A recent book from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) highlights how universities are not providing the majority of their students with the critical thinking skills required by employers. In their study analysing data from the US, UK, Italy, Mexico, Finland and China, 45 per cent of students were found to be proficient in critical thinking, with only 20 per cent having an “emerging” talent.
Crucially, the OECD’s definition of critical thinking skills involves not only thinking, but the application of this thinking to real-life scenarios through the interrelated processes of “inquiring, imagining, doing and reflecting”. This definition echoes the Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire’s concept of “critical consciousness”, whereby students inquire about and develop an understanding of society in order to take action and transform their communities.
- Offering students a ‘Big Green Gap Year’ has multiple rewards
- Tips for involving young people in research in meaningful ways
- How a sustainable internship programme can support social mobility
While research from cognitive sciences focuses on how critical thinking skills should be taught through direct instruction, an argument should also be made that direct instruction it precisely what hinders students from developing critical thinking skills in the first place. How many university tutors have reflected upon the ways in which an outcome-driven school system has presented them with undergraduate students who want to be told what to do and what to think? How many university tutors have found themselves meticulously preparing their first-year undergraduate students for their assessments? How many university tutors have felt themselves complicit in perpetuating an absence of critical thinking through direct instruction?
If not direct instruction, what might be another solution to developing critical thinking in our students? The obvious answer is to think about other pedagogical approaches, which include students practically applying their learning and which develop the key competency of independent learning – an established prerequisite to critical thinking.
To go back to the OECD’s book, what is perhaps most surprising is that university courses that are more vocational seem to score worse in terms of developing students’ critical thinking skills. Of course, there are utilitarian reasons for this, with some of these courses leaning more towards training than education. But the fact that students on these courses will often benefit from the practical application of their learning through partnerships in their local community offers a clear opportunity for the take-up of pedagogies that have been proven to develop critical thinking skills.
Commissioned by Enactus UK, a non-profit organisation supporting young people in schools and universities to engage in social action and build sustainable community enterprises, I undertook a review of research into pedagogies used with 11- to 19-year-olds where the students engaged with their local communities on projects of their own devising. In the review, I found substantive evidence of positive outcomes when students had experienced one of two pedagogical approaches: project-based learning (PBL); and youth participatory action research (YPAR).
With both PBL and YPAR, students work in groups on projects of interest that will bring about positive change in their local communities. Examples of PBL from Enactus UK’s work with secondary school students through their NextGenLeaders programme include: Project Pawject, helping the homeless in Norwich through the selling of dog beds; Foodprint, providing people with affordable food that would otherwise go to waste in Nottingham; and Coding with Codex, delivering inclusive and affordable computer coding courses for neurodivergent learners.
For each of these projects, students work through processes with a facilitator in a way that mirrors the OECD’s definition of critical thinking skills: they “imagine and inquire”, developing and researching a problem and thinking about beneficiaries and barriers involved; they take action, working in partnership with local businesses and third sector organisations; and they receive feedback on their actions, helping them reflect and set actions and targets for the future development of their projects.
YPAR is differentiated from PBL in that it also involves the explicit teaching of research methods to students. This formal understanding of research methods helps students gather data to develop their problem statement as well as design a project that will impact positively upon their target beneficiaries. To date, YPAR is relatively underused in the UK and tends to take place in the US where students work specifically with and for marginalised communities.
transformativefuturelearning.home.blog 