The Skills of Critical Thinking, Creativity, and Communication as Tools for Overcoming Social Simulation in the Context of Sustainability: A Case Study of Students’ Self-Assessment of the Affective Domain of Learning

Abstract

In the context of sustainability, this paper analyses the phenomenon of social simulation in the case of the affective domain of learning. Social simulation is defined in a variety of ways in dictionaries and handbooks published by universities. Still, for the purposes of this article, we will use the definitions of social simulation that are appropriate to the context of the study, and that are associated with fake or misleading actions. They are seen in the article as inherent in social manipulation, which comes in various forms, such as propaganda or fake news spread in the media, and hence disinformation. Social simulation is contrasted with sustainability, not only as an environmental but also as a socio-economic phenomenon, embedded in three types of skills: critical thinking, creativity and communication. The authors of the paper take the position that these three types of capabilities can ensure sustainability by overcoming social simulation. This paper develops a study aimed at assessing the three types of skills mentioned above by students of the Faculty of Creative Industries of Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (Lithuania) to avoid the threats posed by social simulation. In the course of the research, data on the communicative, creative and critical-thinking abilities of first-year students were obtained. Based on these data, objective evaluation scales were created.

1. Introduction

Today, sustainability is widely discussed in social sciences and transcends traditional approaches, ecology and the nurturance of the environment. Sustainability issues are addressed in social sciences as a multicriteria phenomenon. Sustainability includes socio-economic development, sustainable development practices, literacy and awareness-raising, good governance and accountability initiatives and is, therefore, perceived as an essential part of social responsibility. The Sustainable Development Strategy aims to maintain harmony between people, nature and society [1]. Sustainability is understood as the development of actions, campaigns and processes that positively impact social, environmental and economic capital, the formation of which is based on these values [2]. One of the most relevant factors for sustainability in the form of social transparency is its enforcement measures. To identify the sustainability field, it is important to define one of the essential pre-states of social transparency that poses a fundamental threat to it, i.e., social simulations manifested in various forms of social manipulation and propaganda [3,4]. Simulation is understood as a situation or event that seems real but is not real. It is used specifically to help people cope with upsetting situations or events [5], but it can also be used to mislead. Propaganda can be successfully applied as a means of social control [6]. Thus, social simulations can be seen as an anti-state of social transparency and identified with social manipulation, propaganda, and disinformation, which can also pose a fundamental threat to sustainability not only locally (in individual cases) but also globally. One of the most sensitive and active groups in society includes young people studying at universities. During the studies, personality values, attitudes, beliefs, principles and preferences are formed [7]. However, during the period of studies, personality is not stable, and not resistant to various manifestations of social simulation, including fake news, that generates social opacity, incites social manipulations and strengthens propaganda-driven thinking [8]. The critical thinking, creativity, and communication skills of students can affect their academic performance in higher education and form the basis for an active civic position to constructively address society’s problems [9]. It is crucial to develop alternative skills to overcome various manifestations of social simulation by applying critical thinking, creativity, and communication abilities. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to overcome social simulation.

The word simulation, derived from Latin simulation, means an imitation of the process(s) or system(s) operating in the real world [10]. Simulation is the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process using the functioning of another [11]. The international vocabulary defines simulation as a specific situation created by appropriate artificial conditions to investigate or experience what could exist in reality. In this case, possible examples of simulation phenomena can be distinguished: (1) a computer simulation of how the planet functions; (2) a simulation model; (3) role play and simulation of court cases, which are an essential part of training [12]. Simulation is also defined as (1) a model of a set of problems or events that can be used to teach someone how to do something or (2) the process of creating such a model. An example of a simulation phenomenon understood in this way can be a situation where the manager designs a computer simulation of a sales performance forecast for the rest of the year [13]. A simulation also means (1) a kind of false act in which what is not real is treated as real [12]; or (2) deceptive moves, for example, when playing football, a dive to win a penalty kick or a fault [13]. As we can see, these two meanings are very closely linked: the purpose of the simulation here is to deceive or manipulate someone with a false or deliberately misleading act for a particular purpose. The understanding of social simulation in this article is equated with social manipulation, and the spread of propaganda and disinformation, which fundamentally threaten sustainability.

