights that fostering critical thinking requires collaboration between teachers and parents. In addition, teachers noted a lack of teaching aids, for example, books and educational materials. One teacher commented, ‘We don’t have enough resources, like books or materials, to make critical thinking activities effective’.

Furthermore, a scarcity of structured initiatives to engage parents in promoting critical thinking at home was identified. Teachers emphasised the importance of family support; however, one teacher stated, ‘Parental support is crucial, but we don’t have enough programs to get parents involved in developing critical thinking at home’.

This underlines the need for increased community involvement and enhanced resource access in fostering critical thinking. Furthermore, teachers identified overcrowded classrooms as a major difficulty, with one teacher stating, ‘Our classrooms are too crowded to do interactive activities’.

The findings indicate that a lack of resources, limited parental involvement, and overcrowded classrooms challenge the development of critical thinking. Teachers struggled to define critical thinking, but consistently acknowledged its importance, highlighting a gap between recognition and conceptual understanding that requires targeted support and professional development.

Lastly, the Professional Development theme echoed teachers’ dissatisfaction with available professional development opportunities. Although teachers recognised the importance of professional development, they indicated a desire for more specific training in how to teach critical thinking skills. One teacher commented, ‘I feel a need for more training in teaching critical thinking; however, the workshops I have attended do not directly focus on it specifically’.

Furthermore, teachers complained about the absence of follow-up support after the initial training sessions. A teacher said, ‘We attend training sessions, but there is no follow-up or support afterward’. This quote underscores the limitations of one-time training programmes lacking follow-up support or practical strategies. Teachers expressed strong dissatisfaction with overly theoretical training programmes, demanding, ‘Most training is too theoretical; we need hands-on strategies we can use in class’. This reaction expresses a definite desire for practical, classroom-centred training that addresses issues facing teachers while promoting critical thinking.

Findings indicate that professional development workshops are lacking as they do not provide follow-up, support, and hands-on application. Therefore, focused, experiential training can increase teacher preparation. Our research demonstrates that although teachers recognise the importance of critical thinking, they struggle with its implementation because of the lack of whole-school programmes (Rusdin & Ali 2019). Teachers emphasised the need for system-wide coordination, from district support to classroom teaching, a gap in previous research (Leibovitch et al. 2025). This contrasts with earlier studies, which examined the behaviour of single teachers, thereby suggesting a system problem that has not been fully addressed (Pollarolo et al. 2023).

We discovered that teachers prefer practical, continuous and context-specific professional development instead of general training, as supported by previous studies on the necessity of intensive continuous learning (Angelianawati et al. 2024). Also, our research stresses the necessity of both community and parental involvement in the development of critical thinking, which is parallel to the findings of Pollarolo et al. (2023), who all stressed the requirement for collective effort. The results of our study bring into question the focus on individual teacher accountability and point to the necessity of an inclusive, community-based strategy for building critical thinking in early childhood education (Rapti & Sapounidis 2024).

Our findings show that overcoming these challenges requires a systemic response, with policymakers, schools and communities collaborating to support teachers in fostering critical thinking. Teachers expressed a need for practical, context-specific solutions, for example, collaborative frameworks of teaching and peer mentoring within schools, to share ideas and grow capacity (Tshangana et al. 2023). Teachers identified how, despite a lack of resources, they managed to integrate critical thinking into everyday lessons by using inquiry-based learning and problem-solving, demonstrating that innovative, resourceful approaches can still thrive despite challenges. Similar findings (Rusdin & Ali 2019) show that teachers can foster critical thinking in low-resource settings using low-cost, flexible methods such as inquiry-based learning. Other research highlights the necessity for increased resource provision, while other arguments outweigh teacher innovation (Rapti & Sapounidis 2024). Our findings show the need for teachers’ transformation and systemic support while recognising existing positive practices that can be enhanced.

Our findings underscore the development of context-specific, evidence-based interventions that go beyond general policy prescriptions to address structural and pedagogical constraints found in South African educational environments. West and Mier (2020) identified concerns such as overcrowding and overloaded curriculum, but our research offers an advanced perspective through the need to emphasise coordination across the school system and involve communities in boosting critical thinking. In contrast to prior studies, which were dominated by an emphasis on difficulties faced, we highlight creative teacher-led approaches such as inquiry-based learning and peer-to-peer teaching, which have successfully worked in disadvantaged schools. This contrast makes our research compelling, as it highlights the potential to adapt current teaching methods into scalable, sustainable frameworks for teaching critical thinking, addressing gaps in previous research.

Following the deductive analysis, an inductive process was employed to reveal other challenges that were outside the conceptual framework. Our study identified key challenges in teaching critical thinking in the foundation phase, including structural, psychosocial, time constraints and systemic influences. The problems that were not addressed show gaps in current literature and reveal the complexities of applying critical thinking in real-world contexts. Table 4 provides a summary of the findings.

Ethical clearance was granted by the relevant Research Ethics Committees of the University of Pretoria. The ethics protocol number is EDU075/24. Thereafter, permission to conduct the study was applied for and granted by the Gauteng Department of Education.

