Critical Thinking and Language Learning, Vol III.I (2016) by The Japan Association for Language Teaching

Critical Thinking and language learning • ctll

volume 111, issue 1, november 2016 www.jaltcriticalthinking.org VANESSA ARMAND • WAYNE DEVITTE • JAMES DUNN GREG GOODMACHER • HIROSHI NAKAGAWA SHAUN O’DWYER • JAMES OWENS

ISSN 2432-4949

Critical Thinking in Language Learning • CTTL

The Journal of the jalt Critical Thinking sig • ct sig The Japan Association for Language Teaching • jalt Volume 111, Issue 1, November 2016. Find out more at: http://www.jaltcriticalthinking.org.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. ISSN 2432-4949

Journal Staff Editor: Carey Finn-Maeda Assistant Editor: Roza Carvalho Reviewers & Proofreaders: david gann, james dunn, wayne malcolm, fergus hann, yosuke ishii, kiyoshi shiori, roehl sybing Cover Design & Layout: james d. dunn

Foreword We are proud to bring you our third volume of the Critical Thinking in Language Learning peer-reviewed academic journal. This, our largest issue yet, is the result of the hard work of our authors, reviewers, and editors without whom, this issue would not be possible. The CT SIGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CTLL journal stands as a commitment to what the JALT CT SIG can do for the professional development of its members and one of the many ways we work hard to spread information about Critical Thinking in the language learning classroom. This yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s journal hosts seven articles that represent a wide array of ideas aimed at promoting critical thinking among language learners throughout Japan and the world. We invite you to read through our journal, consider the ideas presented by our authors, and explore how they can be applied in your teaching. Then also we invite you to write about your ideas and experiences in promoting critical thinking in language education for a future volume of our journal.

It will be because of your efforts that 2016 was a great year for the JALT Critical Thinking SIG. We have some big things planned for 2017 and beyond and we hope you can join us for all of the opportunities and events. In addition to contributing to the Critical Thinking in Language Learning journal, we also provide opportunities throughout the year for our members to present at various events throughout Japan. From PanSIG 2017 in Akita to our event with the West Tokyo Chapter in August, expect to see your CT SIG at events where we can make a profound difference and demonstrate why the CT SIG is one of the most active and exciting SIGs in JALT. Thank you for supporting the JALT Critical Thinking SIG. We hope you enjoy this journal, and look forward to another great year with you and all of our members. Sincerely, James D. Dunn Coordinator - JALT Critical Thinking SIG http://www.jaltcriticalthinking.org/

Contents 1.

Vanessa Armand: Promoting Critical Thinking, Listening, Responding and Reflecting with “Fishbate” Discussions

23.

Wayne Devitte: Critical Thinking in Japanese Learners: A Discourse Perspective

39.

James D. Dunn: Wash-back and Wash-forth in Japanese Education: Compounding the Problem

50.

Greg Goodmacher: Learning Taxonomies, Critical Thinking, and Global Issues Content-Based EFL

62.

Hiroshi Nakagawa: Innovative English Language Acquisition through Student’s Participation in the English Language Conference Project (Japanese Article)

87.

Shaun O’Dwyer: Teaching Applied Ethics as an Integrated Course in a Japanese University

101.

James Owens: This Class Changed the Way I Think: Trialing a Critical Thinking Skills Course in a Japanese University

123.

“Best of the CT Scan” article by: Peter Quinn (July, 2014)

About the Authors Vanessa A rmand has taught in France and the US, and is currently a Global Teaching Fellow at Tokyo International University, where she teaches a range of English language levels and skills to Japanese and international students. Her research interests include critical thinking, motivation, and promoting educator-led research and professional development. Email: armand.vanessa@gmail.com Wayne Devitte is a Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Degree student at Sophia University. As a graduate student in Linguistics, he is presently studying the practical applications of discourse and conversation analysis for learners and the development of EFL learner social networks. Email: wdevitte@outlook.com James D. Dunn is a Junior Associate Professor at Tokai Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s International Education Center. His research interests include higher-order thinking skills for learning and measuring brain engagement during traditional learning activities through utilizing portable EEG machines. He loves to challenge students to better both their mental and interpersonal skills. Email: james.d.dunn@outlook.com Greg Goodmacher is both a professor at Keiwa College and a textbook author. His research interests include content-based EFL/ESL education and materials development. He has just finished revising Stimulating Conversation, a textbook that focuses on facilitating critical and creative thinking in language classrooms.

Hiroshi Nakagawa teaches English at Tokai University. He holds a Master of Science in TESOL degree from Fort Hays State University in Hays, KS. He has specialized in cultural diversity and English language learning. Email: Hiroshinakagawa@outlook.com Shaun O’Dwyer is an associate professor in the Faculty of Languages and Cultures at Kyushu University. He has published interdisciplinary research on Anglo-American and contemporary Confucian philosophy and the philosophy of English language education, and is currently completing a book under contract with State University of New York Press on the prospects for today’s “Confucian Boom”. James Owens is a senior lecturer and project coordinator at Kanda University of International Studies. He has taught English in Japan, Spain, Austria and the U.K. His main study interests include critical discourse analysis, curriculum design, and systemic functional linguistics. Email: james-o@kanda.kuis.ac.jp

Promoting Critical Thinking, Listening, Responding and Reflecting with “Fishbate” Discussions VANESSA ARMAND TOKYO INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Abstract: For over a decade, the Japanese government has mandated the teaching of critical thinking (CT) skills and English communicative competence, not only for the success of the individual students but also for the future competitiveness of Japan’s workforce in an ever-connected global market. Still, Japanese students are arriving at university unable to actively communicate and exchange ideas. In such an environment, traditional models of class discussion can often fall flat due to students’ unfamiliarity with CT, active listening, and analytical responding. Thus, the onus is on university EFL teachers to develop ways to effectively engage students in the meaningful and enjoyable building of CT, communicative skills, and reflection in order to prepare them for life beyond tests and lectures. This paper offers a new discussion process - the “fishbate”-which combines the idea-sharing of whole-class and small-group discussions with the peer-feedback of fishbowl discussions and the focus and turn-taking of debates. As such, it stimulates exploration of ideas while also focusing attention on a limited number of arguments, thus scaffolding improvement in CT and conversational skills in an engaging atmosphere.

1

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Introduction An academic debate rages over the teaching of critical thinking (CT) and expression in English as Foreign Language (EFL) contexts (Atkinson, 1997; Benesch, 1999; Davidson, 1998; Mazer et al., 2008; van Gelder, 2005; Dunn, 2014). Meanwhile, the Japanese government has taken the stance that these skills are essential for developing autonomous, communicative learners, and for helping Japan remain relevant and competitive in an ever-globalizing world marketplace (MEXT, 2011). As a result, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), has been instituting reforms since the early 2000s that mandate the teaching of CT in addition to English communicative language in secondary schools and universities. However, a multitude of factors including cultural preference for face-saving and harmony in conversation (Cutrone, 2010) and continued focus on grammar and memorization at the secondary level (Dunn, 2015; Nishino & Watanabe, 2008; Ushioda, 2013) have made these directives difficult to actualize in classroom practice. As a result, Japanese students are often unprepared for what they find on the first day of university classes: high expectations of autonomous thinking and active participation (Dunn, 2014, 2015; Ushioda, 2013). This disparity is especially salient in EFL speaking/listening courses where students encounter Western or Western-educated English teachers and are expected to engage in exchanges of ideas, which students may have never before encountered. In these situations, EFL teachers can find these students easily stumped by basic “Why?” questions (Dunn, 2014), lost or disengaged in 2

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

discussions (Davidson, 1998), or stuck in circular logic and logical fallacies (Finn-Maeda, 2015). In these cases, traditional activities such as whole class or small group discussions often fall flat and become frustrating for teachers and students alike (Finn, 2015; Saito & Ebsworth, 2004). Furthermore, empowering students to become autonomous through peer-assessment and reflection can often be difficult, as students are more familiar with the practice of summative teacher-to-student assessment (Forsythe, 2015). This article explores the benefits and drawbacks of four classic discussion-based activities and offers a new method for facilitating critical discussion in an equal parts peer-supported, engaging, and reflective activity. Critical Thinking Expectations While there exist “as many definitions for CT as there are writers on the subject” (Mayfield, 2001 in Long, 2003, p. 220), this paper frames CT skills within Fisher and Scriven’s (1997) definition of CT as “skilled, active interpretation and evaluation of observations, communications, information and argumentation as a guide to thought and action” (p. 20). This definition suggests that CT requires a baseline competence in the context-dependent application of thinking tools; reactive, proactive, and reflective moves towards insight; the process of understanding, clarifying, and determining the value of input through the senses, discourse, data, and arguments; and the application of these mental processes to one’s beliefs and actions. This definition effectively encompasses the exact attributes of autonomous learners whom MEXT aims to 3

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

produce in the hopes of cultivating reactive, proactive, and reflective future leaders (MEXT, 2011). Four Classic Models of Discussion in the Language Learning Classroom While a review of TESOL literature will reveal many different tasks for fostering communicative competence, this paper will focus on four classic discussion models. The benefits and drawbacks of each model are explored in terms of interaction, engagement, and turn-taking (Figure 1), drawing on research in Second Language Acquisition and Task Based Language Teaching ( for output, see Swain, 1995; for task type and group structure, see Long, 1990). It also investigates the requirement of specific discourse markers (e.g. opinion and reason markers) and conversational strategies (e.g. countering, hedging), and the promotion of specific CT skills in

ď&#x201A;&#x161;4ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

each activity, drawing on literature investigating effective teaching of communicative and CT skills (see Beaumont, 2010; Cutrone, 2010; Finn, 2015). i.

Whole Class Discussion

Perhaps the most basic and prescriptive iteration of whole-class discussion is that in which the teacher engages students by posing questions to the class, receiving individual responses, responding to them, and acting as a facilitator or mediator of ideas (Erickson, 1996). For students, CT tasks in this model involve interpreting, analyzing and reflecting on input, and orally responding. However, the one-on-one interaction (between the teacher and student or between two individual students), and on-line processing (real-time processing of language input with the expectation of unplanned output) present in this model encourages some students to dominate the conversation while others disengage; while this disengagement may be found in other discussion formats, it is especially salient in whole-class discussions in which only two or three participants are engaged at a time. In this model, engaging passive students in this interactional structure may even be counterintuitive or faceaffronting if the cause of their passiveness is resulting from high affective filters and slower on-line processing; highlighting this with pointed questions and the expectation of a spontaneous response may cause embarrassment or even humiliation for the student, resulting in further withdrawal from discussion. This format can also discourage weaker students from participating out of fear of being interrupted or making mistakes (linguistic or CT-related). ď&#x201A;&#x161;5ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

While specific CT skills might be elicited (namely “interpretation and evaluation of observations, communications, information and argumentation”), this model can lead students mainly into passive or reactive thinking in response to lines of teacher questioning. While this format may be suitable for brainstorming, its ability to involve all students in CT and discussion is limited. Furthermore, engaging students in reflection for future CT and language improvement can be difficult given the aforementioned variables. iI. Small Group Discussion

Group work has been touted as a solution to these problems; it can lower affective filters and raise both the quantity and quality of student contributions to the conversation (Brown, 2007). However, in my own Japanese university EFL classes, students often engage in “discussion” of a given prompt for a few short minutes and then sit in silence or move off-task. Furthermore, interaction and engagement of all participants is not guaranteed, and turn-taking may not be evenly distributed. Finally, speakers may not use any key expressions or CT skills, may use them superficially or inaccurately, or may be led astray by the language of other students and thus overlook fallacies (Davidson & Dunham, 1996; Finn, 2015; Paul, 1995 in Mazer et al., 2008).The teacher cannot be available for all groups simultaneously and cannot provide necessary input or feedback to all students, thus minimizing the effectiveness of the activity for CT purposes.

6

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

iII. Fishbowls

Building off of these challenges is the fishbowl discussion model in which three or four students sit together in a circle and discuss a prompt while surrounded by other students who take notes and give feedback on their performance. In this model, all students are engaged in active listening, and while spoken interaction during the fishbowl is limited to the speakers, the audience provides immediate feedback post-discussion. The focus of these notes can expand in complexity from target expressions taught in class (e.g. “In my opinion”), to conversational movements (e.g. interrupting), to critical thinking skills (e.g. evaluating information and arguments). While the goal is for students to work through problems together and to engage in reflection through feedback from and for peers, if students are struggling with responding and are slipping into monologues, misusing expressions, or overlooking fallacies, the individualized attention on speakers creates the opportunity for teacher intervention. Furthermore, peer-feedback provides content for student reflection on performance (their own and others’). One drawback is its free form nature, allowing one student to dominate the conversation. The ultimate shortcoming is that students can be overwhelmed by the on-line processing requirement of the infinite number of arguments that could arise in the bowl, hindering CT and self-expression. iV. Debates

Debates have long been used as a method for engaging students in the competitive, pointed practice of CT and self7

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

expression (Inoue, 1996). Inoue (1996) highlights the following CT skills in his characteristics of academic debate: the analysis of a problem, formulation of logical claims, identification of fallacies, understanding of divergent opinions, conducting of research, devising of arguments, and critical analysis of input from others. In traditional debate styles, such as that used by the Japan High School English Debate Association (HEnDA), on-line (real-time) processing is scaffolded by off-line (planned, not spontaneous) preparation, by providing students with time to research the debate prompt, formulate and practice their speeches, and anticipate their opponents’ objections prior to engaging in spontaneous exchange with an opponent. For English language learners, debates offer additional benefits, with uninterrupted speaking time, interaction with one speaker, and a limited number of opposing views provided by the debate format - allowing for focused attention on the challenging language and cognitive skills needed to engage the opponent. Drawbacks of this format which I have observed in my classes include: the possible disengagement of the audience and lack of reflection (unless the audience takes notes for feedback), and the potentially face-affronting nature of performing CT and speaking tasks under a time constraint, in front of an audience and while under attack from an opponent, which might hinder both CT and speaking performance. A New Discussion Model: The “Fishbate”1 Process i.

Rationale for a hybrid model 8

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

As is evident from the investigation above, there is a clear need for a new model that incorporates the benefits of each of the four while circumventing their drawbacks. “Fishbate” is a hybrid of the four classic models (Figure 2).

iI. Steps

• Step 1 (Awareness Raising) - The teacher engages students in a whole-class discussion about the difficulties of having a serious discussion in English. Together they brainstorm barriers to thinking and communication and ways to overcome them. One concern may be a lack of expressions to use (see Step 2a) or an inability to support opinions (see Step 2b). 9

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

• Step 2 (Elicitation) 2a: Language Support-Discussion language is elicited from students and transferred to a “Cheat Sheet” (see Appendix A) for students to use as speaking support during discussion. 2b: CT Support-Teacher elicits possible methods for finding supporting ideas, then provides students with tips for CT (see Appendix B) for students to use as thinking support during discussion. • Step 3 (Preparation) - Students are arranged into groups of four or six. Each group receives a discussion prompt and is asked to brainstorm their arguments for both sides of the issue, first briefly in their group, then individually for homework, in addition to finding reliable and valid sources for support. • Step 4 (Presentation) 4a: Fishbowl 1 - The groups reconvene to present their arguments and support about both sides of the issue in a video recorded noaudience fishbowl (10 minutes). Following the open discussion, students randomly self-assign each fish (student) a side to present in the Debate Stage (5 minutes). 4b: Debate (Organization) - The newly organized teams (pro vs. con) meet independently to clarify the unique argument and support each person will present in defense of their side (10 minutes). Recording is paused during this time.

 10 

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

4c: Debate - Continue recording. Teams debate following the timing and structure in the Debate Stage Instructions (see Appendix C) and using the note-taking handout (see Appendix D) (30 minutes). 4d: Fishbowl 2 - The discussion is open to free exchanges of ideas. Students are able to change sides, support opponents or weaker debaters, return to previous arguments, and present new ideas (5-10 minutes). Recording ends. â&#x20AC;˘ Step 5 (Feedback) - The recordings are shared with members of another group who take notes and give feedback based on target skills (language or arguments) using the tips (see Appendix E) and form (see Appendix F). iII. POTENTIAL BENEFITS

This model requires engagement and the use of expressions and CT skills through a debate with individualized, focused talktime couched inside peer-supported, face-saving discussions. While this model has not yet been empirically tested, providing students with multiple opportunities to work with others through the cognitive processes of developing and supporting their ideas may help struggling students lower their affective filters and save face. Furthermore, the mix of group structures and interaction can provide opportunities for a variety of input, listening focus, and speaking requirements. Finally, the use of recordings for peerassessment can remove the stress of a physical audience, but still provide opportunities for awareness-raising and goal setting for ď&#x201A;&#x161; 11 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

linguistic and argumentation features from the perspective of both speaker (self-reflection based on feedback the student receives) and listener (self-reflection based on feedback the student gives to others). More specifically, this model allows students the opportunity to hone their argumentation skills, both in terms of language and logic through repetition of the task of explaining their ideas at each stage of the fishbate. While empirical research would need to be done to prove the true extent of cognitive load variance across the different models, I have observed in my classes that the cognitive load of arguing in a foreign language is lightened in the fishbate model in comparison to the other four models â&#x20AC;&#x201C; likely due to offline processing time and, more importantly, task repetition. Tasks that involve problem solving or argumentation have been identified in the literature as having high levels of difficulty, drawing attention away from fluency and accuracy (Shekhan & Foster, 2001 in Revesz, 2011). At the same time, repetition of a given speaking task has been shown to improve linguistic ability (Gass et al., 1999). It could, therefore, be argued that by repeating the task of explaining and supporting their opinion, students are given the chance to manage the cognitive load and focus more on logic and language, possibly resulting in not only clearer argumentation, but also more linguistic fluency, accuracy and complexity. Conclusion This paper has outlined the difficulties facing Japanese university EFL teachers when it comes to engaging students in building CT ď&#x201A;&#x161; 12 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

and communicative skills. It has investigated four classic models of discussion in ELT, and has proposed the fishbate discussion format to bridge the gaps between them. This discussion process combines the idea-sharing and face-saving of class discussions with the peerfeedback of fishbowls and the turn-taking of debates. As such, it stimulates exploration of ideas while also focusing attention on a limited number of arguments, ultimately scaffolding improvement in CT and conversational skills in an engaging atmosphere. It eliminates the stress on speakers induced by the physical audience element of fishbowls and debates, and replaces it with a videorecording element that provides content for peer-reflection to promote further thinking and language development. Notes: 1. It should be noted that the fishbate activity format was first presented at the 2015 Nakasendo English Conference (Armand, 2015a) and a shortened explanation of the procedure was published in the ORTESOL Quarterly Newsletter (Armand, 2015b).

