Abstract:
Access to learning about critical thinking has been inequitable for minority students in New Zealand secondary schools 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, in turn, their teachers’ responses to the students’ interactions and comments. The study selected two groups of high and low academic band classes because minority students are often over-represented in low academic band classes in New Zealand, and this sample was no different. A quasi-experimental study, with (n 97) low-band students and (n 110) high-band students, was conducted with recorded peer-to-peer group conversations. Post-intervention, semi-structured interviews were conducted with (n 50) students in the high and low-band classes, respectively (n 100) and their teachers (n 7). As set by the teachers, the topics of each provocation were gathered for analysis for the group discussions. Students in both bands recalled two key differences from typical, normative group discussions: The importance of questioning each other, in which they enjoyed constructive arguing, and their acknowledgment that using CT indicators in dialogical discussions helped them to shift from surface to deeper thinking conversations. Differences in findings between the groups revealed that students in the low academic band classes insisted they would only use CT when in peer group discussions with friends 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 responses and asked for their explanations of why the difference in responses occurred, their reactions varied. Some acknowledged the detrimental implications of academic banding, and others believed they could “fix” the problem with pragmatic pedagogical solutions, such as allowing students to go into different groups with one friend. Furthermore, teachers also acknowledged that the provocations they set for the students in the low academic band classes were less sophisticated than the cognitively challenging topics set for the high-band classes. Further educational research should involve understanding the complexities of teachers epistemic beliefs about the teaching and learning of critical thinking if inequitable opportunities for all students is to be addressed.