An examination of accessibility and use of critical thinking for minority and disadvantaged students

Abstract

Access to learning about critical thinking has been inequitable for minority students in New Zealand, as identified by Hipkins et al. (2016). Following an intervention program using critical thinking (CT) within dialogical discussions, using the newly developed Street Smarts talk model, the following study focuses on senior secondary students in high and low academic band classes and their teachers’ perceptions. This is to compare the two groups of students’ interactions using the model, their thoughts on critical thinking, and their teachers’ responses to the students’ interactions and comments. The study selected two groups of high- and low-band classes because minority students are often over-represented in low-band classes in New Zealand. A quasi-experimental study was conducted with audio-recorded peer-to-peer group conversations, with 182 students (111 high-band, 71 low-band) in the year 1 dataset and 198 students (97 high-band, 101 low-band) in the year 2 dataset. Post-intervention, semi-structured interviews were conducted with self-selecting students in the high-band (n = 50) and low-band (n= 100) classes, respectively, and all the teachers in the study (n = 7).

Students in both bands recalled three key differences from typical group discussions: The importance of questioning each other, enjoying constructive arguing, and acknowledged that using CT indicators in dialogical discussions helped them shift from surface to deeper thinking conversations. The findings also revealed that students in the low-band classes insisted they would only use CT when in group discussions with friends present due to trust issues. In contrast, the students in high-band classes identified that speaking with unfamiliar others was necessary for hearing diverse views. When the teachers were shown these different, their reactions varied. Some acknowledged the detrimental implications of academic banding, while others believed they could “fix” the problem with pragmatic pedagogical solutions. Teachers also acknowledged that the provocations set for the students in the low-band classes were less academically sophisticated than the topics set for the high-band classes.