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 13 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

References Armand, V. (2015a). Get in the Bowl! Critical Thinking Activities. Practiceoriented presentation presented at the Nakasendo English Conference, Nakasendo, Japan. Armand, V. (2015b). Teaching Tips: Using “Fishbate” Group Discussions to Promote Critical Thinking. ORTESOL Quarterly Newsletter 38(4), 6-8. Atkinson, D. (1997). A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 71-97. Beaumont, J. (2010). A Sequence of Critical Thinking Tasks. TESOL Journal, 1(4), 427-448. Benesch, S. (1999). Thinking Critically, Thinking Dialogically. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 573-580. Brown, J.D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Education ESL. Cutrone, P. (2010). Helping Japanese ESL/EFL Learners Overcome Difficulties in Intercultural Communication. Journal of the Faculty of Global Communication, University of Nagasaki 11, 11-22. Davidson, B.W. (1998). A Case for Critical Thinking in the English Language Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 119-123.  14 

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions Davidson, B.W. & Dunham, R. (1997). Assessing EFL Student Process in Critical Thinking with the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. JALT Journal, 19(1), 43-57. Dunn, J. (2014). Limited Critical Thinking Skills in Japanese EFL: Where Does the Responsibility Lie? Critical Thinking and Language Learning 1(1), 1-7. Dunn, J. (2015) Critical Thinking in Japanese Secondary Education: Student and Teacher Perspectives. Critical Thinking and Language Learning 2(1), 28-38. Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: the social and cognitive ecology of teacherstudent interaction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, Learning, and Schooling (pp. 29-62). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Finn, C. (2015). Anarchy in EFL: Introducing Simple Activities to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Discussion Classes. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 3, 77-85. Finn-Maeda, C. (2015). A Multi-Faceted Approach to Integrating Critical Thinking Skills in Oral Communication Classes. Critical Thinking and Language Learning 2(1), 18-27. Fisher, A. , & Scriven, M. (1997). Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment. Norwick, UK: University of East Anglia, Centre for Research in Critical Thinking.

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 15 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1 Forsythe, E. (2015). Improving Assessment in Japanese University EFL Classes: A Model for Implementing Research-Based Language Assessment Practices. 21st Century Education Forum, 10, 65-73. Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M.,& Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999). The Effects of Task Repetition on Linguistic Output. Language Learning, 49(4), 549581. Inoue, N. (1996). Traditions of “Debate” in Japan. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Social and Cultural Studies, Kyushu University, 2,149-161. Retrieved from: http:// www.flc.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~inouen/deb-trad.html Long, C.J. (2003). Teaching Critical Thinking in Asian EFL Contexts: Theoretical Issues and Practical Applications. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 8th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics. ( Japan) Okayawa. 229-234. Long, M. (1990). Task, Group, and Task-Group Interactions. In Sarinee, A. (Ed.) Language Teaching Methodology for the Nineties: Anthology Series 24. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center. (31-50). Retrieved from http://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED366184.pdf Mazer, J., Hunt, S., and Kuznekoff, J. (2008). Revising General Education: Assessing a Critical Thinking Instructional Model in the Basic Communication Course. The Journal of General Education, 56(3/4), 173-199.

 16 

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2011). Reform Action Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/ topics/1324314.htm Nishino, T. & Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication-oriented Policies Versus Classroom Realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), pp. 133-138. Revesz, A. (2011). Task Complexity, Focus on L2 Constructions, and Individual Differences: A Classroom-Based Study. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 162181. Saito, H., & Edsworth, M.E. (2004). Seeing English Language Teaching and Learning through the Eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL Students. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 111-124. Shekan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task Type and Task Processing Conditions as Influences on Foreign Language Performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211. Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing Critical Thinking in the Writing of Japanese University Students. Written Communication, 18(4), 506-548. Swain, M. (1995). The Output Hypothesis and Beyond: Mediating Acquisition Through Collaborative Dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford University Press: Oxford. (97-115).

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 17 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Ushioda, E. (2013). Foreign Language Motivation Research in Japan: An ‘Insider’ Perspective from Outside Japan. In M.T. Apple, D. Da Silva, &T. Fellner (Eds.) Language Learning Motivation in Japan. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. (1-14). VanGelder, T. (2005). Teaching Critical Thinking: Some Lessons from Cognitive Science. College Teaching, 53(1). 41-46.

 18 

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

Appendix A Expressions and Strategies for Group Discussion

Appendix B Tips for Critical Thinking & Argumentation Support

)

 19 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Appendix C Debate Stage Instructional Handout

 20 

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

Appendix D Debate Stage Note-taking Handout (Fish)

Appendix E Tips for Giving Peer Feedback

 21 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Appendix F Fishbate Feedback Forms Note: Feedback for each student should include teacher feedback on comments; 1. Read commentary to speakers and write feedback about it. 2. Cut along each horizontal line to separate feedback for each speaker. 3. Organize individualized feedback strips into piles by speaker name in the left column and stapled together with the corresponding listener paper on top.

*Note: Full versions of the handouts can be found at: http://vanessaarmandtesol.weebly.com/get-in-the-bowlhandouts.html

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 22 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

Critical Thinking in Japanese Learners: A Discourse Perspective

WAYNE DEVITTE SOPHIA UNIVERSITY

Abstract: This paper explores the reality of what learners do during classroom activities by applying discourse analysis to the recorded conversations of a small group of first-year Japanese English language learners at a university. The manner in which Japanese English language learners show their critical thinking abilities and assess the skills is demonstrated. The data shows that despite the significant restrictive role that poor language proficiency can play in the demonstration of students’ critical thinking skills, the participants were able to make inferences, question the validity of what they had read, give persuasive arguments using evidence, and demonstrate both lower order and higher order thinking skills. Suggestions for enhancing the prevailing standard model of question/answer to allow learners to become more invested in the task and further enhance their critical thinking skills are made.

 23 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Background The ability of Japanese learners to engage in discussions requires them to both articulate their opinions and to use lower order (remembering, understanding and applying), and higher order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating and creating) (Kubota, 1999). This paper describes the class discussions of a group of first-year Japanese English language learners at a Japanese university and examines how the participants were able to give their opinions and demonstrate their ability with these skills, and suggests how they may be enhanced in lessons. To define critical thinking, Seigel (1988) describes it as”the educational cognate of rationality”. D’Angelo (1971, p.7-8) says that, “Critical thinking is the process of evaluating statements, arguments, and experiences” (cited in Shoemaker, 1993). While difficult to quantify into an observational scale, Long (2003, p. 231), clarifies critical thinking as a process, and as entailing the ability to perform specific cognizant actions: making inferences, separating facts from opinions, separating facts from evaluations, questioning the validity of evidence, giving persuasive arguments using evidence, asking questions using both lower order and higher order thinking, verifying information, resisting jumping to conclusions, understanding multiple perspectives, seeking “truth” before being right, and finally, “listening” and “observing”. In line with the understanding of critical thinking as a process, several scholars (Dunn, 2014; Long, 2003; Kubota, 1999) discount Atkinson’s (1997) claim of critical thinking as a social practice while acknowledging the tendency for Japanese learners to be reticent  24 

wayne devitte - critical thinking discourse perspective

during discussions. The argument exists that by developing both critical thinking skills and an understanding of language and how to use it, learners can become part of a larger community (Dunn, 2014). This ties into the theme of Japanese as citizens and as members of a global community, which is echoed by educators as well. Dunn (2014) notes that even though there is a need for harmony in Japanese culture, it should not prevent learners from learning new skill sets, and through the guidelines of MEXT, which states that its goals for the future direction of education are to educate“talented people who can understand and solve problems” (2002). Regardless of any value a culture may place on skill sets, it is important to guide learners to understand how other communities may consider such skills to be of value (Dunn, 2014). This is in line with the MEXT’s goal to“foster Japanese citizens educated to live in the international community” (2005). To determine how learners demonstrate critical thinking skills, this study focused on answering the following research questions: In what ways do learners actually demonstrate critical thinking skills in their discussions? In what ways can teachers assist learners in developing their linguistic skills in tandem with their critical thinking skills? Analysis Participants

The teacher-researcher of this paper gathered qualitative spoken data from six participants for this study who were first-year, lower 25 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

intermediate, full-time Japanese university students majoring in International Communications. Five of the participants were female (SJ, YJ MJ, RJ, WJ) and one was male (TJ). Selected on a volunteer basis, they described themselves as highly motivated to learn and use English, but lacking in confidence and experience using English outside of class. The participants were assigned to the class based upon the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s standardized level assessment, but their individual scores were not available. The study took place during the second term with the participants having been together for 27 weeks; while they were familiar with each other, it was not possible to determine their personal relationships outside of class. materials

Three texts were given to the participants for them to read and discuss. For phase one, a text from the course book detailing the growing problem with young men in Japan not being interested in dating (Text One) was selected. For phase two, another text from the same course book, focusing on the historical reasons for young American women entering college, was selected (Text Two). Both of the selected materials centered on gender issues and were required readings for the course. Each unit in the course book begins with an introductory activity presenting vocabulary items translated into Japanese and supplemented with gap-fill questions. This is followed by a reading of approximately 400 words with the previous vocabulary items incorporated into the text. Then, there is a series of sections that present questions based on the reading, which are intended to help ď&#x201A;&#x161; 26 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

wayne devitte - critical thinking discourse perspective

elicit critical thinking skills. A third text, adapted from The Japan Times, described the rising number of Japanese women uninterested in getting married and who are becoming career-focused and unwilling to quit their jobs to raise a family (Otake, 2013). This text was presented without any discussion questions. procedures

The data for this study was collected from recordings of the learners’ conversations conducted in two phases over the course of two lessons. For the first phase, the participants were randomly grouped into pairs with each participant being given 20 minutes to read and perform a dictogloss activity with two of the four paragraphs of the text. Afterwards,the learners discussed questions from the course book with their partners until the end of the allowed time of 10 minutes. The questions focused on why “herbivore” young men might be more or less happy than other men, what the participants thought of them and whether or not the trend would continue. In the second phase of the study, the available participants were divided into two pairs with one pair receiving Texts Two and Three (MJ and YJ) and the second pair being given Text Two with discussion questions (TJ and SJ). The first pair was told to use the differences in content and vocabulary for their opinions and critique. The second pair was instructed to discuss the questions from the textbook which focused on the advantages and disadvantages of singlegender schools, and who are better at studying - men or women. In both phases, they were not allowed to use dictionaries during  27 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

the allocated time and were instructed to guess vocabulary from context, ask someone else, or to ask the teacher-researcher. All conversations were recorded on the participants’ smart-phones, and were e-mailed to the teacher-researcher and later transcribed and analyzed qualitatively for content. Results The qualitative analysis of the data showed that the participants were able to articulate their opinions, albeit with numerous grammatical and lexical errors. When they could not think of vocabulary, the learners simply moved on to the next question. They were generally able to recall information from both readings, thus demonstrating an ability to remember, understand and apply information by providing rationales from sources outside of the texts in both phases. Differences in opinion

In phase one, YJ and MJ’s discussion of the first question focused on differing points of view with MJ adding information from an outside source referring to a news story about Japanese office workers overworking,resulting in their death.

MJ: Recently many people will die because of hard

working. This book says herbivore

men don’t want to work. It will be good for their life

so I think herbivore men might

be more happy than other men.

 28 

wayne devitte - critical thinking discourse perspective

Participants articulated opinions that, at times, were blunt and unabashed as demonstrated in the conversation in phase one between RJ and SJ.

RJ: I think that herbivore men are weak, shy and poor

communication skill.

SJ: I don’t care about boy eating cakes or sweets but tight

clothes and weak body is no.

This is also present in line 2 in this discussion.

TJ: They are happy. They don’t have to spend money for other

people.

WJ: For unhappy. They have poor communication. Sometimes

they look like homosexual.

TJ: Is that bad? .... For you?

WJ: Maybe.

TJ: That’s a nice idea.

Some of the language was quite direct. However, the participants often attempted to negotiate differences in opinion as harmoniously as possible by more or less agreeing with each other, as in lines 10 and 14.

TJ: I think herbivore men are good. Not bad. Because it is a way to live for them.  29 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

WJ: Ah, I think that herbivore men are very kind to their friends

and families because they

have poor communication, so they have narrow friendships.

They thought that their

friends and family life are important.

10.

TJ: Yes. Good?

11.

WJ: Yes.

12.

WJ: The textbook says they are usually on the internet, so the

internet will be more

better so the herbivore men will continue or develop. More

13.

more herbivore.

TJ: Yeap. More than before, yes yes.”

14.

Justifications

The participants also attempted to provide real world justification for their responses, such as in MJ’s response in phase one.

MJ: I have good reason. I also I think that herbivore man will

continue. Do you know the comic

book Otomen? The title was Otomen. That comic was hit two

three years ago. Because the

comicbook was a hit. Many herbivore man’s sympathy.....

society like maybe this idea, so I

think the average of herbivore man will increase, because the

title of the comic was how to

 30 

wayne devitte - critical thinking discourse perspective

10.

say became a TV drama and very famous actor act the main

character. That will impact

many people.

11.

Interestingly, at times, the participants overlapped and echoed each other, assisting one another to come to the vocabulary they needed.

MJ: This paper say many men doesn’t help their wife, so...

YJ: The time is decreasing.

MJ: Care their child, spend their families. Men have to work.

YJ: And women have to.

In addition, they made inferences in their discussions by adding information from outside sources attempting to separate facts from opinions that were not detailed in either article as in this example from phase two.

12.

MJ: It is difficult to receive the woman who come back to work

after maternity leave sankyu

13.

so maternity leave is also problem. Have to change the law.

14.

YJ: Sou (I agree)

When they were unsure or questioned their partner’s response, they asked for clarification or directly pointed out information, such as in phase two between TJ and SJ.  31 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

TJ: America, because many people went to college to find

husband. And then many people

found husband and then stop to study to get married. But

Japan, Japanese are studying, but

not find husband to go to university. Japanese people go to

university to study. Just study.

So Japanese are strict.

SJ: In 2010, 57 percent of college students were female.

TJ: Ah.

SJ: I think women should career because woman is not only

mother or wife. In the future I want

to have career than my husband. Because if we work, I can live.

Discussion As evidenced from transcripts, although the participants were limited by the constraints of their grammar and vocabulary, they were able to give reasoned justifications with supporting evidence for their opinions. They would, at times, offer their own opinion somewhat directly, however, at other times more indirectly in order to maintain a positive social relationship with their partner. In terms of critical thinking, the pair that was instructed to compare and contrast different sources of information, as in phase two, made inferences and linked outside information more often than their counterparts. Separating evaluation and opinion from facts, on the other hand, was somewhat problematic as sorting out facts from opinions seemed to be influenced by their language proficiency,which acted as a negative influence on their ability to ď&#x201A;&#x161; 32 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

wayne devitte - critical thinking discourse perspective

recognize and make the necessary distinctions clear. The participants did, on occasion, question the validity of each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s statements with many attempts to give persuasive arguments using evidence that they had at their disposal. The fact that they did so of their own accord without prior instruction can be seen as an indication of their interest and personal investment in the questions and the texts. What became evident from the data was that learners require both cognitive and linguistic support as well as materials that are relevant to their lives when engaging in critical thinking activities. Linguistic Support Likely due to the amount of time they had spent together over two terms through nine months, the participants in this study did not have apprehension giving, or justifying their opinions, since they were familiar with each other. They did, however, seem to have difficulty with the cognitive demands of simultaneously processing the language necessary to synthesize the information and formulate opinions. Providing multiple forms of scaffolding, such as through a dictogloss activity, or supplementing information with alternative points of view provides learners with multiple opportunities to be exposed to language, which is necessary to process what they want to say and facilitate more in-depth discussion. To further help learners develop higher order critical thinking skills, such as analyzing and evaluating, it is necessary to:

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 33 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

1) Give learners more opportunities to search for and discuss vocabulary and expressions that they need or want to use. This would provide learners with adequate scaffolding and learnergenerated language, thus assisting them in focusing less on giving easy answers and more on their individual insights and opinions. 2) Focus their attention on a few key points in texts and have them check other sources to determine the validity of the claims by providing opposing opinions and points of view grading the language to the learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; proficiency. Cognitive Support The participants who were provided two texts to compare and contrast demonstrated an ability to better assess the validity of the information in reference to their own knowledge than other participants. The participants who had only an article and set of discussion questions had limited resources to compare information. Furthermore, while they could make inferences, all of the participants failed to question the validity of the first article in phase one. In phase two, the comparison activity seemed to help participants note discrepancies between the articles and this guided them to move their conversation to a more analytical style. The learners previously may not have been regularly asked to compare and contrast or to evaluate the validity of articles or statements. Learners can be encouraged to be reflectively skeptical about information through problem-solving activities that are relevant to them such as: ď&#x201A;&#x161; 34 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

wayne devitte - critical thinking discourse perspective

1) Discussion scenarios that have learners act as intermediaries in a disagreement related to the topic. This would personalize the context of the information, present opportunities to see different points of view, and allow for reflection of language needed to solve the disagreement. 2) Materials, for example multiple short texts, that provide different scenarios which relate to the topic. Through outlining different scenarios, the learners would have a chance to evaluate various possible outcomes of a conversation and have an opportunity to distinguish facts from opinion. Relevancy In the opinion of the author, as the topics selected were relevant to the participants, the learners were able to demonstrate their ability to articulate their opinions, however limited their expressions were. The topic of young men not being interested in girls, at the time of the study, was a topic in news and social media in Japan. Also, because of the gender demographic of the class, the topic of women in college was also highly interesting to the learners. Teachers should strive to find or adapt topics to be immediately relevant and accessible to learners through supplementing texts with YouTube videos, relevant manga, or just contextualizing the information in a format that takes into consideration the age of the learners.