2. Sustainability as a Result of Overcoming Social Simulation

By defining a social simulation as a fake or misleading act, it can be seen as manipulative in nature. Consequently, social simulation can be understood here as social manipulation. Manipulation of someone is defined as exerting a certain amount of influence over someone: it is a social interaction between individuals that is characterised by the nature of power, with the stronger subject manipulating the weaker. Manipulation is the power and ability to influence values, attitudes, beliefs, and principles in one way or another. Thus, social simulation manifests itself as a set of communicative, social and psychological actions that inspire relevant effects in the social environment [3,4,14]; this abandons the view of simulation as a research method used in social sciences [15,16,17,18,19,20] but, considering research on sustainability, these sciences can be carried out using the latter methods, for example, to identify social dynamics or prevailing patterns of behaviour in specific target groups [21].

Social simulation as a way of influence, as mentioned above, is associated with social manipulation and is, therefore, closely related to persuasion and propaganda [4,22]. These two elements fundamentally change the thinking and behaviour of subjects, usually through appropriate rhetorical devices such as false implications in the logic of propositions. In this context, the question arises: under what conditions and to what extent is social manipulation affecting, i.e., efficient, through persuasion and propaganda? Alternatively, this question may be formulated differently: under what conditions and to what extent and at what level can social manipulation be avoided? The empirical study in this article, as mentioned above, focuses on three types of skills—critical thinking, creativity and communication, the development of which makes it possible to minimise the impact of social manipulation and social control [6] on individuals and groups, thus ensuring pragmatism and rationality as ways of consolidating social sustainability.

Although social sustainability in the scientific literature is generally associated with a sustainable approach to the environment, friendliness to nature, and the principles of cleanliness, their achievement requires, above all, literacy and awareness of various issues and the development of economic, ecological and social values [2], especially among young people, which is particularly relevant in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine. When sustainability is linked to the critical-thinking, creativity, and communication skills analysed below, the main and most important benefit they bring to society is the deliberate assumption of contractual responsibility by individuals, families as societal units, and by society itself as a social community, for the actions they undertake, both in the periods of stability and uncertainty, such as financial crises, pandemics, political upheavals, turmoil and wars.

3. Development of Creativity, Critical Thinking, and Communication Skills in Society as the Basis of Sustainable Development

Self-assessment, self-awareness and self-improvement are significant predictors of intention. Additionally, self-assessment has a significant influence on personal effectiveness and the intention of self-improvement. Self-assessment provides psychological safety and has a significant impact on the effectiveness of activities. In this way, self-assessment creates a background for the modelling of future behaviour. Numerous studies have revealed that the relationship between sustainable behaviour motivation and creativity skills is closely related [23]. Personal communication skills help optimise the communication of sustainability. This promotes bringing the principles of sustainable development into the social discourse and creating critical awareness in the public of a human–environment relationship [24,25,26]. Sustainability discourse is one with no right or wrong answers and depends on the personal ability to make critical decisions about individual and collective actions. Correct decisions depend on the personal ability to think critically and to perceive the conflicting value systems at play and humanistic perception. It requires examining their nature and deciding which action to choose in the present case [27,28]. Educational tasks must relate to the reality of the modern world in order to define the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that will empower learners to realise a sustainable state. Personal competencies necessary for the support and development of sustainability should not only include cognitive components, such as the knowledge and understanding of environmental, social, economic, and political systems, and higher-order thinking abilities such as reasoning and synthesising, but also social skills, values and emotions (affective domain of learning) based on communicative, creative and critical-thinking skills [29,30]. The monitoring and assessment of key criteria help to identify possible gaps in action plans, and problems with the involvement in the education process, and help to focus on educated targeted competencies. It promotes excitement, encourages accountability, and contributes to make significant changes to the student’s preparation process which needs to be sensitive and responsive [31].