In accordance with ethical research norms, participants provided informed consent, ensuring voluntary participation. Participants were given full information about the study’s aim, procedures and rights, including the ability to withdraw at any time without penalty. The study followed the institutional ethical norms, which ensured that all interviews were carried out respectfully and transparently. To ensure confidentiality, all participants were assigned pseudonyms (Teacher 1 to Teacher 10) to protect their identities, and data were securely stored to avoid unwanted access. Anonymity was guaranteed by removing identifiable information from the data.

Based on Table 4, our study gives a more in-depth knowledge of how teachers deal with and adapt to the problems they experience when teaching critical thinking in the foundation phase. While overcrowding, curriculum overload and time constraints are well-documented challenges in education research (Pollarolo et al. 2023), our study provides new insights into how teachers in South Africa overcome these challenges. Importantly, it demonstrates teacher resiliency and creative techniques used in practice, which are missed in larger policy discussions.

One notable finding is that, in spite of structural challenges, teachers created context-specific, creative strategies for integrating critical thinking by altering lesson plans to promote discussion (Rapti & Sapounidis 2024). Peer interaction was helpful, as informal networks facilitate mutual support and professional growth in spite of the lack of district support. Although research cites a lack of professional development, ours highlights a critical distinction: teachers need ongoing, specialised critical thinking training. Current professional development includes a broad subject matter, which is mainly focused on general pedagogical practice rather than the needs of foundation phase teachers. Teachers expressed a strong need for practical workshops specific to their own classrooms, reiterating the consideration that one-size-fits-all approaches are insufficient.

Furthermore, our study points to a gap in systemic support that extends beyond professional development to include increased parental involvement (Vandeyar & Mohale 2022). Teachers recognised the significance of involving parents in order to foster critical thinking outside of the classroom, but they indicated that formal programmes for parental engagement were non-existent. This is valuable as it highlights the need for schools to create partnerships with parents to foster critical thinking at home, creating a continuous learning environment for learners.

What sets our study apart is its contribution to understanding how small-scale interventions and teacher agency can have a considerable impact in the face of systemic challenges. However, our study is limited by its small sample of 10 teachers from the Tshwane South District, reliance on self-reported interview data, and focus on micro-level teacher experiences, which may not capture broader systemic or policy-level influences. Despite structural and pedagogical constraints, teachers displayed amazing adaptability and dedication to developing critical thinking (O’Reilly et al. 2022). Our study emphasises that, while the challenges to teaching critical thinking in South African schools are significant, the opportunities for creative solutions and support are also many. Participants provided practical insights into how to create support structures in schools and communities to improve critical thinking pedagogy.

Overall, our findings shed light on how teachers might use context-specific strategies to navigate systemic constraints. It adds to the expanding body of research by illustrating that, while challenges exist, meaningful steps may be taken to solve them, notably through targeted professional development, peer collaboration and community involvement. Our findings highlight the need for a more supportive, adaptable and responsive education system to address teachers’ challenges. While long-term reforms are required to address systemic issues such as overcrowded classrooms and curriculum overload, immediate initiatives can be implemented to aid teachers in a more practical way.

In the short term, further investment in focused professional development, particularly in workshops on critical thinking pedagogy, could give teachers specific classroom techniques. Furthermore, the development of stronger peer collaboration and community partnerships can result in more solid support systems within schools, where teachers can exchange resources and ideas even with modest external assistance. Context-specific interventions are also feasible, including the creation of teacher-led initiatives for designing critical thinking tasks aligning with the existing curriculum. Such initiatives could be pilot studies or school-based projects incorporating the ideas and innovations proposed by teachers involved in the research.

While addressing broader educational reforms is a long-term goal, there is plenty of time to act now, using teachers’ creativity and resourcefulness to begin making a difference in the classroom (Pollarolo et al. 2023). A combination of context-specific strategies and systemic reforms can pave the way for a more long-term approach to encouraging critical thinking in early childhood education.

In order to foster critical thinking in the foundation phase, our study recommends targeted, ongoing professional development that involves hands-on strategies designed specifically for foundation phase classrooms (Leibovitch et al. 2025). In addition, schools should foster critical thinking through problem-solving activities, structured questioning and inquiry-based learning that is age-appropriate (Rapti & Sapounidis 2024). Moreover, the curriculum should be flexible and allow time for teachers to foster critical thinking by asking questions as opposed to rushing to cover the prescribed curriculum, which often leads to rote memorisation and limits higher-order thinking skills (Pollarolo et al. 2023). Furthermore, teachers should be allowed to collaborate with peers and neighbouring schools to share their best practices of fostering critical thinking in their classrooms (Tshangana et al. 2023).

Consequently, schools should initiate programmes for parents to cultivate critical thinking skills within the home setting, and the district authorities need to be involved in this process with the support of practical application and better teaching methods for teachers. Our recommendations align with recent studies by Leibovitch et al. (2025), emphasising the need for context-specific pedagogical strategies that provide teachers with both practical strategies and theoretical knowledge. Lastly, increasing structural support and stimulating collaboration between teachers, researchers and policymakers is crucial in making sure that critical thinking becomes a foundational skill in the foundation phase.