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 35 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Conclusion The discourse generated during the dictogloss and comparison activity did not reflect anecdotal evidence from Japanese university teachers. Unfortunately, this study only examined the conversations of six learners from a qualitative viewpoint, and as such is not a representative sample and lacks statistical data to support its conclusions. Future research using quantitative analysis of authentic classroom discourse using Long’s (2003) criteria to examine instances of learners’ critical thinking skills would be beneficial. However, it would be imperative to explicitly classify and define each of the criteria and how it is observed in such a study. While this study found it difficult to ascertain whether or not the participants demonstrated all of Long’s (2003) critical thinking skills, the level of skill evidenced in the learners’ transcripts was much more than anticipated and showed that they are certainly not shy or hesitant to talk. The participants in this study focused on what they knew; gave reasons and answered “why”, and while they did have a tendency to harmonize in discussions, this should not be seen as a sign of an inability to think critically. In fact, at times, they were exceedingly direct in their opinions. The main conclusion of this study is that in order for learners to develop their abilities to assess, judge and evaluate information, they require lexical and cognitive support in conjunction with topics that are relevant to them. Through such support, developing Japanese learners’ thinking skills will be smoother, and their learning experience will be enhanced. By challenging what they know, they can be given a voice.  36 

wayne devitte - critical thinking discourse perspective

References Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 71–94. Dunn, J. (2014). Limited Critical Thinking Skills in Japanese EFL: Where Does the Responsibility Lie? Critical Thinking and Language Learning. 1(1), 1-9. MEXT (2005). White Paper on Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Accessed January 12, 2016. http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/ html/06101913.htm. MEXT (2002). Japanese Government Policies in Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Retrieved February 2, 2016 from, http://www.mext. go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpac200201/hpac200201_2_009.html. Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9-35. Long, C. J. (2003). Teaching critical thinking in Asian EFL contexts: Theoretical issues and practical applications. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference of PanPacific Association of Applied Linguistics (pp. 229-234). Otake, T (2013) Japanese women strive to empower themselves, Japan Times, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/03/03/people/japanese-women-strive-toempower-themselves/#.Vmd1vfkwjIV  37 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1 Shoemaker, P. J., (1993).Critical thinking for mass communication students. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, March. Siegel, H. (1988). Rationality and epistemic dependence. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(1), 1-6.

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 38 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

Wash-back and Wash-forth in Japanese Education: Compounding the Problem

JAMES DUNN TOKAI UNIVERSITY

Abstract: Japanese high school students are often thought of as lacking in basic critical thinking skills. The primary cause for this has been assigned to the university testing side of Japanese educational practices, creating a wash-back effect on primary schools. There is, however, an aspect that has been overlooked and only recently been brought to light: wash-forth. While the effects of university entrance exams may add to the problem in primary education test preparation, it is also these primary-level institutions that must make changes in order to allow entrance exams to reflect what is expected in the university setting. The wash-forth effect has produced an atmosphere where high school teachers believe critical thinking skills are not needed in their curriculum. This paper will discuss the concepts of wash-back and wash-forth and offer examples of what university test designers and primary education administrators can do to improve this situation in Japanese education.

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 39 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Introduction University English educators in Japan face considerable challenges with students who lack critical thinking skills (Kuchikomi, 2007; Lasker, 2007; Dunn, 2014; Dunn, 2015). This is, in part, due to a lack of critical thinking instruction in Japanese primary education (Kuchikomi, 2007; Dunn, 2015). However, university educators cannot simply lay the blame on wash-back: primary education institutions reacting to over-simplified entrance exams (Mulvey, 1999). The problem, as Guest (2008) succinctly puts it, is that junior high and high school curricula are impeding the effective design of university entrance exams by raising an alarm whenever the entrance exam exceeds the teacher’s perceived scope of what the test should be testing. This is known as wash-forth. The source of these issues is in the expectations put forth by the Japanese government. The stipulations set out in guidelines handed down by the The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, or MEXT, sets the standards that all primary education centers in Japan must follow (ajet.net, 2011; mext.go.jp, 2014). It is also here that we find an impediment to the teaching of critical thinking skills to primary school students (Dunn, 2014). Wash-back and Wash-forth The wash-back phenomenon is, simply put, that junior high and high school educators feel that they cannot teach subjects that are not specifically related to entrance exams, since there is such a high priority put on getting graduates into prestigious universities (Murphey, 2011; Guest, 2011; Allen, 2016). These educators feel that if  40 

james dunn - wash-back and wash-forth

a student is exposed to something other than the subjects included on entrance exam tests, it may decrease the student’s chances of entering their university of choice. This creates an atmosphere where junior high and high school teachers view university entrance exams as a limiting factor in their professional lives. However, another source of limitation stems from the Japanese government itself. Educational curricula in Japanese junior high and high schools, as mandated by the government, do not seem to deviate from this set of requirements and teach only toward the university entrance exams. Examples of this are the MEXT guidelines on the vocabulary list that all students are required to memorize by the time they finish high school, and the moving away from teaching grammar as a mode of English learning. In fact, MEXT (ajet.net, 2011) actively encourages teachers of English to avoid explicit teaching of grammar in classes stating that: If it is found that instruction in English subjects is leaning toward explanation of grammar, the teacher should make an effort to revise these practices... These stipulations seem to be one of the sources of the washforth effect on university entrance exam speculation, as university educators feel that they must reflect what students have been taught. Any deviation from these guidelines can cause a test item to be rejected after the test has been given. Teachers at primary institutions and private educational companies, called juku, can  41 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

demand that a question falling outside of the realm of their teaching be removed from the test. This results in all students who took the test receiving points for the test item in question, and the institution losing credibility. To avoid this situation, test makers actively avoid critical thinking questions on entrance exams, as these types of questions require knowledge that has not explicitly been given to the students (Miller, 2014). The Center Test To add to the deadlock between wash-back and wash-forth in primary schools and universities in Japan, the Center Test (センター試験) is the bar for which all primary school educators and juku teachers aim. This test, officially called the Daigaku Nyugakusha Senbatsu Daigaku Nyushi Center Shiken, is administered by the National Center for University Entrance Examinations. For many students, the test is used as a one-stop-exam for entering university. As this test is used by both public and private universities, it has enormous influence over what is taught in schools and what kinds of test items are allowed in private university entrance exams for individual departments. The Center Shiken does not deviate from the required curricula mentioned previously, thus forcing primary schools and juku to use it as a means to constrain university entrance exams. If a test item on a private entrance exam is deemed too difficult, they claim that the test does not have “face validity” (Guest, 2011). Face validity implies that a test reflects what primary school and juku teachers expect to be on an entrance exam. If a question does not explicitly cover what is on the approved curriculum, then  42 

james dunn - wash-back and wash-forth

it is deemed to not have face validity. This puts a large amount of power in the expectations of primary school teachers. The problem then is critical thinking questions are intentionally omitted from the approved curricula as these types of questions go beyond face validity into areas of higher-order thinking skills. Examples of questions that require critical thinking would be to infer information from a text to create a correct answer, or to consider the worth of information to make a value judgment answer. As long as the Center Shiken is the standard for university entrance exams, the situation will stay at an impasse. If the current trend of teaching up to, but not beyond, the test remains, there will be no resolution for the aforementioned deadlock. The change will need to come from MEXT itself. Importance of Critical Thinking Critical thinking skills help students to take information from multiple sources, combine the information, and use the resulting synthesis of ideas to create new solutions to problems (Forehand, 2012). The skills that support critical thinking are delineated in Bloom’s Taxonomy of Understanding (Krathwohl, 2002). The levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Understanding are a guide for teachers to help their students gain a deeper understanding of any subject. The lowest level, knowledge, is the basis of all higher-order skills, where learners memorize information for later recall. Moving up to the understanding level, students are asked comprehension questions about the knowledge they have acquired. The next level, applying, requires students to use the knowledge they understand  43 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

to solve problems. After applying is analyzing, where students could be asked to compare information from various sources. The second-to-last level is evaluating. At this level, students are asked to make value judgments on information and information sources to gauge the value as data that should be used or ignored. The last, and most ignored level of understanding is creation. At this level of understanding, students are asked to synthesize information in order to create new ideas for solving problems or answering a question. While it could be argued that Japanese primary students advance to the understanding or applying level of Bloom’s taxonomy, with the wash-forth situation it appears as if primary school teachers are only interested in the very first level, knowledge. By firmly adhering to the MEXT guidelines, they do not seem to feel free to do anything more than this. Consequently, the test makers’ hands are tied. This is the situation that many educators in Japan face. On the one hand, there is wash-back when entrance exams influence teachers to focus on test preparation in primary schools. On the other hand, there is wash-forth when questions that are not explicitly required knowledge on an entrance exam are rejected as not in-line with the MEXT guidelines. Without change, this stalemate will have no chance to resolve itself as both parties have limited options. Again, real change will have to come from the guidelines that MEXT puts forth for primary school curricula. By including thinking skills in the requirements for all Japanese primary schools, the wash-forth situation can be resolved and growth can be achieved. University entrance exam test makers can require realistic college-level  44 

james dunn - wash-back and wash-forth

questions on their exams, and primary education teachers can use the entrance exams as a bar for their students’ intellectual development. Hope on the Horizon but a New Problem There is hope for the deadlock in entrance examinations coming in the next few years. MEXT, continuing their ongoing efforts of reform since 2000, has decided to change the curriculum guidelines for high schools in regards to English education in Japan. These changes, said to be taking place in fiscal 2016, are to include the traditional four skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) and logical thinking and expression (mw.nikkei.com, January 2016). This new focus on logical thinking is to support the addition of speech and debate requirements for high school teachers to instruct their students in English. While this maybe a positive sign of a curriculum infused with thinking skills, there is still an important hurdle to overcome: Japanese English teachers may not prepared to teach these subjects and the supporting thinking skills needed to thrive in these two new additions to the curriculum. Many Japanese English teachers may feel unprepared to instruct students in critical thinking and debate, because the majority of these teachers are products of the same system that has created the current problem. Teachers tend to teach the way they were taught in the past (Oleson&Hora, 2014) which means that many Japanese English teachers who were educated in Japan, are used to the memorization style of instruction or the translation style of  45 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

instruction (Yamaoka, 2010). With little to no experience in teaching thinking skills, it is imperative that these teachers find avenues to gain instructional practices to teach these skills to their students. How to Prepare The changes coming from MEXT are a welcome sight for university English teachers in Japan. The problem, as stated above, is that even with the new expectations, if the teachers who are responsible for getting students ready for university do not have the skills and knowledge to instruct their students, it is all for nothing. Professional organizations like the Japanese Association of Language Teachers (JALT) and the Japanese Association of College English Teachers (JACET) have special interest groups which target critical thinking, higher-order thinking skills, and debate. Teachers of all levels and abilities can seek guidance from these organizations to learn new techniques and gain valuable resources to help them prepare for the coming changes. Another route for Japanese English teachers is to look into the research and experiences of other teachers who have expertise in these fields. Conclusion It is hoped that once the need for critical thinking and debate skills becomes integrated with the various curricula of educational institutions, wash-back and wash-forth will dissipate. By adding higher-order thinking activities to English language learning classrooms, students can start to use their thinking skills, rather than rote memorization, to improve their test scores. It could be ď&#x201A;&#x161; 46 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

james dunn - wash-back and wash-forth

argued that students may be able to increase their scores to a level that is indicative of their overall academic ability, not just their ability to memorize information. To ensure that teachers of junior high schools, high schools, and universities are ready for the upcoming change in focus, they should be encouraged to seek out specific training. Without proper instruction on how to integrate higher-order thinking and debate skills into their classrooms, little will change. Higher-order thinking skill activities being integrated into the English learning curricula will enable teachers and students at all levels of education to utilize critical thinking in not only their schools, but also in their personal and professional lives.

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 47 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

References Allen, D. (2016). Japanese cram schools and entrance exam washback. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 3(1), 54-67. Dunn, J. (2014). Limited Critical Thinking Skills in Japanese EFL: Where Does the Responsibility Lie? Critical Thinking and Language Learning, 1(1), 1-7. Dunn, J. (2015). Critical Thinking in Japanese Secondary Education: Student and Teacher Perspectives. Critical Thinking and Language Learning, 2(1), 28-38. English Translation of the MEXT Guidelines. (Feb, 2011). In ajet.net. Retrieved from http://ajet.net/announcement/english-translation-of-the-mext-guidelines/ Forehand, M. (2012). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved from projects.coe.uga.edu. Guest, M. (April, 2008). University exam negative wash-back effect on English education. Retrieved from educationinjapan.wordpress.com Guest, M. (May, 2011). A response to Tim Murphey’s criticism of Japan’s university entrance exams- and more on KumikoTorikai. Retrieved from http:// www.eltnews.com/ Krathwohl, D. R. (2002) A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview, Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.

 48 

james dunn - wash-back and wash-forth Kuchikomi (2010). The Dumbing Down of Japanese Students. Retrieved from http://www.japantoday.com/category/kuchikomi/view/the-dumbing-down-ofjapanese-students Lasker, B. (2007). Critical thought and literature in the Japanese university. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies, 19. 1-11. Miller, K. (October, 2014). What’s wrong with English education in Japan? Pull up a chair. Retrieved from www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/whatswrong-with-english-education-in-japan-pull-up-a-chair Mulvey, B. (1999). A myth of influence: Japanese university entrance exams and their effect on junior and senior high school reading pedagogy. JALT Journal, 21(1),125-142. Murphey, T. (2010) Creating Languaging Agencing. Plenary session presented at the JALT National Conference, Nagoya, Japan. Olsen, A. & Hora, T. (2014). Teaching the way they were taught? Revisiting the sources of teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty teaching practices. Higher Education, 68, 29-45. Yamaoka, K. (2010). The Current Situation and Future Prospects of Japanese English Teaching. Ritsumeikan Studies in Language and Culture, 22(1), 59-66. 高校英語に新科目案文科省、スピーチ・ディベート軸 ( Jan. 2016). www.nikkei.com. Retrieved

from www.nikkei.com/article/DGXLASDG12H6R_T10C16A1CR0000/  49 

Learning Taxonomies, Critical Thinking, and Global Issues Content-Based EFL

GREG GOODMACHER KEIWA COLLEGE

Abstract: Many educational administrators, material designers, and ESL/EFL teachers, especially those teaching global issues, strive to develop the lower-order and higher-order thinking skills that many researchers consider to be integral to critical thinking. Valuable references that can guide educators who are contemplating how to develop these skills are learning taxonomies, or taxonomies of educational objectives. Bloom’s (1956)Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, is particularly useful. Although critical thinking was never specifically targeted in Bloom’s book, this paper discusses how educators can use learning taxonomies as measuring sticks to evaluate whether teaching materials and activities stimulate the cognitive processes that many researchers consider to be necessary for critical thinking. The paper also provides examples of educational objectives for a specific Global Issues in Language Education (GILE) course, concluding with a call for global issues content-based EFL educators to collaborate in creating a compendium of model learner objectives for the GILE community to refer to.

 50 

greg goodmacher - learning taxonomies, critical thinking, and gile

Questions Regarding Critical Thinking, Global Issues, and Materials Development Teachers, educational administrators, and material creators who believe in the importance of the teaching of critical thinking and Global Issues in Language Education (GILE), may be interested in studying the convergence of critical thinking, language education, and GILE content-based instruction. Educators with an interest in the teaching materials used in content-based EFL courses, in particular those courses related to global issues, might think about the following questions: i) How can we know if our teaching materials are developing the lower-order and higher-order thinking skills (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) that many researchers consider integral to critical thinking? ii) Is there a useful frame of reference that we can rely upon for guidance in the evaluation, creation, and adaptation of materials that aim to improve both language and critical thinking skills in global issues content-based ESL courses?