The process of university studies is characterised by changes, a rapid intensification in life, and a large volume of information flows. Modern studies are characterised by integrity and require a combination of numerous features. Graduates of higher education will have a profession and solve social and economic problems faced by society. The main objective of university education and training institutions is to train highly qualified professionals characterised by the ability and willingness to pursue a professional activity.

For effective individual activity, it is vital to be able to critically analyse and evaluate information to reject fake news, that promotes and supports social simulation, and identify critical information. Another important factor is the creative application of available information, selecting effective combinations of information to make informed decisions. The decisions taken by the target audience are expected to be positively assessed, which to a large extent depends on communication skills.

In modern education, skills become more important than an indicator of the volume of information conveyed:

• Critical assessment and selection of information;
• Creative harmonisation and adaptation of selected information elements;
• Presentation and communication of creative results.

Therefore, the critical-thinking, creativity and communication skills of students acquire priority and relevance in studies to overcome social simulation and maintain and ensure sustainability. All disciplines need to integrate study methods that foster critical thinking, creativity and communication skills. The assessment of critical thinking, creativity and communicative abilities provides useful information about student achievement progress. Student self-assessment is more informative than the external evaluation of the lecturer and allows the latter to manage the educational process promptly. At the same time, self-assessment gives the student the opportunity to participate in assessment procedures and develop self-assessment skills. This in turn motivates targeted self-development [32].

Self-assessment helps to develop metacognitive and self-critical thinking abilities, activates self-awareness, increases interest and motivation to learn, and encourages self-development. It becomes an important factor in a lifelong learning strategy. The evaluation process requires tools to allow members of the target audience to objectively self-assess; therefore, reasonable scales of assessment of the criteria are essential. First, the content of the elements to be evaluated should be identified and justified. The next step is to construct rating scales. Finally, the dimensions (quantitative expression) of the scaling elements under assessment are justified [33].

In order to optimise the development of critical thinking, creativity and communicative abilities in the context of overcoming social simulations and maintaining and ensuring sustainability, it is necessary to evaluate the statistical parameters of the criteria and analyse them continuously. The development of a methodology for the assessment of target groups, on the basis of which each individual can independently assess the development of criteria and the effectiveness of the educational measures applied, is of importance. Making scales for assessing skills of communication, creativity, and critical thinking is crucial.

A key aim of this study is to develop methods to make scales for assessing skills of communication, creativity, and critical thinking and test them with first-year students enrolled at the Faculty of Creative Industries of Vilnius Gediminas Technical University in 2022.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Participants

One hundred and four (n = 104) students were randomly selected from the first-year students enrolled at the Faculty of Creative Industries at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University in 2022 (approximately 60% of all first-year students). The selected participants were 19.50 ± 22.88 years old.

4.2. Design Framework

A communication inventory was used to measure the communication skills of the study participants. It is a self-report measure that contains 20 items adapted from HTC Consulting [34]. The scale covered broad communication domains: Intrapersonal, Verbal, Non-verbal, and Interpersonal Communication aspects [34].

The Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS) was used to measure the creativity skills of the study participants. It is a self-report measure that contains 50 items. The scale captured broad domains of creativity: Self/Everyday, Scholarly, Performance (encompassing writing and music), Mechanical/Scientific, and Artistic [35].

A Critical Thinking Questionnaire (CThQ) was used to measure the critical thinking skills of the study participants. It is a self-report measure that contains 25 items. The scale embraced broad domains of critical thinking: Analysing, Evaluating, Creating, Remembering, Understanding, and Applying [36].

4.3. Procedure

The responses in all the research instruments are presented on a five-point Likert scale [37]. The respondents for the performance of the self-assessment task used 30 min to respond to the questionnaires, which were anonymous. The procedure ensured the anonymity of the participants’ identities.

The Cronbach alpha of each of the scales was calculated in order to evaluate the internal consistency of the integral parameters [38]. A Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.821 was obtained. The reliability showed a value close to 0.8, therefore it was considered that Nunnally’s recommendation for tests reliability coefficient and assessment measure of internal consistency was met [39].

