Street smarts and critical thinking: An examination of students' voices on critical thinking

Abstract

Objectives. The purpose of the study was to examine data from semi-structured interviews with students from low band classes, high band classes and their teachers, in secondary schools across varying socio economic contexts. The interviews sought to reveal if there were patterns from their differing perspectives and contexts about the teaching and learning of critical thinking. This study was part of a wider study trialing two aspects of the respectful talk model (Author, unpublished 2018). Perspectives. Talking in groups for adolescent students, particularly those students from low achieving classes and low socio economic context can be problematic. Lefstein (2010) advocated that the teacher and students need to recognise the power distribution, extremes of difference factor, the emotional climate and the quality of the relationships. Furthermore, when talking in groups, the students are exposing themselves to the risk of expressing unfinished ideas, and having their ideas challenged (Michaels, O’Connor & Resnick, 2008). The intentions of critical thinking programmes for secondary students are to promote a more democratic society, but if the programmes are talking ‘past’ the very students they are intended to empower, little will be achieved. Methods and Data sources. The wider study employed a quasi-experimental design, with 17 intervention and 17 non intervention classes, (N = 734 students, 32 teachers), matched with similar ability in secondary classes in English and Geography classes. All students participated in 15 minute audio recorded conversations at baseline and then two further group discussions following the intervention of a professional development day for intervention teachers. The focus for this study involved the PI engaging in semi-structured interviews with all students in the intervention low band and high band classes, and all teachers. Results. Findings showed that the views of the students in the high band classes and the teachers were very much aligned. Both groups held sophisticated beliefs about critical thinking following the intervention; believed in the importance of students talking to students who sat outside their friendships and that the topics to discuss should concern wider societal issues. By comparison, the students in the low achieving classes were less able to express themselves the key elements of the respectful talk model, but nonetheless were able to recall pertinent observations; these students only wanted to be placed in groups with friends; held mixed views about topics, with some wanting to discuss wider societal topics and others wanting to discuss sport. Significance. This study is important, because by comparing student voices, of varying achievement levels, and the teachers’ beliefs on critical thinking skills, the realities of what critical thinking means for students in low band classes and in particular low socio-economic contexts are made visible. The beliefs of the teachers and the students in the high band classes were very much aligned, but not so for the students in the low band classes. However, these students had high levels of “street smarts” and by gathering data on their “smarts” we want to help students recognise that their street smarts represent critical thinking in action.