The Value of Learning Taxonomies Valuable references that can assist us in our various educational contexts when we consider the questions above are learning taxonomies, or taxonomies of educational objectives (Bloom, 1956). Learning taxonomies represent the steps of learning from the most basic to the most complicated activity (Anderson, 2001; Biggs & ď&#x201A;&#x161; 51 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Collins, 1982; Bloom, 1956; Harrow, 1972; Fink, 2003; Krathwohl, 1964). Spring (2010) explains that Bloom’s learning taxonomy “covers six major classes that include knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.” Some learning taxonomies isolate the domains completely; some combine the cognitive and affective domains; and some integrate all of them. This paper focuses on the cognitive domain. Bloom, along with a large group of psychologists and educators, dedicated many years to researching and writing the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals – Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. Intended to facilitate communication and understanding among educators in all fields, this taxonomy is a resource that ESL/ EFL administrators, researchers, and teachers can benefit from familiarizing themselves with. In the foreword, Bloom explains, “You are reading about an attempt to build a taxonomy of educational objectives. It is intended to provide for classification of the goals of our educational system” (p. 1). Researchers and teachers of critical thinking skills in ESL classes can improve their work through an understanding of educational objectives. An educational objective is, as Ammons (1962, p.2) explains, a “statement of purpose.” Clear educational objectives bring focus to teaching, provide guidance to students, and assist educational material developers in evaluating the usefulness of teaching materials. Specific educational objectives also help educators ensure that their lessons include all that they wish their courses to cover. An example of an educational objective  52 

greg goodmacher - learning taxonomies, critical thinking, and gile

that includes language, environmental issues content, and critical thinking might be the following: Students will be able to read newspaper articles about climate change and discriminate between statements of fact and statements of opinion. With that objective in mind, a teacher can search for useful materials, a material designer can create or adapt materials, and students can understand the purpose of their lessons. Content-based courses intertwine the knowledge and skills that students studying a particular field should gain along with various aspects of language such as vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics, and rhetoric. The introduction of activities that foster critical thinking into content-based courses adds another layer of complexity to class preparation. Critical thinking was never specifically targeted in Bloom’s book. However, as he (Bloom, 1956, pp. 1-2), explains, “Teachers building a curriculum should find here a range of possible educational goals or outcomes in the cognitive area (‘cognitive’ is used to include activities such as remembering and recalling knowledge, thinking, problem solving, creating).” Bloom divided cognitive processes into the following categories, which he arranged in hierarchal order: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Knowledge is the simplest category; the most cognitively complex category is evaluation (Huitt, 2011). These categories are not isolated from each other, and the lines between them are blurred. For example, analysis and evaluation have similarities. Furthermore, a person using higher-level cognitive processes is also using lower-level cognitive  53 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

processes. For instance, comprehension requires knowledge, and application requires both comprehension and knowledge. Despite the overlap between the boundaries of the cognitive processes, the taxonomy is useful for language teachers setting the learning objectives for their courses, especially teachers who want to incorporate activities that promote critical thinking into content-based language education. ESL/EFL teachers of contentbased courses may be inspired to create educational objectives, which are similar to the examples in Bloomâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s taxonomy,to fit the needs of their own teaching situations. While the literature offers a plethora of definitions for critical thinking, many teachers and researchers, even if they have different ideas about what it is, would probably agree that the categorized cognitive processes listed above are integral aspects of critical thinking, and that a critical thinker naturally does many of the actions that Paul (2006, p.4) describes below. - raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; - gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively; - comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; - thinks open mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; - communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. ď&#x201A;&#x161; 54 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

greg goodmacher - learning taxonomies, critical thinking, and gile

These actions are important in all language classes. However, they are especially important for students who are discussing, reading, or listening to topics that are often considered to be global issues. These are, as Cates (2015, p.24) explains, “world problems such as war, hunger, poverty, oppression, sexism and environmental destruction, as well as to concepts such as peace, justice, human rights, world citizenship, social responsibility and international understanding.” Writers of teaching materials for global issues content-based courses can use learning taxonomies as measuring sticks to evaluate whether or not their materials and class activities stimulate students to use the relevant cognitive processes. These range from the simplest activity of remembering of knowledge, such as recalling the words used to refer to common objects, to the most complex activity of creating something new that connects to topics covered in teaching materials. Just like stairs leading upward, educational materials should ideally lead students from memorizing basic structures to understanding more complicated structures, and to gaining proficiency with higher-level thinking processes. Before deciding textbooks for class adoption, teachers should evaluate them to determine if they include activities that will stimulate all of the cognitive processes listed in Bloom’s taxonomy. If a textbook fails to include sufficient exercises at differing levels of cognitive processing, that may be justification for continuing the search for a better textbook. Test makers can consider the various levels of cognitive activities described in taxonomies when making decisions related to what types of items to include  55 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

in examination materials. Educational administrators can utilize learning taxonomies as resources when deciding the aims of their institutions. If educators are to play a significant part in creating a society composed of individuals who are able to think critically about global issues, such as immigration, future fuel sources, feeding a growing population and resolving border disputes, schools around the world must produce educational experiences that stimulate students to think at higher-levels of cognition. Examples of Educational Objectives Associated with Cognitive Processes for an Environmental Issues Content-based EFL Course Teachers of GILE content-based EFL/ESL courses should find the taxonomies especially useful when planning objectives and lessons that aim to promote the development of critical thinking, language skills, and knowledge of social or global issues. While planning syllabi for such courses, teachers could derive content and language objectives for their courses that correspond to each level of a taxonomy. To provide an example for educators planning GILE courses, educational objectives that connect with the hierarchy of Bloom’s taxonomy are given below for a hypothetical course on environmental issues. Starting from knowledge, the lowest level of Bloom’s hierarchy of cognitive processes, students in an environmental issues contentbased EFL course would be asked to remember the names of global  56 

greg goodmacher - learning taxonomies, critical thinking, and gile

warming gases and the names of types of renewable energy. Mere memorization of terminology is not included in any respectable definition of critical thinking, but this level of knowledge is a necessary step that students must take before ascending to a stage where they can use linguistic terms in activities or situations that demand critical thinking. The next level directly above knowledge is comprehension. Two sample objectives for this level would be that students be able to verbally summarize information that connects climate warming to human activities, and that students be able to create a visual representation of the drivers of climate change. Students who met these objectives would demonstrate their comprehension of information that was presented to them in reading or listening texts. A teacher could decide to have students write their summaries or give verbal summaries. Visual representations such as mind maps or flowcharts would also show that students were able to process and understand the information that was presented to them in a foreign language. Following the level of comprehension is the level of application. After considering the local terrain and weather conditions, students should be able to explain which types of renewable energy would be best for their city or prefecture. Another objective might be that students be able to hypothesize and express what might happen to their home prefecture if temperatures increased to the extent expressed in the text given to them. Analysis is the next level of cognition in Bloomâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s taxonomy. One ď&#x201A;&#x161; 57 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

educational objective appropriate to this level might be the following: students should be able to listen to statements of politicians and scientists who either believe in climate change or deny its existence, and then categorize those people as either climate change believers or deniers. Another objective that requires analysis is for students to be able to write surveys related to climate change, ask their survey questions to others, and give oral reports of their evaluations of the information contained in the survey responses. Students should, at the level of synthesis, be able to create or produce products or ideas that are novel and that correspond to the content and language they have been studying. Two example objectives might be for the students, in small groups, to discuss and jointly propose suggestions for a new energy policy for their nation or to create a video that explains methods for their school to produce energy from school waste materials or other nearby resources. For the level of evaluation, the students would listen and consider all of the new energy policies created by other students while considering both the potential of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the practical feasibility of implementation. The students could judge and rank the plans according to the criteria of both effectiveness and feasibility. They could be asked to verbally explain their reasoning for their ranking of other studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; plans. Conclusion and Recommendations Problems such as climate change, unequal representation in business and political arenas, international land disputes, banning ď&#x201A;&#x161; 58 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

greg goodmacher - learning taxonomies, critical thinking, and gile

or allowing new technologies, and retributions for wars caused by older generations do not, unlike TOEIC tests or mathematical questions, have agreed-upon right or wrong solutions. Considering these problems in GILE or other EFL courses, discussing them, and working toward resolutions to such important problems requires flexibility in thinking, high level language skills, and all of the cognitive processes described by Bloom in his taxonomy. Therefore, educators who want to increase the critical thinking abilities of students should consider stimulating students with curriculum materials and activities that provide them with valuable, current, and useful knowledge, and which also develops skills like comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Planning educational objectives in advance of each lesson will guide the students in their development. Bloom’s taxonomy has many samples of educational objectives for a wide variety of fields. However, there is a dearth of example educational objectives for the teaching of global issues to EFL students. The example objectives written above relate only to one environmental issues content-based EFL course – and a hypothetical one, at that. The compilation of a wide range of educational objectives specifically designed for educators involved with critical thinking and GILE content-based EFL courses would be a valuable resource for the field. It is hoped that educators will share their ideas and experiences and create a compendium of educational objectives for numerous social issues that are of great concern to EFL students in today’s fast-changing global environment.  59 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

References Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Ammons, M. (1962). The definition, function, and use of educational objectives. The Elementary School Journal, 62(8), 432-436. Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). New York: Academic Press. Bloom, B. S. (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. Cates, K. (2015, October). What are global issues? Global Issues in Language Education Newsletter, 78, 24. Davidson, B., & Dunham, R. (1996, January 1). Assessing EFL student progress in critical thinking with the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. Retrieved from Eric Data Base (ED403302) Fink, L. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harrow, A. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain. A guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York: McKay.  60 

greg goodmacher - learning taxonomies, critical thinking, and gile

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/ cognition/bloom.html [pdf ] Krathwohl. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II, the affective domain. New York: David MacKay Company. Paul R., & Elder, L. (2006). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and tools, 4. The Foundation for Critical Thinking, Dillon Beach, CA. Retrieved Dec. 8, 2015, from http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/Concepts_Tools.pdf Spring, H. (2010). Learning and teaching in action. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 327-331. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2010.00911.x

 61 

学生の英語教育学会参加による主体的学びの養成に関する一考察 --学習者の動機付け、自律学習育成の立場から-HIROSHI NAKAGAWA TOKAI UNIVERSITY

Abstract:

グローバル化が進む現代において、コミュニケーション能力はもちろ

んのこと異文化を理解する力、国際社会に対応できる臨機応変な思考力と行動力を兼ね備えた人材が求められる。英語教育の分野でもこうした社会変化に対応できる人材を育てるために、柔軟性と将来性に富んだ幼少期や青年期に語学力を養い、国際感覚を身につけさせることが重要であると考えられている。近年、文部科学省は英語指導要領に度々改訂を加え英語教育の充実を図っており、英語でのコミュニケーション能力や思考能力を養うといった、グローバルで実践的ないわゆる「使える英語」の教育を推奨している。しかしながら日本のように日常生活で英語に触れる機会の少ない EFL (English as a Foreign Language) 環境下では、実践的な英語を養うことは難しい。第二言語としての英語の習得には個人差が大きく、学習者が自ら目的や目標をもって主体的に学習に取り組まなければなかなか期待した成果を得られない。この点に鑑み、英語教育者には学習者の主体的な学びを促す方法が求められている。これまでも自律学習の重要性はたびたび唱えられており、英語教育の分野においても学習者の主体的な学びを促す授業方法としてインタラクティブラーニングや学習者主体型授業が注目されている。英語教育者が自律学習のためのプログラムを単に提供するだけでは学習者の英語学習への動機づけにはならず、英語教育者は学習者を自律学習者に導くためのプロセスをいかにして体系的に組み立てるのかを考える必要がある。その一つのアイディアとして、学習者が学会に参加することが効果的である。学習者にとって学会参加は英語教育に携わる専門家や教育者、異なるバックグラウンドを持つ他大学の学習

 62 

者と関わりを持つことで人的ネットワークを広げることができる他、普段とは異なる環境で学ぶことで大いに刺激を受けることが期待される。そして大学側にとっても将来社会を担う立場となる学習者の国際化を図ることができる。以上の点から、本研究では、学習者が学会活動に参加することの有効性についてその事前学習、学会参加時の観察、さらに事後学習をそれぞれ考察した後、参加学習者によるアンケート調査の結果を分析し、今後の英語教育および自律学習支援に向けての提言をまとめることを目的とする。

English Abstract: Recently, English language learners (ELLs) are becoming more willing to attend education conferences. Opportunities like these are valuable paths for English improvement, enabling students to engage in cross-cultural exchange, analyze differences between cultures, and synthesize this new information by combining their conference experience with new learning patterns. This paper will explain how students benefited from participating in the PanSIG 2015 conference, with their comments and observations of the experience. To prepare for the conference, participants had seven intensive English sessions. After the conference, students wrote five English blogposts describing the conference presentations, and practical reports to archive their conference experience and English progress. This paper will also highlight the teacher’s role in promoting learning platforms and utilizing scaffolding to enhance students’ English proficiency.

 63 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

はじめに国家間の相互依存関係の緊密化とグローバル化が進む現代においては、コミュニケーション能力はもちろんのこと、異文化を理解する力や国際社会に対応できる柔軟で臨機応変な思考力と行動力を兼ね備えた人材が求められる。英語教育の分野でもこうした社会変化に対応できる人材を育てるために、柔軟性と将来性を備えたうちから語学力を養い、国際感覚を身につけさせることが重要であると考えている。近年、文部科学省は英語指導要領に度々改訂を加え英語教育の充実を図っており、従来の日本の英語教育のように和訳や文法、語彙を集中的に学習するのではなく、英語でのコミュニケーション能力や思考能力を養うといった、グローバルで実践的ないわゆる「使える英語」の教育が推奨されている。しかしながら日本のように日常生活で英語に触れる機会の少ないEFL環境下では、実践的な英語を養うことは難しい。実際に日本人の英語コミュニケーション能力は他のアジア諸国と比較しても決して高いとは言えず、ETS (Educational Testing Service) の統計からも2014年の日本人のTOEFL iBTの平均点数は70点で、アジア30カ国の中で27位と極めて低いことがわかる。このような現状を踏まえ、文部科学省は世界に通用するグローバル人材の育成のため、2020年までに日本人海外留学者数を 2010年の6万人から12万人に倍増する目標も掲げている。その一方で、海外に留学することはあくまでひとつの手段であるという見方もある。日本人が考える、学習言語圏に行けばその言語を習得できるという考えは誤りであり、重要なことは学習する場所ではなく、高い自律性を備え、どれだけ長く学習言語に触れられることができるかという点であることが明らかにされている (小林1999) 。しかし、英語学習をはじめ第二言語の習得には個人差が大き  64 

hiroshi nakagawa - innovative language acquisition

く、学生が自ら目的や目標をもって主体的に学習に取り組まなければ、なかなか期待した結果を得られない。よって英語教育者には、教育者か学習者に一方的に伝える従来の指導方方法ではなく、学習者の主体的な学びを促す方法が求められる。これまでも自律学習の重要性はたびたび唱えられており、英語教育の分野においても学習者の主体的な学びを促す授業方法としてインタラクティブラーニングや学習者主体型授業が注目されている。自律学習とは単に1 人で学習することではなく、「自分自身のために，自らの知識 (とスキル) を構築しようとして，仲間や教師やその他のリソースと協力し，交渉しつつ行う学習を，自分自身の手で管理すること」 (青木、1996) である。つまり学生を自律学習者に導くことが実践的な英語力向上への大きな鍵となる。しかしながら、英語教育支援センターを利用する学生のほとんどが既に高い学習意欲を持った学生で占められるといった現状や、基礎学力の低下、および中学、高校で行われていた教育者中心の授業による学生の受動的な態度が問題となっている現状では、教育者が自律学習のためのプログラムを単に提供するだけでは学習者の英語学習への動機づけにはつながらず、自律学習者の育成は極めて難しい。よって英語教育者は、学習者を自律学習者に導くためのプロセスをいかにして体系的に組み立てるのかを考える必要がある。そして学習者が継続的に学習を行えるような環境づくりも学生の英語学習への関心と学びを深めていく上で極めて重要となってくる。このことから、筆者は英語教育に関わる教育者として、海外に出ず、語学学習の動機づけとなる経験をできる限り多く学習者に提供することが義務であると考える。現在「使える英語」を習得するためのひとつの方略として、大学で英語教育支援センター (本学では外国語教育センター、教育支援センターが中心となって展開し  65 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

ている) といった授業外での学習者の英語学習支援を行う施設を設けており、学習者が自主的にこういったサービスを利用するのも第二言語習得のための極めて有効な手段といえる。

背景学習者が抱く英語学習への意識として、基礎英語力が十分とはいえない学習者も、やはり大学生としての好奇心を刺激し、かつアイデンティティーを満足できる教授法を求めている傾向があり、その具体的なプログラムとして全国語学教育学会 (JALT) 分野別研究部会 (PanSIG)学会参加プロジェクトを行った。この学会参加を最大限に活用するために、学会参加前に勉強会を週1回９０分を2ヶ月間行い、学会参加現場で積極的に質問し意見を述べることができる学習の場を提供した。また、参加後には、後述のレポートを書いてもらい、学習者の英語学習への意識変化に着目し、今後の教育現場に役立てるべく努力をすることとした。

先行研究

自律学習の必要性自律学習の定義はユネスコが生涯学習において提唱した Self-

directed Learning (SDL)の定義である「個人もしくは集団が自ら開始し，自らの学習プロジェクトに関して，その計画立案，実施，評価の第一義的な責任を引き受ける学習の過程。独立学習 (Independent Learning) とは違い，岡田が1999年の研究論文で述べたように、「通常，教師や友人，あるいは制度の援助を受けて行われる」とほぼ同様の意味であるといえる。田上 (2005) は生涯学習について、学習と教育とは「学校環境」のみに限定するのではなく、将来の社会体系の変遷と多様化に対応していくためにも、  66 

hiroshi nakagawa - innovative language acquisition

「学校」卒業後の成人に対する生涯学習の研究の必要性と重要性を認識する必要があると述べている。このことから、勉学の卒面のみならず、学習者が今後ますますグローバル化していくと予想される社会において、自律学習とは極めて重要なものであるといえる。 1980年代後半、英語教育分野においてコミュニカティブアプローチ(Krashen, 1988)の教育理念が普及し始めたことにより、これまで主流であった文法・読解主体の授業から、コミュニケーション能力育成を目的とした授業への転換の動きが始まった。佐々木 (2010)

はこの転換について、次のように提言している。コミュニ

カティブアプローチは、学習者が実際に英語を使用してコミュニケーションを図ることのできる能力を養う言語教育であり、従来の、教師から生徒への一方的な指導ではなく、学習者を中心としたディスカッションやプロジェクトを組み入れた授業スタイルへの転換が求められる。2012年に文部科学省より公表された中央教育審議会答申でも、多様化する大学生の実態に対応し、かつ学習者の自律学習を積極的に推進する教育形態の一つとして、大学教育における学習者主体の教授法、学生主体型学習の必要性が強調されている。一方、岡本 (2006) は第二言語の習得には長い時間を要することから、授業以外でも自分自身で効果的に学習を続けることができるように、学習者が自身の学習管理に対する知識と習慣を身に付けなければならないと述べている。このことから、自律学習とは授業内で行われる事はもちろん、授業外でも積極的に取り入れていくべきものだと言える。佐々木は、授業内外問わず、自律学習について「単なる自習ではなく、学習者の内面からの主体性による能動的学習態度であり、学習者自身が自らの学びに責任を持ち授業および授業外の学びの機会を積極的に利用しながら、学びを深めていくこと」と説明している。さらに舘岡(2002)は、このように学習者が「自ら目  67 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