4.4. Methodological Limitations

More than 90% of first-year students in the study programme of Communication at Vilnius Gediminas University of Technology, Faculty of Creative Industries anonymously solved tasks assigned by the researchers. Therefore, the prepared evaluation scales are exclusive to students of the Faculty of Creative Industries, and additional studies should be conducted for the evaluations of students of other study programmes.

In order to evaluate the correlations of the studied creativity, communicative abilities, and critical thinking abilities with the evaluations of formal studies, further research is necessary with the refusal of anonymity, but this may affect the evaluations of the tests performed. This aspect should also be investigated in the future. The authors of the tests provide rating scales and do not specify target audiences; therefore, specialised research is necessary based on which target rating scales are created. To ensure the internal validity of the research, approved tests were used. The research participants were introduced to the test tasks just before performing them. To exclude erroneous data, tests with values outside the 3SD mean were excluded from the study.

4.5. Statistical Tools

The sample was stratified to ensure that the abilities were appropriately represented. The data were analysed using EXEL. Applicable indicators included Average ($\overline{X}$), Standard Deviation (SD), Standard Error (SE), Coefficient of Variation (CV), Maximal Value (Max), Minimal Value (Min). Calculations were performed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS statistical tools. The Six Sigma Rule (sigma rating) [40] was used to construct the rating scales for the characteristics under study (

Table 1. Criteria for the evaluation of indicators by SD.

Assessment Criteria		Assessment by $\overline{\mathit{X}}$ and SD Criteria
5.	Very high	from ($\overline{X}$ + 2SD) to ($\overline{X}$ + 3SD)
4.	High	from ($\overline{X}$ + SD) to ($\overline{X}$ + 2SD)
3.	Middle	from ($\overline{X}$ − SD) to ($\overline{X}$ + SD)
2.	Low	from ($\overline{X}$ − 2SD) to ($\overline{X}$ − SD)
1.	Very low	from ($\overline{X}$ − 3SD) to ($\overline{X}$ − 2SD)

). In order to simplify the assessment, the sum of the test scores collected by the respondents was chosen for the rating scale.

5. Results

One factor was labelled Self/Everyday Creativity (including interpersonal and intrapersonal creativity), which seems encompass the items that define it best.

Self/Everyday Creativity refers to thinking about new ideas during the day. It also includes original self-expression.

The study measured indicators of communication, creativity and critical thinking characteristics of student self-assessment. On the basis of these indicators, evaluation criteria were established.

The assessment scale of integral communication skills (Intrapersonal, Verbal, Non-verbal, and Interpersonal ones) includes 20 questions. The maximum self-assessment score equals 100. On a 5-point scale, the students’ communication skills scores were found to be above average at 3.46 ± 0.46. The variation around the arithmetic mean was moderate (SE = 0.05, CV = 13.38%) (

Table 2. Indicators of the communication skills [34] and assessment of the first-year students of the Faculty of Creativity Industries at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.

Scale	Average (Points)	Total (Points)
$\overline{X}$	3.46	69.14
SD	0.46	9.25
SE	0.05	0.91
CV	13.38
Min	2.35	47
Max	4.65	93
Assessment (Points)
5	V. high	89–100
4	High	79–88
3	Middle	60–78
2	Low	50–59
1	V. low	0–49

). This indicates the average homogeneity of the communication skills of students enrolled at the Faculty of Creative Industries of VGTU, which reflects the normal distribution of the study participants’ communication skills. The rating scale for this test covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum scores was less than the average of 40 points (40%). A positive evaluation starts at 60 points.

Creativity was assessed in an integral way evaluating the following domains: Self/Everyday, Scholarly, Performance, Mechanical/Scientific, and Artistic Skills. The maximum possible total score for the creativity assessment is 250 points (50 questions). On a 5-point scale, the average score of creativity self-assessment of the study participants was 3.13 ± 0.49, which is above the average value and has a moderate variation around the arithmetic mean (SE = 0.05, CV = 15.75%), indicating a moderate homogeneity of creativity ability and its normal distribution among students (

Table 3. Indicators of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS) [23] and assessment of the first-year students of the Faculty of Creativity Industries at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.

Scale	Average		Self/Everyday		Scholarly		Performance		Mechanical/ Scientific		Artistic
	(Points)		(Points)		(Points)		(Points)		(Points)		(Points)
	Average	Total	Average	Total	Average	Total	Average	Total	Average	Total	Average	Total
$\overline{X}$	3.13	156.29	3.68	40.53	3.49	38.44	2.71	27.13	2.18	19.60	3.40	30.59
SD	0.49	24.62	0.56	6.16	0.59	6.53	0.89	8.94	0.84	7.52	0.86	7.75
SE	0.05	2.41	0.05	0.60	0.06	0.64	0.09	0.88	0.08	0.74	0.08	0.76
CV	15.75		15.19		16.99		32.95		38.38		25.33
Min	1.86	93	2.27	25	2.18	24	1.20	12	1.00	9	1.33	12
Max	4.36	218	4.73	52	4.73	52	4.90	49	4.56	41	5.00	45
Assessment (points)
1. V. high	208–250		55		50–55		46–50		36–45		45
2. High	182–207		48–54		44–49		37–45		28–35		38–44
3. Middle	131–181		34–47		32–43		18–36		11–27		24–37
4. Low	106–130		27–33		26–31		10–17		3–10		17–23
5. V. low	0–105		0–26		0–25		0–9		0–2		0–16

). The scale of all the answers in this evaluation covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum values is lower than average and equals 103 points (41%). The positive evaluation starts at 131 points.

The maximum possible total score for assessing Self/Everyday and Creativity Skills (interpersonal and intrapersonal creativity and having a generally creative lifestyle) is 55 points (11 questions). On a 5-point scale, the mean score for this indicator was 3.68 ± 0.56, which is higher than the average and has moderate variation around the arithmetic mean (SE = 0.05, CV = 15.19%), (Table 3). This confirms a moderate homogeneity and normal distribution of Self/Everyday and Creativity Skills among the students. The assessment scale of Self/Everyday and Creativity Skills covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum values is low and is equal to 21 points (38%). The positive assessment starts at 34 points.

Evaluating Scholarly Creativity Skills (intellectual and verbal/linguistic creativity), the maximum self-assessment score is 55 points (11 questions). On a 5-point scale, the average value for this indicator was 3.49 ± 0.59, which is above average and has moderate variation around the arithmetic mean (SE = 0.06, CV = 16.99%) (Table 3). This confirms a moderate average homogeneity and normal distribution of Scholarly Creativity Skills among students. The rating scale of Scholarly Creativity Skills covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum assessments is lower than average and amounts to 23 points (42%). The positive assessment starts at 32 points.

Assessing Performance Creativity Skills (kinaesthetic activities, music, and creative writing), the maximum self-assessment score is 50 points (10 questions). On a 5-point scale, the average score for this indicator was 2.71 ± 0.89 and it was close to average. Its fluctuation around the arithmetic mean was high (SE = 0.09, CV = 32.95%) (Table 3) and this indicates a significant heterogeneity and non-normal distribution of Performance Creativity Skills among students. The rating scale of Performance Creativity Skills covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum ratings is higher than average and equals 32 points (64%). The positive assessment starts at 18 points.

When assessing the Mechanical/Scientific Creativity Skills (mathematical and mechanical creativity), the maximum self-assessment score is 45 (9 questions). On a 5-point scale, the average value of this indicator was 2.18 ± 0.84 points and was below average. Its fluctuation around the arithmetic mean was high (SE = 0.08, CV = 38.38%) (Table 3). This evidences a heterogeneity and non-normal distribution of Mechanical/Science Creativity Skills among students. The scale of Mechanical/Scientific Creativity Skills covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum scores is large and equal to 34 points (76%). The positive assessment starts at 11 points.

While assessing Artistic Creativity Skills (art creation and its appreciation), the maximum self-assessment score is 45 points (9 questions). On a 5-point scale, the average score of this indicator was 3.40 ± 0.86, which was higher than the average value, with a high variation around the arithmetic mean (SE = 0.08, CV = 25.33%) (Table 3), which indicates a significant heterogeneity and non-normal distribution of Artistic Creativity Skills among students. The rating scale of Artistic Creativity Skills covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum scores is lower than the average and is 21 points (47%). The positive assessment starts at 24 points.