標を設定し、計画を立てて学習に取り組み、その結果を自己評価する」という一連の行動を「学習管理」と名付けている。

自律学習支援の例自律学習支援プログラムは様々な大学で実施されている。例と

して、関西国際大学教育学部英語教育学科では、イングリッシュラウンジ室を利用した英語自律学習支援活動が行われている (佐々木、2010) 。ランチタイムプレゼンテーションと呼ばれる昼食を取りながらの授業および学科行事の成果発表を行い、質疑応答も経験する。授業外でリラックスした形で共に学ぶ学習者同志、そして教師と学習者のコミュニティーを構成し、互いの学びを支え合う環境を作り上げ、学習者の学習意欲を高めることで、自律学習者へと導く取り組みを行っている。また、創価大学においても、図書館に隣接する大規模なセルフ・スタディーセンターが準備されており、学習者の英語への学習意欲をより高めるような様々な工夫がなされている。具体的には、様々なE-learning教材の準備、学習支援を行うチューター制度の効果的活用などが挙げられる。一方、齊尾 (2009) は、チーム学習という形態を活用し協働作業を通じてコミュニケーションスキルの習得を中心とする授業を実践した。チーム学習という形態は、生徒たちが学習活動に取り組む際に互いの意見を交換しやすくなるというメリットがある。アメリカの教育心理学者である Johnson (1984) は、学習者同志が数人でグループを組み、そこで相互の意見を出し協力して学習することを「協働学習」と名付けた。彼もまた学習者同志で学習しあい、学習者一人一人がタスクへの意見や考え方を出し合い学習することで、1人で学習するよりも効果的であることを述べている。学習者はグループをつくることで、ただ学び合うだけではなくグループ内での自分達の役割を理解し、  68 

hiroshi nakagawa - innovative language acquisition

一つの課題のために意見を出し合い共に作業をすることで、問題解決に対する責任感が生まれる。さらに学習者同志に信頼関係が芽生え、互いに助け合うことで学習意欲へのモチベーションも向上すると説明している。このことから学習者同志の学び合いは、教える側を経験することによる学生の成長や、彼らの持つ独自性を発揮させる効果が大いに期待できるといえる。 Nakagawa (2015)はインターネットやブログを通して、レポートを学習者同志が共有し、意見交換する英語学習法をとりいれ、学習者が遠隔な状況においても、協働学習を行い学ぶ方法を実践し推進している。よりアクティブに課題に取り組む為、授業外ではグループ内での情報の共有や意見交換をスマートホンやインターネットアプリケーションBlogger.comを通し常に行う。これにより、授業内容の予習復習がクラス全体の情報共有と共に行われ、授業内では英語ディスカッションを通し、よりインタラクティブな「英語を使って考え、個人の意見を重ね学習者自身が答えを導く授業」を確立した。さらに、オンラインで英語を使うことで、世界中のインターネットユーザーとのコミュニケーションの場を提供している。これにより、アクティブラーニングの一環とされる「反転授業」の手法と、テクノロージーによる授業外での遠隔的な学習法により、学習者が「自律的に学ぶ行動力」をグローバルに養うことが出来ると定義している。

目的現在大学で、留学プログラム以外にも英語教育に関わる学会や、国際会議、ユースフォーラムへの参加の機会を学習者に提供している。このことが学習者にもたらす利点としては、英語教育に携わる専門家や教育者等、異なるバックグラウンドを持つ他大学の学  69 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

習者と関わりを持つことで人的ネットワークを広げることができる他、普段とは異なる環境での学びから大いに刺激を受けることが期待出来る。そして大学側にとっても、将来社会を担う立場となる学習者の国際化を図ることができる。よって本研究においては、私立大学国際学科に所属する英語学習者を対象に授業外での学会参加プロジェクトを1セメスター内で行った。学習者の本プロジェクトはボランティアで行われ、参加者は20名であった。参加者は多くは国際交流や英語科目の授業に興味を持っており、日常の会話を英語で行い、英語でのディスカッションを行える英語力を持っている。英語学習者による英語教育学会参加にあたり、事前学習を週に1回行い、英語ディスカッションやディベートを通して、英語コミュニケーションの強化を行った。ブログを使った自律学習も同時に行い、参加する学会で議論されるであろうトピックを英語で学習し、準備を行った。学会参加後に事後学習として、「学会参加という学外活動に参加することの有効性」について、参加した学習者20名に英語プレゼンテーションを行い、各自の経験をシェアした。さらに、アンケート調査とインタビューを行い、結果を分析し、今後の英語教育および自律学習支援に向けての提言をまとめることを目的とした。

学会参加前の学習

Personal Résuméを使った学習上記で述べた学会参加を前提として、「自身の事を的確に伝

える」を考慮し、プレゼンテーションやディスカッションを中心とした学習を参加者と行った。まず始めに、Nakagawa (2015) の

Personal Résumé(英語履歴書・プロファイル)を使った英語学習を行った。Personal Résuméには個人の趣味や履修理由、英語を通し  70 

hiroshi nakagawa - innovative language acquisition

ての目標などを記載させる。その Personal Résuméを使っての英語プレセンテーションやディスカッションを通し、クラスメイト全員がお互いの個性や趣味を把握する。これにより、クラスというコミュニティーでの信頼関係を構築し、個人のバックグラウンドや経験、性格や個性を知った上での英語コミュニケーションが授業内で行われた。この学習法により、学習者同士の理解が深まり、学習者同士が英語を通して興味を持つことが出来た。学習者は「クラスメイトの前では、英語を使って間違っても良い、失敗を恐れない」という、モチベーションが確立され、自ら積極的に英語学習を行う姿勢が養われた。これらの諸点に鑑み、実践的な英語力を身につける学習方法の手段として、ディスカッションやディベートといった、他者と対面して意見交換を行うことのできる議論の場を多く提供し、学習者に積極的にディスカッションやディベートで自身の意見やアイディアを出し合った。学会で教育者との積極的なコミュニケーションを得る為に、セッションの日程や議題を学習者が決めるなど、自主的に学習の場を作り上げるよう促したことにより、セルフマネージメント・スキルの向上も図った。

クリティカル・シンキングを取り入れたディスカッションディベートやディスカッションを行う利点について松本 (2009)

は、議論に対して意見を述べる際には論理的に話をまとめる必要があり、その手法や表現力を学ぶことができると述べている。実際に、学生はディベートの回数を重ねることで徐々にお互いが納得するような説得力のある議論の展開ができるようになっていたことから、彼らは話をまとめる力、そして意見を伝える力を養うことができたと言える。さらに、丸野ら (2001) は、知識量や経験の異なる  71 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

学習者同志が協力して考えや情報を交換することで、よりよいアイディアを生み出すことができると述べている。ディスカッションには異なる学部や年齢の学生が集まり、それぞれが各自の視点から経験や知識を上手く組込ませて話を共有することができていた。学生は様々な情報を得られたことで、そこから新たな考えや知恵を生み出し、内容の濃い話し合いができるようになった。このように、ディスカッションを通していろいろな人の意見を取り入れることは、偏った価値観や思考力で捉えていたものから、多角的なものの見方と柔軟な対応に繋がると考える。これらのプロセスにより、理解、応用、分析、評価、確立が出来た。更に学会で議論される英語教育への事実的知識と概念的知識の分析と考察が行われた。これらにより、学習者同志で意見交換が多く行われ、彼らの多面的思考力を養うことに繋がったと考える。学習者はお互いの意見に対して、何故そう思うのか、またその根拠は何であるのかと、一つの意見を深く掘り下げていく様子が目立つようになった。松本は、ディベートで養えるもう一つの力として「クリティカル・シンキングスキル」があると説明していることからも、彼らはディベートやディスカッションを行うことで、他者から与えられた情報をそのまま鵜呑みにするのではなく、複数の視点を持って注意深く掘り下げ検討する能力や態度を養うことができたでのはないかと考えられる。さらにセッションを通して、学会に参加し教育者や専門家と関わりをもち英語で専門的な内容を話し合うことを想定させたことで、彼らに英語を用いたコミュニケーションの必要性を強く感じさせる事ができた。結果的にセッションでの議題では、「自己英語学習例とその効果」、「英語に置ける読み学習と書き学習の違い」、「英語学習とクリティカル・シンキング」、等の深い内容の議題が提示された。事前にリサーチを行う学習者も多数みられたことから、学習者が英  72 

hiroshi nakagawa - innovative language acquisition

語学習に興味を持つ動機づけになったと考えられる。さらに、ディスカッションでは学習者自身の英語学習例が話され、自己の利点や強み、弱点や欠点を見い出すことができた。セッション後も、幾度か学習者達が、英語力向上について、お互いの足りない部分を補おうという話し合いも見られ、協調し合えるコミュニティーの確立にも繋がったと考える。これらの、クリティカル・シンキングの分類法：Bloom’s Taxonomyを基盤に学習者が知識やディスカッションスキルなどをどの局面で使うかを認識し、学会にてどのようにアレンジさせるかを事前に考え、議論し、英語でのコミュニケーションの図り方を理解することで、メタ認知能力の向上にも繋げた。

クリティカル・シンキングを取り入れたディスカッション現在、Facebook、LinkedIn、GREEをはじめとした様々なソーシ

ャルネットワークサイトがある。その中で、今回、学会に参加する学習者には学会への事前自己学習システムのためにブログを立ち上げることを提案した。学習方法としては、Blogger.comによる無料ブログサイトを著者が作成し、週に1度、ディスカッショントピックを著者が学習者に提示する。ブログ内では学習者が指定されたトピックについて英語での意見交換、及びディスカッションが行われる。さらに、ディスカッションから得たアイディアを基に、英作文やレポート、エッセイなどのタスクを行った。ブログ活用の利点として、文法や語彙力をチェックするだけではなく、インターネットを介して自分の意見や考えを世界に発信することで、世界中からブログを見た人による反応を得られることにある。このように、ソーシャルネットワークにより他者と繋がることのできるブログは、人的ネットワークが基盤となっている学会の場と類似する点があると考えられる。神谷 (2014) によると、  73 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

内からの欲求や要求に駆り立てられて自ら行動することで自己の好奇心を満足させることは、教育心理学的視点の概念から「内発的動機」とよばれ、これを持つ学習者は英語学習においても長期的、継続的に学ぶようになり成功へと導かれやすいと示唆している。Deci (1996) は人が内発的動機づけを高める条件として、以下に述べる3 つの心理的欲求が必要であると示唆している。 (1) 自律性の欲求：行動が自己決定的であり、自ら主体的に行動したいという欲求。Blackmore-Squires (2010) によると、ブログは読み書きする際に自らが主体となって行うので、彼らは自信を持てる。実際に彼らはブログを書く際、誰の力も借りずに自分の力で記事を書き上げて掲載していた。 (2)有能性の欲求：何かをやり遂げることで自信を持ち、自己の能力を周囲に示したいという欲求) Nakagawa (2015) は学習者がブログを書いた際、はじめは自身の英語力に自信が持てず、記事を載せることを心配するが、他の学生からのコメントが増えるにつれ自信に繋がると述べている。さらに、Campbell (2004) は、ブログを書くことは自己の表現力を伸ばすことができると説明している。学会に参加した学習者もインタビューで、「時間をかけながら、ブログを書き上げ投稿し、他者から意見をもらうことで自信を得た。新たな記事をブログで書くことで、積極的に行幾つかの記事を投稿していくにつれ、自己の表現力の向上に繋がった」と述べた。事実、学生の書いたブログには記事に関係する様々なデータや参考文献が利用されており、自分の考えをより分かりやすく読み手に伝えようとする自発的な工夫が見られた。このような学生の思考力の変化は、自分の意見をより論理的に相手に伝えようとする彼らの積極性が関係したと考えられる。  74 

hiroshi nakagawa - innovative language acquisition

(3) 関係性の欲求：社会や周囲と密接な関係を築き、尊重し合う関係になりたいという欲求。Campbellは、ブログを利用して世界に情報を発信することは他者と交流する機会を広げると述べている。実際に、学生はブログの記事にコメントをもらう、またそれに対し返信をするといったように、他者との交流を深める一つのツールとしてブログを利用していた。Deci (1996)はこれら3つの欲求が同時に満たされたとき、学習者は課題に対して積極的に行動へ移すようになると結論づけている。このことから、本プロジェクトに参加した学生は、本論のテーマである自主性を学会に参加したことで養うことができ、内発的動機を持って英語学習を行うことができたと考えられる。すなわち、前述のことをブログといういわばバーチャルな世界での展開だけでなく、実際の学会参加という現実世界での英語実践に移すことで、学習者には異なる自信が植えつくと考える。

学会での様子学習者は2015年5月16日、17日の二日間にわたり神戸で開催された全国語学教育学会分野別研究部会で行われたPanSIG学会、さらに2015年11月20日、21日に行われた全国語学教育学会に参加した。学習者は全て英語でやりとりされる発表、質疑応答に対し、学習者が大きな困難に直面した様子はなく、わからないことは積極的にプレゼンターや他の参加者に質問し、理解を深めていた。学習者もプレゼンターが準備しているパワーポイントを通し専門英語を学び、よい意味での緊張感があったといえる。そして普段の授業と異なる緊張感の中に置かれていたにも関わらず、自らの経験を交えた質問や意見を発言することもできていた。  75 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

PanSIG学会では、英語教育者が研究発表のために集い、意見交換をすることで互いに学び合う場である。グローバルな社会に対応出来る能力を養う為には、学習者が実際に意見交換の場に参加し、自身の英語力を使って他者とコミュニケーションをとることが必要と考えられる。これは日本の英語教育で頻繁に見られる講義型のような、教育者から学習者への一方通行の英語教授法では決して与える事のできない要素であり、グローバルな社会に対応できる能力を養うことと考えられる。実際に学習者は学会に参加したことで英語教育者と交流し、自ら英語を使い考えるということを実践していた。また、異なるバックグラウンドを持つ人々とのネットワークを広げることで、新しい英語の学習方法やコミュニケーションの図り方を知ることも出来ていた。さらに、他者と関わることは多種多様な考えを共有することに繋がり、そこから新たなアイディアが生み出されることが大いに期待できるこういった点からも、学習者が学会に参加したことには極めて大きな効果があったと考えられる。更に、発表の中でのQ&Aでも学習者としての意見と視点を研究発表者や専門家に伝える事が出来た為、学会に参加した英語教育者への幅広い理解に繋がった。Bandura (1977) は、人が何か課題を与えられ、それに対して行動を起こす前に感じる「自分にはできそう」という期待や自信のことを「自己効力感」と定義している。さらに、自己効力感の高い学生は自己効力感の低い学生よりも自分にはできそうだという気持ちから、積極的にものごとに取り組む傾向があると述べている。これは英語教育者とのディスカッションを通じて彼らの思考力、伝える力を養い、それが他者に発言する際の自信につながったといえる。つまり「自己効力感」の向上に寄与したからだと考えられる。  76 

hiroshi nakagawa - innovative language acquisition

インタビュー調査セメスター終了後、調査対象者の全20名に1人約10分学会参加についてのインタビューを行った。これにより授業外で英語に触れることへの英語学習意識を調査した。質問内容は大きく以下の４点であるが、インタビューの流れからよりフィードバックを聞き出すため、状況に応じて、この４つの質問に繋がるサブクエスションも取り入れた。 1.この学会参加プロジェクトは英語力向上につながったと思いますか？ 2.学会参加後、英語学習への目的が明確になりましたか？ 3.学会に参加した事で自分にあった効率の良い英語学習方法が見つかりましたか？ 4.学会において、様々な価値観や考え方を持つ英語教育者及び、高度な英語力や実践応用力を備えた他校の学生達との意見交換をし合う人的ソーシャルネットワークを形成することは自己の英語力向上につながったと思いますか？

考察：学会参加による学習者の英語学習への意識インタビュー結果による問1においての考察は、学習者の60％が学会参加による事で英語力の向上に繋がったと認識している。中でも4名の学生は「普段、授業内で英語を実践的に使う機会が少ないため、授業外での英語コミュニケーションが自信と英語学習へのモチベーションに繋がった」と述べている。さらに、学習者達が英語を通して専門的な英語学習法を学会に参加している英語教員や研究者と話し合い、ディスカッションを通して意見をシェアし合うこと  77 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

で、英語学習者自身の現在の英語レベルの把握や、次なる英語学習への目標設定に繋がるものと考える。問２においては、英語学習への目的が明確になったと答えた学習者が70％に上った。特に、「学会参加を通じて、自分の英語力の足らない部分を認識し、今後の勉強のポイントがわかった」と述べている学習者が2名いることは注目に値する。さらに、「基礎からもう一度やり直そうという目標ができた」「 TOEIC®の目標点数が明確になった」という具体性に富む答えもあった。問3においては、学習者の90％が、「具体的には見つかっていないが、英語への自己学習意欲が上がった」と述べている。具体的には、「これから自分のためにも英語を自主的に学習しようとする意欲が前よりも強くなった」「以前より日常生活において英語を探すようになった」など、様々な角度からの学習意欲向上ととらえられると答えた。これは、今回のプロジェクトの目標の一つである、田上（2005）が提唱している「学習者の自律学習」にも繋がったのではないかと考える。問4については、全体の60％の学習者が英語学会参加並びに、学習者同志の事前、事後学習などから自身にあった学習方法を見いだしたといえる。「自分よりも英語を話せる友人に聞くことや、学会で先生に積極的に聞くことで、効果的と考えられる学習方法への気づきを得た」「その他のクラスメイトとの比較ができたので、自分の学習方法の長所・短所が自分なりに分析できた」などは、それらを端的に表す例であると考えられる。また、全体の80％の学習者がコミュニティーで学ぶ意識や、ソーシャルネットワークでの学習にポジティブであった。「今まで英語をこれだけ熱心に教えてくれる先生や周りの学生と出会ったことがなかっ  78 

hiroshi nakagawa - innovative language acquisition

たのでこのような（ネットワーク作るという）経験は英語力向上に繋がった」「英語力は他校との交流の際に不可欠であり、また、自分の知らないことを多く知れるので、英語力をさらに向上させようと考えた」など、積極的なコメントが目立った。事実、学生の書いたブログには記事に関係する様々なデータや参考文献が利用されており、自分の考えをより分かりやすく読み手に伝えようとする自発的な工夫が見られた。このような学生の思考力の変化は、自分の意見をより論理的に相手に伝えようとする彼らの積極性が関係したと考えられる。その他にも、学習者は「ある程度の英語力がない限り、英語での学会参加や発表の意味はないと思っていたが、今は特にそうは感じない」と答えた学生が8名いた。これらの結果より、彼らは英語教育者と関わる中で、現時点での自身の英語力を理解し、グローバルな社会に対応できるようになるためにはさらなる実践的な英語力の向上が必要であると感じ取ったことが示唆される。そして目標達成のための学習のステップや方法を再考し、自身の語学力向上のために意欲的に英語学習に取り組むようになったと考えられる。実際に学生達は学会で学んだことを自ら形にする学習方法の手段として、個人で行うことのできるソーシャルネットワーキングサービスを利用した取り組みと、複数人で取り組む実践練習の場を今後も多く設けることを案出した。

まとめ学会参加を目的とした、実践練習およびソーシャルネットワーキングサービスを利用したことによる結果から、本プロジェクトに参加した学生は内発的動機を持って英語学習を行うことができたと考えられ、本論のテーマである学会参加を通して、自主性を養い  79 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

英語を学ぶことができたと言える。グローバル社会に求められる人材について池田 (2014)は、1.英語で知識を習得することができる能力、2.英語で考察、判断することのできる能力、3.英語で仲間と協力、活動できる能力、4.英語で作業を行える能力を持つ人材であると列挙している。英語学習を通して、コミュニケーション能力をはじめ、批判的思考力、協調性を養うことのできる本プロジェクトは、まさに池田の述べた4つの能力をバランスよく向上させることができると考える。さらに酒井は、大学生は学外において英語を実践的に使える学習環境を学外に求めていることを示唆した。酒井は、対象となる大学生を英語力で上中下の３クラスに分け英語学習に対する意識調査を行い、上位にあたる学生の方が下位の学生に比べて授業の英語学習のみでは満足できず、学外でも英語を使う機会が必要であると考えていることを明らかにした。このことから、本プロジェクトのようにある一定以上の英語力を持つ学生を、学外で行われる学会のようなイベントに参加させると、より発展的な語学学習が可能であると確信づけた。学会では、論文で頻繁に名前を見かける著名な研究者達が世界各地から集まるという利点があり、英語教育研究や指導法についての発表と質疑応答による意見交換が求められる。そして参加者は学習および教育方法を議論し合い、発表した研究の動向や考察を議論する。このように、学会は発表者とAudienceが「英語教育がどのような意義を持つのか? 今後この英語教育や学習をさらに発展させるためには一体何が必要なのか?」という疑問に対して深く考えさせられる場となる。さらに、英語能力もさることながら、学生自身が英語教育者から見て議論をするだけの知識、能力、技術を持った人間でなければ会話を促し発展させていくことはできない。つまり、学生が学会に参加し英語教育者や研究者と接することで、学生  80 

hiroshi nakagawa - innovative language acquisition

は1人の人間としての素質を求められるのである。将来、国際社会において主体的な活躍を望む学生が、この点を認識することは大きなメリットであるといえる。そして、著名な教育者や研究者を目の前にして話しかけられないもどかしさ、一方話しかけてもらえた時の嬉しさが、学習者の英語学習への動機付けになる。例えば、発表者と会話をする機会を得ることができたとしても、英語能力が不十分でるためより詳細な研究内容の話をするまでに至らなかったとしても、教育者と英語を通してコミュニケーションを図ることができたということ自体が学生に自信を与える。さらに、教育者と自由に意見を交換し英語の学習方法を学ぶことは英語への抵抗感を減らすことのみならず、英語を媒介語としたコミュニケーション能力を身につけることにも貢献し、「自ら英語を使い学習する」という強い信念を養うことができると考える。英語の学習方法や教育のあり方を理解した学生は、学習者の立場から英語教育を考え、自分たちに合った学習方法を見いだすことで、学習者同士が教え合う学生主体型の授業への転換が望める。学生主体型の授業は、英語の勉強や授業内でのディスカッション、海外留学や国際フォーラムに活かす事ができると言える。言語の習得はコミュニケーションツールの一つであり、対話者ときちんと意見交換するためには、基礎的な語学力を身につけた上で話し相手の国の文化や習慣、社会情勢を把握しさらに、伝えたい事柄や知りたい内容を明確に持つことも必要であると考える。そうすることで内容に富んだ会話ができるようになり、結果的に語彙力の向上にも繋がる。

 81 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

今後の研究への課題今後の研究としては、学会参加を前提として授業の中に取り入れた様々な協働学習と4技能を統合した教授法に基づいてクラスへ導入することが、学習者の英語学習へのAnxiety Levelの変化、学習者のリスニング力・リーディング力の伸長にどのように連関しているかという点の比較考察を、Holowitz et al. (1986)の作成した質問表に依拠して行う予定である。また、本稿での考察を検証するために、よりデータの数を増やし、統計的分析を用いた分析も行っていきたいと考えている。このプロセスを経れば、本稿で検討してきたように、学会参加を一つの目標として、学習者の協働学習・自律学習を促す様々な教授法を教室内に導入することによる効果がより高まることが考えられる。このような、学習者の知的好奇心を刺激し深めていくことにより、多様化する学習者の総合的英語運用能力向上を標榜する、より包括的な高い目標を目指すべく新しい視点が与えられることを大いに期待したい。

 82 

hiroshi nakagawa - innovative language acquisition

References Aoki, N. (1996). Autonomous Learning: What, why and how?. ASTE Newsletter, No.35. Retrieved from: http://www.bun-eido.co.jp/aste/aste81.html Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Blackmore-Squires, S. (2010). An investigation into the use of a blog as a tool to improve writing in the second language classroom. Unpublished Masters dissertation. University of Manchester, UK. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principle: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (Third ed.) White Plains, New York: Pearson Education. Campbell, A. P. (2004). Using Live Journal for authentic communication in EFL classes. The Internet TESL Journal, 10(9). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/ Techniques/Campbell-LiveJournal Crandall, J. A. (1999).Cooperative language learning and affective factors. In Arnold, J. (Ed.), Affective Factors in Language Learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Deci, E.L., & Flaste, R. (1996). Why We Do and What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation.New York: Penguin Books.

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 83 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1 Fanselow, J. F. (1987). Breaking Rules: Generating and Exploring Alternatives in Language Teaching. New York: Longman. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70 (2), 125-132. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E.J.,Roy, P.(1984). Circle of learning. Cooperation in the classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED241516.pdf Legutke, M. & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and Experience in the Language Classroom. London: Longman. Nakagawa, H.(2015).Integrating Blogs to Enhance Written Communication Skills. Tokai University International Education Center Report, 35, 41-48. 神谷雅仁.

(2014)「英語学習を促進させる動機付けと環境づくり―学生生活

実態調査から見えてきた学生像の分析から」Sophia University Junior College

Division Faculty Journal, 35, 89-103. 池田真(2014) 「上智大学の実践:「内容言語統合型(CLIL)」が切り拓く大学英語教育の可能性」『金沢大学外国語教育研究センター外国語教育フォーラム』8, 5968.

岡田龍樹. (1999). Self-directed Learning: 概念の検討─アレン・タフの学習プロジェクトの分析. 『生涯教育研究』第３号

 84 

hiroshi nakagawa - innovative language acquisition 岡本京子. (2006). 自律学習型英文法補習クラスの指導方略と実践. 多摩大学研究紀要10, 53-61.

清田洋一. (2010).「リメディアル教育における自尊感情と英語学習動機」リメディアル教育研究 5(1), 37-43

小林敏彦. (1999). 海外短期語学研修で英語力はどのくらい伸びるものか. 人文研究, 97:83-100

酒井志延. (2010).「大学生の英語学習の意識格差についての研究」『リメディアル教育研究』5(1), 9-20.

佐々木緑. (2010).「自律学習支援のための学習者コミュニティーの構築」関西国際大学教育総合研究所叢書, 3, 97-107.

齊尾恭子. (2009). 協調自律学習による授業デザインと実践. 関西大学文学部心理学会: 文学部心理学論集, 3, 23-24.

田上優子. (2005). 生涯学習としての英語: Non-Strained Learnersが示す自律学習. 霞ヶ丘リビュー11, 157-170.

舘岡洋子. (2002).「日本語でのアカデミック・スキルの養成と自律学習」『東海大学紀要留学生教育センター』第22 号, 1-20.

廣森友人. (2013). 「自律学習の処方箋：自律した学習者を育てる視点」『中部地区英語教育学会紀要』(42), 289-296.

 85 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1 花見眞子. (2012) .「『ブレインストーミング』英語で授業するしない」三重大学国際交流センター紀要7, 93-107.

松本茂. (2009)「英語ディベート理論と実践」『玉川大学出版部』1, 330.

丸野俊一. (2001)「目的の違いによって, ディスカッションの過程や内容がいかに異なるか」『九州大学成果文献』2, 11-33.

山内真理. (2008). 「大学英語教育におけるICT活用」『神戸海星女子学院大学研究紀要』47, 93-119.

 86 

Teaching Applied Ethics as an Integrated English Course in a Japanese University

SHAUN O’DW YER KYUSHU UNIVERSITY

Abstract: This article discusses the design and teaching of a course in Applied Ethics to mostly EFL students at a Japanese university, based on methodologies from Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The article summarizes the CBI and CLIL principles that informed the development of the course and the composition of a specially written textbook incorporating abridged Applied Ethics readings. Based on the writer’s own experience and feedback from students, the benefits for EFL students are discussed, using the headings “General Academic English Skills”, “Specialized Academic Skills” and “Intercultural Understanding”. The article concludes with problems the author has faced and tried to remedy while teaching the course.

 87 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Introduction When I was a philosophy graduate student, I often told the following joke to my friends. Q: How do you get a philosopher off your doorstep? A: Buy the pizza! The popular joke alluded to a negative stereotype about the impracticality of philosophical study for a job, and for life in general. That stereotype is ancient; in Plato’s dialogues, one of Socrates’ harsher critics compares philosophy to a “pretty toy” that youth may tolerably play with, but which is useless and ruinous to those who pursue it into adulthood (Plato, 1971).

Given the prevalence of this stereotype, one could ask how useful a philosophical subject like Applied Ethics would be to students learning academic English in Japanese universities. Since I have taught Applied Ethics to Japanese university students through an English language course based on both Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodologies, I will try and answer that question here. I will make as a good a case as possible for the worth of such a course in an L2 educational setting, where it can act as an effective medium for the teaching of both general academic, as well as specialized critical thinking, skills. Drawing on my experience and on insights gleaned from the literature on CBI and CLIL, I will discuss some of the benefits students can derive from studying this subject, and some of the problems I have faced while teaching it .

 88 

shaun o’dwyer - applied ethics in a japanese university

Designing and Teaching an Applied Ethics Course Based on CBI and CLIL Methodologies CBI approaches to English language teaching emerged out of pioneering English language immersion programs in Canadian and American high schools and universities in the 1980s. These programs both reflected and put into effect a central argument of Robert Krashen’s comprehensible language hypothesis “that language is best acquired incidentally through extensive exposure to comprehensible input” (Grabe & Stoller, 1997). They also reflect the insight that cognitive academic language proficiency of the sort required to succeed in an L2 academic environment can take five to seven years to develop. Given such a lengthy time span, it makes sense to integrate at an early stage language learning with the formal learning of academic subjects in L2 to facilitate students’ academic progress in L2 (Grabe & Stoller, 1997). The central notion behind content-based instruction is not to provide explicit, form-focused instruction in courses teaching the separate English macro-skills of reading, writing, speaking and listening. It is to teach language learners lessons based on academic themes such as history, geography or economics in a second or foreign language that is pitched at or just above their own level of competence, and to teach those lessons in such a way that “the target language is a medium of communication rather than an object of analysis,” (Dupay, 2000). The expectation is that students will acquire skill in the target language through exposure to it as the everyday means of study and teaching in specially designed courses which naturally integrate English macro-skills.  89 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

The idea that content-based instruction involves “learning about something rather than learning about language” (Davies, 2003), with students incidentally acquiring the target language throughout, simplifies things. However, CBI practitioners have themselves learned through experience that students’ academic progress suffers if there is too much focus on content at the expense of form, particularly in “productive language” skills such as speaking and writing. Thus, CBI programs nowadays tend to balance the focus on content with “explicit focus on relevant and contextually appropriate language forms” (Grabe & Stoller, 1997) and the Applied Ethics course I discuss below incorporates this insight. Content and Integrated Learning approaches to teaching in L2 developed out of research on bilingual and multilingual education strategies in European Union countries during the 1990s, in response to requirements to teach school curricula in two or more languages (Marsh, Maljers & Hartiela, 2002). CLIL shares with CBI a commitment to using L2 as the medium for instruction for teaching academic content, rather than making it the focus of instruction. However, while courses developed from CBI approaches tend to move between short-term content learning tasks based around different academic themes such as history, literature or geography in individual units or textbook chapters, CLIL often takes content learning to a higher level by teaching an entire course on a particular subject in a second or foreign language. Thus, CLIL becomes “one huge task which ensures the use of the foreign language for ‘authentic communication’” (Dalton-Puffer, 2007). The use of the term “integrated” in the CLIL acronym reflects the goal  90 

shaun o’dwyer - applied ethics in a japanese university

of integrating L2 into a curriculum in which it is the medium of instruction for entire courses, alongside other courses taught in L1. In 2010 I was given the chance to design and teach an Applied Ethics course as an “integrated English” elective course in the School of Global Japanese Studies at Meiji University. The course was available to both Japanese and foreign students from second year or above, who were studying, or had completed their studies in the school’s two-year compulsory “Core English Program”. It was also open to foreign students enrolled in the school’s special “English Track” curriculum. I taught this one-semester course to classes ranging in size from six to 17 students, mostly Japanese,and including some students from Korea, China and Europe. Working from a definition of Applied Ethics as a discipline which “addresses the moral permissibility of specific actions and practices” by drawing upon, applying and debating the applications of different moral theories developed in normative ethics (Ditmar, n.d, para 5), I designed a syllabus around a textbook I compiled. This incorporated the following features, drawing on both CBI and CLIL methodologies. i) An introductory chapter outlining what Applied Ethics is and introducing concepts from informal logic, including argumentative premises and conclusions, validity and soundness in logic, as well as ethical concepts such as moral permissibility and impermissibility .

 91 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

ii) Three chapters written in simplified English on the main normative ethical theories informing Anglo-American Applied Ethics: deontological or Kantian ethics, utilitarian ethics and virtue ethics. iii) 11 chapters devoted to major issues in Applied Ethics, including abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, and the ethics of torture, with introductory discussion of the historical and cultural contexts in which debates over these issues have arisen. The chapters incorporate abridged readings of two to three pages from thinkers who have taken opposing stances on these issues. iv) Accompanying each reading are discussion questions which test for general reading comprehension, as well as more specific critical thinking skills. These questions encourage students to assess the logical coherence of the arguments in the readings, their persuasiveness relative to other readings which advance dissenting arguments, and also elicit students’ own opinions about those arguments. v) 150 vocabulary items divided between the textbook’s 15 chapters, half drawn from Averil Coxhead’s academic word list (2000), and half drawn from specialist philosophical vocabulary.

 92 

shaun oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;dwyer - applied ethics in a japanese university

vi) An argumentative essay writing workshop with a model Applied Ethics essay. vii) Assessment based on regular vocabulary mini-tests, an oral presentation, one long essay and active participation in class discussion. The course and the textbook were designed to achieve a balance between focus on content and focus on form. General and specialist academic vocabulary was incorporated by using it throughout the textbook and having it regularly tested in mini quizzes. Review classes on essay writing composition and accurate scholarly citation were included. The course was also designed to integrate and build on the academic English macro-skills learnt in the Core English Program in the School of Global Japanese Studies at Meiji University, with expectations for students to give oral presentations and participate in group discussions, do intensive reading and reading comprehension exercises, and write argumentative essays. In the next section I will discuss the benefits students derived from participating in the course.

Benefits of Studying Applied Ethics in an L2 Learning Setting The following discussion is largely anecdote-based, as I have not yet taken a systematic survey of student opinion beyond the feedback surveys which teachers distribute to students for all courses in the department. This discussion draws from personal feedback solicited from students, as well as from the anonymous answers written in these surveys. I will first consider the potential ď&#x201A;&#x161; 93 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

benefits of such a course under three headings: General Academic English Skills, Specialized Academic Skills and Intercultural Understanding. i.