Critical Thinking was also assessed in an integrated way, assessing Analysing, Evaluating, Creating, Analysing, Understanding, Applying Skills. The maximum total score for the Critical Thinking assessment is 125 points (25 questions). On a 5-point scale, the average score of the creativity self-assessment test was 3.63 ± 0.51, which was above the average value and had a moderate variation around the arithmetic mean (SE = 0.05, CV = 13.97%), which points to an average homogeneity and normal distribution of the creativity skills among the students (

Table 4. Indicators of the Critical Thinking Questionnaire (CThQ) [24] and assessment of the first-year students of the Faculty of Creativity Industries at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.

Scale	Average (Points)		Analysing (Points)		Evaluating (Points)		Creating (Points)		Remembering (Points)		Understanding (Points)		Applying (Points)
	Average	Total	Average	Total	Average	Total	Average	Total	Average	Total	Average	Total	Average	Total
$\overline{X}$	3.63	90.64	2.36	11.82	3.68	14.73	3.57	21.41	3.44	10.31	3.60	14.39	3.71	14.85
SD	0.51	12.67	0.58	2.92	0.66	2.66	0.60	3.59	0.74	2.23	0.62	2.47	0.61	2.46
SE	0.05	1.24	0.06	0.29	0.07	0.26	0.06	0.35	0.07	0.22	0.06	0.24	0.06	0.24
CV	13.97		24.70		18.05		16.76		21.59		17.17		16.55
Min	2.36	59	0.80	4	2.25	9	1.83	11	1.67	5	2.00	8	2.25	9
Max	4.88	122	3.40	52	5.00	20	5.00	30	5.00	15	5.00	20	5.00	20
Assessment (points)
1. V. high	117–125		17–25		19–20		28–30		15		20		19–20
2. High	104–116		14–16		16–18		24–27		12–14		17–19		17–18
3. Middle	78–103		8–13		12–15		17–23		8–11		11–16		13–16
4. Low	65–77		5–7		10–11		13–16		4–7		8–10		11–12
5. V. low	0–64		0–4		0–9		0–12		0–3		0–7		0–10

). The scale of all the responses in this test covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum scores is lower than the average score of 103 points (41%). The positive evaluation starts at 78 points.

Assessing Analysing Skills (the ability to analyse the surrounding reality thoroughly, and to find dependencies even between phenomena that differ from each other), the maximum self-assessment score is 25 points (5 questions). On a 5-point scale, the average score was 2.36 ± 0.58, close to average, with a high variation around the arithmetic mean (SE = 0.06, CV = 24.70%) (Table 4), indicating a significant heterogeneity and non-normal distribution of Analysing Skills among students. The assessment scale for the Analysing Skills covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum scores is average and amounts to 13 points (52%). The positive assessment starts at 8 points.

For Evaluating Skills (the ability to assess and verify the information), the maximum self-assessment score is 20 points (4 questions). On a 5-point scale, the average value of this indicator was 3.68 ± 0.66, which was higher than the average value, and its variation around the arithmetic mean was moderate (SE = 0.07, CV = 18.05%) (Table 4), evidencing a moderate homogeneity and normal distribution of Evaluating Skills among students. The rating scale of Evaluating Skills covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum scores is 10 points (50%). The positive assessment starts at 12 points.

Assessing Creating Skills (the ability able to create structures, connect parts, and express the same content in many ways), the maximum self-assessment score is 30 points (6 questions). On a 5-point scale, the average value of this indicator was 3.57 ± 0.60, which is higher than average with a moderate fluctuation around the arithmetic mean (SE = 0.06, CV = 16.76%) (Table 4), indicating a moderate homogeneity and normal distribution of Creating Skill among students. The assessment scale for Creating Skills covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum scores is moderate at 16 points (53%). Positive evaluation starts at 17 points.