General Academic English Skills

A number of third and fourth year students commented that they relished the chance the course gave them to engage in English language oral presentation, discussion and debate. After students finish their intensive two-year Core English Program, it is possible for them to never study English again before the completion of their degree. This is a source of anxiety for some students who want to maintain or improve their English language proficiency. This course’s focus on vocabulary, reading comprehension and academic essay writing was intended to build on and complement the general English for academic purposes macro-skills (including general critical thinking skills) learned in the Core English Program. The generally good quality of student essays and presentations suggests that the course has been successful in this endeavor. iI. Specialized Academic Skills

There are a number of philosophical skills and specialized critical thinking skills which can be cultivated as students discuss Applied Ethics issues with each other, write about them and reflect upon texts about them. These skills consist in the capacity to reason about “common sense” convictions regarding Applied Ethics issues, and to question those convictions - is abortion morally permissible or impermissible? What are the reasons for thinking it is, or isn’t?  94 

shaun o’dwyer - applied ethics in a japanese university

What do I think? They also lie in the students’ ability to reason about their reasoning about ethical issues – are my reasons for believing voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible good reasons? Do these reasons really match with my reasons for thinking non-voluntary euthanasia for severely disabled infants is morally impermissible? Do I need to change my mind about one of these issues? There is some evidence from experiments with philosophy-based language teaching that successful cultivation of such philosophical skills in L2 leads to more sophisticated output in L2 speaking and writing (Shahini & Riazi, 2011). I will consider one instance of the above reasoning as I have seen it at work in my classes. I have noticed that some students are drawn to the course textbook’s discussion of a public stand Oxford University philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe took against the awarding of an honorary degree to former United States president Harry Truman, at Oxford University in 1956. Because Truman had given the orders for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 to end the war, Anscombe opposed the awarding of the degree, arguing that, “For men to choose to kill the innocent as a means to their ends is always murder, and murder is one of the worst human actions” (Anscombe 1981, p.64). The trouble begins once the students find out that Anscombe opposed abortion and euthanasia on the same grounds, that fetuses and terminally ill adults actively requesting to end their lives are also innocent human beings whose lives must not be taken under any circumstances. For those students who do not wish to follow Anscombe’s  95 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

reasoning all the way, the next step is to engage in what philosophers call reflective equilibrium (Daniels, 2013). That is, they have to find a way to maintain overall cohesion within and between three levels of reasoning: their intuitive moral judgments in specific situations, the general moral principles they apply in different situations of moral judgment, and the common sense normative theories informing those principles. Students’ efforts to maintain or achieve this cohesion may require them to revise some of their judgments, moral principles or even background theories. The struggle of critical thinking involves working out a balance between less absolute moral background theories, moral principles and consistent applications of those principles. The reasoning of a student might run like this: “Yes, I think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely wrong, that the killing of innocent human beings is never justified. But I think abortion is acceptable, so is there any way in which I can say a fetus is not a human being?” They would need to leverage all of their language skills to express this as clearly as possible. iII. Intercultural Understanding

An unfortunate but commonplace tendency in some varieties of multiculturalism is to believe that countries or communities are to be characterized by “cultures” that are self-contained and internally homogeneous, and that entire regions as well as more local communities are to be classed under singular cultural, religious or civilizational identities. Under the spell of such thinking, the key to grasping the cultural differences between “them” and “us”  96 

shaun o’dwyer - applied ethics in a japanese university

lies in understanding both the value consensus maintaining “their” supposed cultural homogeneity, and understanding the manifestations of that homogeneity in manners, customs, costume, dietary preferences,ideology and religious belief. Though this view of cultural difference may be harmless enough up to a point, subjecting it to critical thinking in an intercultural L2 learning environment can generate deeper insight into cultural differences between societies or communities by understanding the issues which their members also disagree with each other about. An Applied Ethics course in an intercultural classroom setting can be the vehicle for fostering such an understanding. Troubleshooting Issues I will conclude with a brief discussion of the two main problems I have encountered and tried to overcome in teaching this course. The chief problem for the course is that some of the textbook readings are difficult, according to student feedback. The English proficiency range of students taking the course has been broad, from TOEFL iBT score levels of 55 through to over 90. For the former, even two or three pages of abridged philosophical text can be strenuous. The divergence in proficiency has proven to be a challenge; I have tried to balance my wish to expose students to authentic philosophical texts,and not just simplified English paraphrasing, with a reading level that is satisfactory for all. The concern here, which has been raised in other CLIL teaching contexts, is that in such a demanding L2 learning medium, students may acquire a reduced competence in the course subject matter due to “imperfect understanding” of  97 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

L2 learning materials and instruction (Dalton-Puffer 2008, p.142). One potential remedy for this problem is to give a mini-lecture at the beginning of each class in “rough tuned” talk, to walk the class through the readings. Another is to direct students to supplementary Japanese or other non-English language sources that cover the same subject matter. Another difficulty in the course is that students of higher English language proficiency sometimes dominate group conversations. My discussion group policy has usually been to divide the more proficient English speakers evenly between groups, rather than to segregate groups by proficiency. While this has sometimes led to more proficient students dominating philosophical discussion, I monitor the groups from a distance to ensure that the more able English speakers do not do this, and that they help quieter, less confident speakers to take their turn to speak. I hope to continue to refine the Applied Ethics course to more effectively develop the critical thinking and English language macro-skills of students in the years to come.

 98 

shaun o’dwyer - applied ethics in a japanese university

References Anscombe, E. (1981). Ethics, Religion and Politics: Collected Philosophical Papers Volume III. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2):213238. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Integrated Learning Classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008).“Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe.” In Werner Delanoy&Laurenz Volkmann, (eds.), Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 139-157. Daniels, N. (2013). “Reflective Equilibrium”. In Daniel N. Zalta (ed) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed June 30th 2016. http://plato.stanford.edu/ cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=reflective-equilibrium Davies, S. (2003). Content Based Instruction in EFL contexts. The Internet TESL Journal,9(2): 9-17. Ditmar, J. (n.d.) “Applied Ethics”.Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. Accessed May 3rd, 2016.http://www.iep.utm.edu/ap-ethic/

 99 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1 Dupay, B. (2000). Content-Based Instruction: Can it Help Ease the Transition from Beginning to Advanced Foreign Language Classes? Foreign Language Annals,33(2): 205-223. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (1997). Content Based Instruction: Research and Foundations, in M.A. Snow and D Brinton (eds) The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content, London: Pearson, pp.5-21. Marsh, D., Maljers, A., & Hartiala, A. (2001). Profiling European CLIL Classrooms. The Netherlands: University of Jyväskylä, Finland & European Platform for Dutch Education. Plato. (1971). Gorgias. W. Hamilton (trans) Penguin: London. Shahini, G., & Mehdi R. (2011). A PBLT approach to teaching ESL speaking, writing, and thinking skills. ELT Journal 65(2): 170-179.

 100 

This Class Changed the Way I Think: Trialing a Critical Thinking Skills Course in a Japanese University JAMES OWENS KANDA UNIVERSITY OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Abstract: Amongst EFL teachers in Japanese schools and universities, there seems to be reluctance to teach critical thinking to students based on the assumption that it is something students ‘can’t do’. In the following paper, that assumption is challenged. A critical thinking course, in which the main focus is the critical analysis of text, was first piloted in 2015/16 at a Japanese university, and met with some success. In this paper, the course and its contents are briefly described. Additionally, student reactions to the course in the form of answers to a survey are examined. The paper concludes by suggesting that critical thinking both can and should be taught to willing Japanese learners.

 101 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Introduction In the modern globalized world, the ability to think critically is an essential skill, and as such should be incorporated into language teaching. Not only does the teaching of critical analysis in EFL contexts arguably “make learners more motivated and thus successful, and… improve the learning process in general” (Amari, 2015: 87); the teaching of critical thinking is in itself a justifiable goal that empowers learners. It has been argued that an emphasis on critical thinking in the EFL classroom reflects a (Western) cultural bias (Atkinson, 1997; Ramanathan & Kaplan, 1996), and that “…many cultures endorse modes of thought and education that almost diametrically oppose it,” (Atkinson, 1997). However, scholars such as Oda (2008) and Kubota (1999) question the assumption that critical thinking is solely a “Western” value at all. Kubota (1999) promotes “a perspective of critical literacy that supports both cultural pluralism and critical acquisition of the dominant language for social transformation” (p. 9). In a globalised world, we are all, irrespective of culture, inundated with media and advertising, as well as political rhetoric. The ability to think critically and independently is needed to filter this information. It is also a sought-after competency in most jobs in the “post-Fordist” era in which we live. Thus, a failure to teach students critical thinking skills would amount to a failure to empower them in the modern world. As Long (2003: 230) argues, “If students are not exposed to these skills, they will be denied the opportunity to compete in the global community.” Based on the author’s own observations and experience, it is a  102 

james owens - critical thinking in japanese university

common complaint amongst native English teachers in Japan (and even amongst the students themselves) that students seem unable to think critically. Such an assumption may perhaps be a response to their students being, for alleged cultural reasons, relatively unwilling to share their opinions as readily as students from some other cultures (Ellwood, 2000). It is also perhaps due to critical thinking being rarely explicitly taught or valued as a skill in itself in Japan, something which the Japanese Ministry of Education has itself recognized and sought to address in stating its hopes for future reform: “The aim is to enable children to learn … to develop… gifts and faculties to find assignments, learn, and think by themselves, make decisions independently, take actions, and solve problems better” (MEXT, 2002). However, in this paper an argument is made that reticence should not be mistaken for lack of critical thinking ability, nor should the assumption be made that having had relatively little previous exposure to the explicit learning of analytical skills amounts to an inherent inability. The argument is that, with the right guidance and simplification of key terms and ideas so that second language learners can understand them, a course in critical thinking can meet success with Japanese learners in a university context. The paper will describe the contents of a trial course and the reaction it generated amongst students. Description of the Course The Critical Thinking (CT) course in question is an elective that students in their third and fourth year (and second year for  103 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

exceptional students) can take at a Japanese university. The students who choose to take the CT course come from various different levels, and there is no prerequisite score or grade needed to enroll. The focus of this paper is the first trial year of the course in 2015. Over 150 students attempted to sign up for the course during the first semester it was launched, where the maximum usually allowed in an elective class is 30. After some negotiation, this was extended to 34. These numbers testify to the popularity and level of interest Japanese young people have in critical thinking, despite assumptions to the contrary. Whilst the name of the course is “Critical Thinking”, a more accurate title might have been “Critical Analysis”, as students mostly engage with texts from the worlds of media and advertising and critically analyze them. One reason given for the creation of the course is that students engage in some critical analysis of texts in their ‘Foundational Literacies’ classes in their freshman year, but thereafter do not have much opportunity to revisit these essential skills. The CT course runs for 15 weeks, with two 90-minute classes taken each week, making for a total of 45 hours of class time. In the first lesson, after some discussion of what critical thinking is and their reasons for taking the course, students are given a text. The text is inauthentic, posing as a research article about a remote tribe on a fictional island. Some “native language” features in the text and students are asked to infer what the words might mean by guessing from the context and discussing in groups. After some time, students are asked to read the “words” backwards, where in  104 

james owens - critical thinking in japanese university

English they decode as “This is not true. Do not believe everything you read.” Students are then asked why they believed what they read, where they invariably answer because their teacher gave them this text, and they almost always assume their teacher to be telling the truth. The purpose of this short “shock therapy” lesson is to encourage students to develop a critical eye towards everything, even the very materials they will encounter on this course. They are shown that they have the right to question and challenge anything and anyone during the duration of the CT course. Thereafter students deal with different themes and aspects of textual analysis. The basic terms and ideas are introduced during class time, and then for homework students apply what they learn to texts which they find themselves (usually in English but sometimes in their L1 too). The definition of text is very loose, defined as “any stretch of language that functions as a unit,” or “anything which involves a recognized language system,” (Baker &Ellege, 2013) so that students are as equally encouraged to look at, for example, posters, movies or spoken conversations as they are written texts. Firstly, they are introduced to macro-structure and the analysis of whole texts, specifically the idea of genre, and then field (the general subject matter of a text), tenor (the relationship between participants in a text, or between author and audience) and mode (the form of communication e.g. written or visual, formal or informal) (Halliday, 1985). After analyzing some simple short texts and being asked to identify the above, they are acquainted with the idea of authorial purpose/intention –that is, who is the author and why did they create this text? To make things simpler, the most  105 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

common five purposes are listed as: to persuade, to inform, to offer, to request and to entertain; although if students feel a text does not conform to any of these examples ( for example what intention does a diary entry have, or a conversation with a therapist?) they are encouraged to suggest alternatives. Similarly, students may feel that there is more than one authorial purpose in a text. Following this emphasis on the author and their goals, the students next consider who the audience may be, and how the author is constructing an idealized audience, or “reader-in-the-text” (Thompson & Thetela, 1995) in the case of written texts. In this way they question what a text is, its context, and the reason why it was written, in order to engage critically with it. In the next few classes, students next turn their attention to the micro-structure and detail of texts. For example, on the clause level they are asked to look at interactional patterns (Thompson, 2001) in text, and to categorize each chunk of language as a statement, offer, command or question. Where ambiguity exists, students are encouraged to discuss this further. Chiefly, they are asked to consider apparent contradictions in the author’s choice. For instance, the purpose of an advertisement is invariably to persuade, and yet the author will often deliberately frame many clauses as offers. Similarly, when a teacher in essence gives a command, they might frame it in the form of a question (“Can you please finish the worksheet at home by next lesson?”) or a statement (“The deadline for assignments is Monday”). Students reflect on the reasons for these linguistic choices and apparent contradictions. The course is essentially divided into two parts, whereby in the  106 

james owens - critical thinking in japanese university

first few weeks students spend most of their time looking at the world of advertising. This genre was chosen partly because of its rich source of material, and partly because of the way it lends itself to critical analysis exercises. Adverts are “tricky” by nature because their main function is to persuade us to buy (what we often do not need) and this persuasive technique is hidden from the audience. Advertising is also widespread in any capitalist/consumerist culture, including Japan. Students first elicit a list of the techniques and “tricks” they believe advertisers use, based on their own experiences. They are then given access to a range of reading material that details prevalent techniques (such as playing on insecurities and fears). The idea of a “problem-solution” model, common in narrative, is conveyed to students, where a problem (usually an insecurity) is created by the advertiser and the solution involves buying their product. Students find examples of adverts in any mode, language or culture that they believe conforms to this model, or any exceptions that they believe follow other models, and present them to one another. Over the next few lessons, students learn about and discuss the psychology of advertising. They watch a three-part BBC documentary titled “The Men Who Made Us Spend”, and after answering some basic comprehension questions, they discuss in groups the key ideas that come up in the video. Their first graded assignment involves a group presentation, whereby the students use everything they have learnt so far to critically analyze advertisements in front of their peers and their teacher. They are given a rubric to follow before the presentation and  107 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

two weeks to prepare. They are graded on their presentation skills (interaction with the audience, pronunciation, fluency, gesture, and related aspects) but the main part of their grade is based on the content – that is, the extent to which they demonstrate they have understood the ideas thus far by critically analyzing an advert. The advert can be in any form (such as video or poster) and they have the option of comparing and contrasting two or more different adverts. As well as feedback from their teacher in the form of a grade and set of comments related to the rubric, students also receive feedback from their peers. The second part of the course focuses on media texts, chiefly from news organizations. Students begin by doing research on who owns the media, for example in Japan. They also look at how it is funded, whether there are any tycoons who own more than one media company, and the relationship between government and the media. They question, for example, why Japan’s media has dropped 61 places in the Press Freedom index (Reporters Without Borders, 2016) in the last six years. Students learn that in any critical analysis, it is important to consider the conditions under which a text is produced; this is instructed through consideration of Fairclough’s (2015) belief that “the media operate as a means for the expression and reproduction of the power of the dominant class and bloc” (p. 80). In the next few classes, students further examine the idea that “every aspect of textual content is the result of ‘choice’,” (Richardson 2007). A class activity here involves students comparing two or more texts covering the same news story in order to make the authorial  108 

james owens - critical thinking in japanese university

choices involved more salient. Firstly, students consider the idea of informational choices. Why does one news report include extra or different information to other reports that cover the same issue? This then evolves into looking at language as choice. Even where the information in two different texts is the same or similar, authors have at their disposal the means to “describe the same event in many different ways” (Richardson, 2007). One consideration here is vocabulary choices. On a fairly obvious level, one person’s “freedom fighter” is another’s “terrorist”, while the more neutral option of “rebel” also exists, but what subtler word choices may shape the opinions of readers? After looking at some examples in class, students are assigned homework where they are asked to examine news texts for interesting vocabulary choices. At this point, a simplified version of Van Leeuwen’s (1996) “representation of social actors” model is presented to students. In this model, Van Leeuwen identifies, for the purpose of Critical Discourse Analysis of texts, various ways that authors identify and categorize the participants (“social actors”) in their texts. When presented to students, the more technical terms are avoided, so that instead of looking at “nomination”, “functionalization”, or “appraisal”, students are asked more simply to consider how participants in a text are named (e.g. formally, informally, or anonymously) categorized (e.g. by job, appearance, or by gender) and evaluated (positively or negatively) and then asked to consider why. The next course component is grammatical choices. Here the main tool is the Hallidayan notion of Functional Grammar, a  109 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

“grammar of choices rather than of rules” (Halliday, 1978), although once again the terminology is simplified. Students are encouraged to think about how the structure of a sentence can manipulate facts to have a certain desired effect on the reader. That is, what are the “relationships between participants and the roles they play in the process described in reporting” (Richardson, 2007:54)? Who (subject) is acting on whom (object) in what sort of process (verb), and what other options are available to the author? Do they make use of passive sentences? Agent deletion? Nominalisation? If so, that perennial question: why? All of the above feeds into a more general discussion of ideology. All texts can be said to contain a normative value system (Hunston & Thompson, 2000:6). The choices an author makes can give us a clearer idea of what this embedded ideology might be, which then reconnects back to the idea of who the author is and in what context they are producing the text. In the final classes, students take a closer look at a variety of topics such as sexist language, multi-modality and transcribing conversations, in case they wish to analyze a spoken dialogue instead of a written text in their final assignment. The kind of activities they engage in are the same as throughout much of the course: they are taught or introduced to a skill or simplified method/theory, given opportunities in class to practice the skill/method with authentic texts and discuss its implications, and then they find their own texts to analyze to bring to the following class and show to their classmates, encouraging a deeper understanding of the ideas by instilling some sense of personalized ownership over them.  110 

james owens - critical thinking in japanese university

In the final assignment, students have some choice: they can either do another group presentation, or write an individual essay. In both options, the students are required to look at any text/s and critically analyze them in light of all they have studied on the course. They are again given rubrics, and feedback/final grades by their teacher. At the end of the course, students are asked to take a survey in which they evaluate the course and the extent to which they feet it has been useful. What follows is an analysis of the results of the survey taken at the end of the 2015/16 academic year. Student Reactions to the CT Course In total, three classes took the CT course during the trial year. All students were asked to complete a survey for the purposes of feedback. Out of a total of 80 students, 36 replied. This does call the reliability of the results into question, as it can be assumed that only the most motivated students and therefore those with the most positive attitudes towards the course would reply; it is a form of voluntary response bias. In addition, any survey asking students for their opinion of a course inherently has its limitations, as learners do not always have the most qualified opinion of what makes an effective course. Nonetheless, the results make for interesting reading and certainly seem to dispel any notion that Japanese students are incapable or unwilling to engage in critical thinking. The survey was taken anonymously online in studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; free time and they were encouraged to be as honest as possible. ď&#x201A;&#x161; 111 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

The first question gauged the extent to which they agreed that each of the core objectives of the CT course had been met. There were four possible answers ranging from completely disagree (weighted as 1 point) to completely agree (4 points), thus an average score ranging from 1 to 2.49 would imply an overall negative evaluation of each statement, while anything from 2.51 to 4 would imply a positive evaluation. There was deliberately no middle option available as an answer, as Chen et al., (1995) showed that Japanese and Chinese students in particular have a tendency to choose a “no opinion” option if given the opportunity. All the answers given in this first section (see Appendix) were extremely positive, with average weightings ranging from 3.31 to 3.94. The most positive answers were received when respondents were asked if they agreed that “critical thinking is an important skill as it helps people to think more carefully and develop the ability to think independently”, with over 94 percent stating that they completely agreed. Five of the nine statements received no disagree responses at all, and only one statement (“Now when I read, I think more carefully about who is writing/speaking and why”) received any “completely disagree” feedback. The most common response for seven of the nine statements was “completely agree”, and for the other two it was “agree”. This is a strong verification that the CT course was successful in igniting interest in critical thinking. Students also had the chance to offer additional comments if they so wished and all six of the responses here also offered positive feedback, the following of which are two examples:  112 

james owens - critical thinking in japanese university

• Before I took your class I didn’t know much about how to think critically. However during your class, I learned how to do so and that is not so difficult. • I can now be more carefully when I read or watch whatever advertise items. Ur [sic] class made me change well how I pay attention in each advertisement. Thank you so much.

The next question asked respondents to give the course an overall rating, choosing either poor, okay, good, or excellent. Again the responses make for encouraging reading, with 70 percent rating the course as excellent and 30 percent as good. When asked for additional comment, once more all eight replies offered very positive remarks, such as:

• This class was the most interesting one in my college life. The number of thinking the Media and this society has been increased since I was in your class. Thank you. • Japanese don’t think carefully about the problem that media controls our mind, so this course helped and changed me a lot.

 113 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

• This class stunned me and changed the way I think now. It has changed my whole entire life. I’ve recommended my friends and juniors this class. • We had lots of discussion time and that encourage me to think deeply and also classmates gave me different and unique ideas. These experiences were very meaningful for me.

One respondent, however, did imply that they found it difficult to think critically by themselves without any “guidance”. The final question asked students if they could offer any suggestions on how to improve the course. Even though this question was essentially inviting criticism, 11 of the 18 responses offered positive appraisal of the course, suggesting no improvements were necessary. For example:

• Through discussing these things, students understand the mechanism of purchasing by themselves and trick of companies and advertisements… The knowledge what I learned from you will help me a lot. Thank you. • I think that the way to approach this topic and types of assignments were great and these were really helpful for me to understand what critical thinking is.  114 

james owens - critical thinking in japanese university

• Everything was precise for me: amounts of assignments, learning lifelong useful skills, and student discussion time. • Nothing. All I’ve done in this class was excellent. • No. Critical thinking made me think everything deeply. It is big change for me, so I’m really satisfied with critical thinking class. • Everything was perfect and excellent.

However, some students did offer some suggestions. Two common complaints (three each) focused on the use of “group presentations” as assignments, saying it was not fair to share a grade with “weaker” students, and on the time spent (“too long”) in class on watching the three-hour documentary. One other respondent suggested that the class level was too high for them and that they had found it difficult to keep up with the pace of discussion. In response to these suggestions, some changes have been made to the course. Students are now encouraged to write individual essays instead of doing group presentations for the second assignment if they so wish (the option already existed but perhaps it was not encouraged enough), and the time spent on watching videos in class has been reduced. Students now watch most of the video at home, or each episode is given to a separate group who then summarize it to classmates who watched a different episode. This has the dual benefit of reducing class time spent watching  115 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

videos and encouraging students to demonstrate comprehension and paraphrasing skills. Overall, however, the student responses to the survey reveal strongly positive reactions to the creation of the course. Conclusion The purpose of writing this paper was to dispel myths regarding what can and cannot be taught to Japanese students with regards to critical thinking. In this paper, a fairly simple approach to teaching a course based on critical analysis of texts has been described. The results of the student survey suggest that, if care is taken to explain the basics of critical analysis in simple terms, and if students are given ample opportunity to practice analysis and create meaning for themselves with authentic texts in their own life experiences, Japanese second language learners are more than capable of, and demonstrate a strong interest in, critical thinking.

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 116 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

james owens - critical thinking in japanese university

References Amari, F.Z. (2015). The role of critical discourse analysis in EFL teaching/ learning. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 6, 87-93. Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1) (Spring, 1997), 71-94. Baker, P. &Sibonile, E. (2013). Key Terms in Discourse Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Caulfield, D. (Executive Producer). (2014, July 12). The Men Who Made Us Spend. [Television Broadcast]. London: BBC. Chen, C., S. Lee and H.W. Stevenson. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychology Science, 6, 170–175. Ellwood, C. (2000) Dissolving and resolving cultural expectations: sociocultural approaches to program development for international students. Proceedings of the National Language and Academic Skills Conference, La Trobe University. Retrieved from http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ lasu/conference/ellwood.doc Fairclough, N. 2015. Language and Power (3rd edition).Oxon: Routledge. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.  117 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1 Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (eds.) (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourse: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9-35. Long, C. J. (2003). Teaching critical thinking in Asian EFL contexts: Theoretical issues and practical applications. Proceedings of the 8th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 2003, 229-334. MEXT: Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2002). Japanese Government Policies in Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 2002, Chapter 2 Section 3. Retrieved August 3rd from http://www. mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpac200201/index.html Oda, M. (2008)Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking in TESOL: East vs. West. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5 (1) 145-173. Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R, B. (1996). Some problematic “channels” in the teaching of critical thinking in current L1 composition textbooks: Implications for L2 student-writers. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 225-249. Reporters Without Borders. (2016.) Retrieved August 3rd, 2016, from https:// rsf.org/en/ranking/2016  118 

james owens - critical thinking in japanese university Richardson, J. (2007). Analysing Newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78. Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd edition). London: Hodder Education. Thompson, G. & Thetala, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text 15(1) 103-127. Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). ‘The representation of social actors’. In C. R. CaldasCoulthard and M. Coulthard (eds.) Texts and Practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, London: Routledge, 32-70.

 119 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Appendix Student responses to Q1 – To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements?

 120 

We hope you enjoyed the articles. Keep reading for a best of CT Scan article. Want to learn more about the JALT Critical Thinking Special Interest Group? Go to our website at: www.jaltcriticalthinking.org  121 

Best of CT Scan

This section is a place for us to reprint some of our favorite articles from the ct sig’s newsletter, the CT Scan. This issue we are rolling back the clock to 2014 with an article from Peter Quinn on Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking. Please enjoy this Best of CT Scan and if you would like to get your own paper in CTLL or our newsletter, the CT Scan, contact the publications officer at: publications@jaltcriticalthinking.org  122 

peter quinn - critical thinking creative thinking

Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking By: Peter Quinn - Takushoku University (Originally published in July CT Scan of 2014)

Abstract: This paper will critically examine some popular definitions of critical thinking and creative thinking, which are seen either as being separate or linked concepts depending on the perspectives of various authors. A new way of viewing the relationship between critical thinking and creative thinking will be proposed to help to bring all of the positive associations of creative thinking into critical thinking. Finally, this paper will explain a classroom activity to introduce the relationship between critical thinking and creative thinking to students.

“This course helped me to expand my creativity and see things in a different and new way” Student testimonial from TUJ`s website This testimonial by a student who had taken my Critical Thinking Skills class got me thinking about creativity and critical thinking. I was puzzled because I had never asked the students to be creative or even mentioned creativity at all. How could discussing conclusions, fallacies and statistics expand a student`s creativity? First, this paper will critically examine some popular definitions of critical thinking and creative thinking. Next, a new way of viewing the relationship between critical thinking and creative thinking will be proposed. Finally, this paper will explain a classroom activity to introduce the relationship between critical thinking and creative thinking to students.

 123 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

1) Definitions of Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking A) Definitions of critical thinking

Definitions of Critical thinking can be put into two categories: Definitions that define critical thinking in relation to creative thinking and those that don`t. The definitions that define critical thinking in relation to creative thinking range from definitions that view them as opposites, view them as similar and view them as almost the same thing. Critical thinking and creative thinking are often viewed as opposites (see appendix A). Critical thinking is seen as a left brain activity and creative thinking is seen as a right brain activity. Many writers make the assumption that people are either left brain dominant (critical thinkers) or right brain dominant (creative thinkers). According to Grace Fleming (2013), “Most theories suggest that creative people are guided by the more emotional, intuitive right hemisphere while analytical people respond in sequential, logical ways, guided by the left hemisphere.” This is what psychologist Vaughan Bell calls “folk neuroscience”. “The hemispheres have different specializations (the left has key language areas, for example) but there is no clear rational-creative split and you need both hemispheres to be successful at either. You can no more do right-brain thinking than you can do rear-brain thinking” (Bell, 2013). The need to view critical thinking and creative thinking as opposites comes from this “folk neuroscience.” Critical thinking and creative thinking are seen as opposites because they are seen as coming from the opposite sides of the brain.  124 

peter quinn - critical thinking creative thinking

Some authors define critical thinking and creative thinking as sharing many but not all attributes (see appendix B). Critical thinking is evaluation and assessment, categorization and classification, reasoning through logic, identification, interpretation, analysis, and description. Creative thinking is openness to novelty, idea generation, curiosity, invention, imagination, reasoning by metaphor and analogy, divergent thinking, and playfulness. Both critical thinking and creative thinking are elaboration, synthesis, integration and combination, complexity, abstraction and simplification, and awareness of environment. Why is critical thinking not considered playful? As a critical thinking teacher I can say without a doubt that critical thinking can be fun. If it is not fun, that is usually my fault as a teacher. For an example of fun critical thinking please watch the restaurant scene in the movie “Pulp Fiction”. Two characters are discussing the eating of pork. Notice how they are having fun with logic while discussing a serious topic. Many writers define critical thinking and creative thinking as almost the same thing. According to Scheffer & Rubenfeld (2000) creativity is a habit of a critical thinker. “Critical thinkers in nursing exhibit these habits of the mind: confidence, contextual perspective, creativity, inquisitiveness, intellectual integrity, intuition, openmindedness, perseverance, and reflection.” Paul & Elder (2008) see critical thinking and creative thinking as “inseparable, integrated, and unitary.”

 125 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

B) Definitions that do not define critical thinking in relation to creative thinking

Ennis (1991) defines critical thinking as “Reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do.” Guest (2000) views critical thinking as “the ability to analyze argument, demonstrating reasoning skills appropriate to the level of intellectual Sophistication required for higher education[…] such skills as identifying and clarifying critical terms and definitions, reasons and conclusions, and assumptions underlying reasoning.” None of these definitions exclude creative thinking from critical thinking. It seems that when we are not using folk neuroscience to guide the way we define critical thinking, creative thinking and critical thinking are clearly not opposites.

2) Definitions of Creative Thinking If we look at some definitions of creative thinking, the gulf between critical thinking and creative thinking does not look so wide. According to Sir Ken Robinson (2006), creativity is an “imaginative process with outcomes that are original and of value.” Torrance (1963) defined creativity as “the process of sensing problems or gaps in information, forming ideas of hypotheses, testing, and modifying these hypotheses, and communicating the results. This process may lead to any one of many kinds of products— verbal and nonverbal, concrete and abstract.” Many definitions of creative thinking sound a lot like critical thinking.  126 

peter quinn - critical thinking creative thinking

A) Need a new definition of critical thinking

Critical thinking and creative thinking seem to be very similar but they are viewed very differently. Creative thinking is commonly associated with many positive things such as imagination, new ideas, and fun. Critical thinking is commonly associated with negative things such as pointing out flaws, acting within rules, and careful consideration. This is a big problem for the teacher of critical thinking. One common misunderstanding of creative thinking is that it is without limits. However, most definitions of creative thinking stress its practical usefulness as opposed to creativity without any limits or aims. In fact, creative thinking needs limits. Mark Rosenberg (2013), game designer, says, “Thought, like most other things, follows a pattern. When a person approaches a problem, their brain tends to follow the same paths, meaning they are quite likely to end up at the same or a similar answer. The reason restrictions are so helpful is that they force the person to radically shift their mental processing.” To think in a new way requires a lot of effort. Thinkers must be motivated to make this effort. “Limitations can be a good thing to motivate creativity” Marvin Bartel (2013). Thus it is best to be creative within limits. So I will define critical thinking as creative thinking within the limits of logic. Another way to say it is, critical thinking is purposeful playing with logic. This definition of critical thinking dispels the common misunderstanding that critical thinking is not fun and helps to bring all of the positive associations of creative thinking into critical thinking.  127 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

3) Classroom Activity This is a discussion activity that can be done after the students have a good understanding of the basics of critical thinking and have experienced the fun of critical thinking. 1) Discussion about creative thinking and critical thinking.

Have the students discuss two questions: What is creative thinking and how is creative thinking different from critical thinking? Check the answers and point out any common misunderstandings.

2) Get the students into small groups.

Tell them that they will do an activity for exactly three minutes. Tell them that you will write the instructions on the board and then the activity will begin. The students are not allowed to ask questions about the instructions. They must begin following the instructions as soon as possible to the best of their abilities. Once this is understood, write “Be creative” on the board.

3) Discuss “Why was this activity was so difficult?”

“What role do limits play in creativity?”

4) Show the photo (Appendix A).

Discuss these questions: “Is this creative?” “Is this fun?” “What are the limits?”

 128 

peter quinn - critical thinking creative thinking

5) Discuss

“Critical thinking is creative thinking within the limits of logic and reason.”

Conclusion

When using critical thinking to teach English, teachers must decide to use the term “critical thinking” or not. It is certainly possible to teach critical thinking skills such as analyzing and evaluating arguments without using the term critical thinking. However, if a teacher is going to use the term critical thinking, she must define the term in a way that is the most useful to the students. Defining critical thinking as purposefully playing with logic, will dispel the common misconception that critical thinking is not fun. I can not think of a more useful definition than this.

 129 

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

References Bartel, M. (2013, March 6). Teaching creativity. Retrieved from http://people. goshen.edu/~marvinpb/arted/tc.html Bell, V. (2013, March 3). The Observer. The College of Wooster (undated). Creative and Critical Thinking: Assessing the Foundations of a Liberal Arts Education. Retrieved from http://www3.wooster. edu/teagle/vendiagram.php Ennis, R. (1991). Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception, Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5-24. Fisher, R. (2002) “Creative Minds: Building Communities of Learning for the Creative Age”, paper presented at Teaching Qualities Initiative Conference, Hong Kong Baptist University, 2002 Grace, F. (2013, March 6). Left Brain Right Brain: Your Dominant Brain Type and Its Effect on Study Habits. Retrieved from http://homeworktips.about.com/ od/learningstyles/a/leftrightbrain.htm Guest, K. (2000). Introducing Critical thinking to “Non-standard” Entry students. The use of a catalyst to spark debate, Teaching in Higher Education, 5(3), 289-299. MeMoSPA. (2013, March, 6). Pulp Fiction - Filthy Animals [Video file]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0zJSgHDnpw  130 

peter quinn - critical thinking creative thinking Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). The thinker`s guide to the nature and functions of critical & creative thinking. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. Puccio G.J., Murdock, M.C., & Mance, M. (2005, May 18). Creativity and change leadership. Workshop presented at the International Center for Studies in Creativity`s Expert-to Expert Conference, Buffalo, New York. Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: learning to be creative. Oxford, UK: Capstone Publications. Rosenberg, M. (2013, March 6). On the Rebound. Retrieved from http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/92 Scheffer, B. K., & Rubenfeld, M. G., (2000). A Consensus Statement on Critical Thinking in Nursing, Journal of Nursing Education, 39(8), 352-359. Torrance, E. P. (1963). Creativity. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 131 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Appendix A

 132 

peter quinn - critical thinking creative thinking

Appendix B

Appendix C

ď&#x201A;&#x161; 133 ď&#x201A;&#x203A;

We hope you have enjoyed our third volume of the CTLL journal. We would love to hear from you about our articles and your potential articles. The CTLL is a fully peer-reviewed journal for both members and non-members of the JALT Critical Thinking Special Interest Group. For information on submitting you can go to: www.jaltcriticalthinking.org -orContact the publications officer for more info. publications officer: publications@jaltcriticalthinking.org