For Remembering Skills (ability to easily recall important information and use appropriate knowledge; ability to repeat important threads after reading the text, and easily remember essential information that they learned in the previous levels of education after reading once), the maximum self-assessment score is 15 points (3 questions). On a 5-point scale, the average score was 3.44 ± 0.74, which was above average with a moderate variation around the arithmetic mean (SE = 0.07, CV = 21.59%) (Table 4), confirming a significant heterogeneity and non-normal distribution of Remembering Skills among students. The assessment scale for Remembering Skills covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum scores is considerable and amounts to 13 points (87%). Positive evaluation starts at 8 points.

Assessing Understanding Skills (ability to give meaning to various types of information, understand texts from various fields, compile different opinions and compare them with each other), the maximum score of self-assessment is 20 points (after answering the four questions in the test). On a 5-point scale, the average score of this indicator was 3.60 ± 0.62, which was higher than average, with a moderate fluctuation around the arithmetic mean (SE = 0.06, CV = 17.17%) (Table 4), confirming the moderate heterogeneity and the normal distribution of Understanding Skills among students. The rating scale of Understanding Skills covers the entire area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum scores is higher on average and is 13 points (65%). Positive assessment starts at 11 points.

For Applying Skills (the ability to evaluate and verify the information willingly shares new knowledge and uses it in everyday life), the maximum self-assessment score is 20 points (after answering 4 test questions). On a 5-point scale, the average value of this indicator was 3.71 ± 0.61, which was higher than average with a moderate fluctuation around the arithmetic mean (SE = 0.06, CV = 16.55%) (Table 4), indicating a moderate heterogeneity and a normal distribution of Applying Skills among the students. The rating scale of Applying Skills covers the whole area, but the difference between the maximum and minimum scores was lower than average and equals 9 points (45%). The positive evaluation starts at 13 points.

Summarizing the obtained data, it is necessary to note that the communication skills of the students participating in the study were high and homogeneous. Creativity was evaluated according to five criteria (Self/Everyday, Scholarly, Performance, Mechanical/Scientific, Artistic Skills) and most of them showed moderate variation and higher average evaluations. However, Performance Creativity Skills (kinaesthetic activities, music, and creative writing) showed significant heterogeneity among students. The Mechanical/Scientific Creativity Skills (mathematical and mechanical creativity) among the students showed high heterogeneity and were rated below average. Self-assessing Artistic Creativity Skills (art creation and its appreciation) was average but had a large spread. The self-assessment of Critical Thinking includes Analysing, Evaluating, Creating, Analysing, Understanding, Applying Skills and was rated very high on average and characterized by moderate variation. However, Analysing Skills (the ability to analyse the surrounding reality thoroughly, and to find dependencies even between phenomena that different from each other) exhibited low indicators and higher variability.

6. Discussion

In this paper, the relationship between social simulation and sustainability was analysed, based on the definitions of simulation given in the Oxford and Cambridge University dictionaries as a starting point: first, simulation can be understood as a form of pretending that something that is not real is treated as something that is real [12]; secondly, simulation can be treated as a misleading move played, e.g., in football, an offense is allegedly committed to unfairly win a penalty [13]. In the context of social simulation, sustainability is associated with a harmonious relationship between nature, people, and society [1], including the aspect of social transparency [2]. Social transparency is understood in the article as the opposite of various social manipulations, social control, and propaganda [3,4,6]. To determine the abilities of young people studying at university as an important future segment of society to resist the manifestations of social simulation, an empirical study was conducted. The abilities of young people studying at the university to resist social simulation are associated with the competencies of critical thinking, creativity, and communication [9,35,36,41] as cornerstones that establish and support sustainability in society.

Self-assessment enables students to find strengths and weaknesses in their chosen field. This allows them to plan strategies for their future education and implement them in a targeted way. Self-assessment initiators can start students’ performance reviews, and those who want to start studying can evaluate their ability by study goals. Self-assessment is the first step of the review of the student’s study accents identifications and content corrections. This will enable students to self-assess their skills before professors and groupmates begin their assessment. Self-evaluation of the self as well as own skills in critical thinking, creativity and communication is the starting point for further targeted personal self-development and educational processes in higher education institutions aimed at the development of conscious and socially, ecologically and economically responsible personalities. During the educational processes, it would be appropriate to develop and apply relevant social simulation tasks [15,16,18,19,20,42] to assess the level of students’ ability to recognise and identify social simulations that manipulate them and to establish critical thinking, creativity and communication tasks that facilitate the development of resilience to the impact of fake news, disinformation and propaganda. Everyday creativity can be conceptually defined as a phenomenon in which a person habitually responds to daily tasks in an original and meaningful way. And regarding the outcome assessment, everyday creativity can be either a creative product, which is communicated to and assessed by the creator’s immediate society, or a creative experience that is often personal and assessed by only the individual [41]. The students in the study process should pay more attention to individual skills such as critical thinking, communication and creativity. However, further studies are needed to study the internal multiple factors that influence human performance in different areas [43,44].

Given that sustainability is inseparable from social responsibility and incompatible with social manipulations and propaganda in society, essential aspects that pave the way for future research can be observed. These are aspects that include certain cases of artificially increasing the visibility of content by public figures (and possibly politicians), manipulating social platforms, influencing public opinion, and making decisions for people, such as in elections, social crises, and uncertain situations.

Thus, the effectiveness of teaching subjects associated with sustainability is that students acquire skills of critical and creative thinking, independent work with information, and the ability to perform systematic analysis [45]. To implement the ideas generated, it is necessary to have the ability to communicate in the space of problems to be solved with different target audiences [46]. In this way, the development of an instrument for assessing affective aspects covering honesty, discipline, responsibility, politeness, care, and confidence using self-assessment [47] is important for the development of sustainability in a society based on critical thinking, creativity, and communication skills.

7. Conclusions

The evaluation of the data from the survey on communication, creative and critical-thinking skills of the first-year students of the Faculty of Creative Industries, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, in the context of sustainability via coping with social simulation and awareness, revealed that scores from these facets were above average by about one point. However, the distribution of these skills was uneven within the group of study participants. In terms of the creative skills, Self/Everyday, Scholarly, and Artistic Creativity Skills were developed sufficiently well. However, Artistic Creativity Skills were unevenly distributed within the group. This information is essential for students and study organisers to differentiate the study process.

The Performance and Mechanical/Scientific Creativity Skills of the students in the study were less developed and ranked below the average values. These skills were also unevenly distributed among the study participants, and this was confirmed by the great inequality among students. More tasks should be included in the study process that aim to develop students’ mathematical and mechanical, kinaesthetic skills, as well as music and creative writing. It is necessary to note that the tasks must be differentiated according to the preparation of students.

Assessing Critical Thinking Skills, it is noted that the study participants demonstrated poor indicators of Analysing skills. The students gave a poor assessment of their skills necessary to analyse the surrounding reality thoroughly and find dependencies even between phenomena that differ from each other. These abilities are fundamental in all activities and essential for assessing the surrounding reality to overcome or resist social simulations. It should also be noted that this ability was not evenly distributed among the students.

Developing analytical skills also requires associative thinking and is an element of Remembering skills (ability to easily recall important information and use appropriate knowledge; ability to repeat important threads after reading the text, and easily remember essential information that they learned in the previous levels of education after reading once). Remembering skills were unevenly distributed among the study participants. It would make sense to develop a separate study discipline dedicated to developing analytical skills.

The data on communication, creative and critical thinking skills of the first-year students from the Faculty of Creative Industries, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University were obtained from the present study, which served as basis for developing objective assessment scales. They allow students to independently observe changes in the abovementioned characteristics during their studies. At the same time, it can encourage students to engage in self-education to counteract practices of social manipulation and the disinformation or propaganda disseminated on social media and in public media. Moreover, student self-assessment data provide a basis for study coordinators to modify the study content and tools in order to achieve targeted differentiation of the study content. Different target audiences of students have specific pedagogical processes that influence their communicative, creative and critical thinking abilities to a different extent. Therefore, it is appropriate to conduct similar research studies in different study fields and educational institutions.