THINKING SKILLS AND

CREATIVITY IN SECOND
LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Across the world, education is being restructured to include greater focus on

developing critical and creative skills. In second language education, research
suggests that cognition and language development are closely related. Yet despite
increasing interest in the teaching of thinking skills, critical thinking has not
been widely integrated into language teaching.
Thinking Skills and Creativity in Second Language Education presents a range of
investigations exploring the relationship between thinking skills and creativ-
ity, and second language education. Focusing on cognitive, affective, social, and
emotional perspectives, this book highlights current research and raises questions
that will set the direction for future research. Its aims are as follows:
• Provide an in-depth understanding of the link between second language
development and thinking skills.
• Consider approaches to developing thinking skills in second language
instruction.
• Examine practices in implementing thinking skills in second language learning.
• Offer an updated list of sources of information on thinking skills in second
language education.
A new addition to the Research on Teaching and Thinking Creativity series, this
book is relevant to researchers in the field of educational psychology, to masters
degree and PhD students in this field, and to anyone interested in developing
thinking skills.

Li Li is Senior Lecturer in Language Education at the University of Exeter. She has

published extensively in the field of language education and thinking skills. She
has also guest-edited two special issues in the journal Thinking Skills and Creativity,
and co-edited The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Teaching Thinking.
Research on Teaching Thinking and Creativity

Research on Teaching Thinking and Creativity is a new international series edited by

Li Li, James C. Kaufmann, and Rupert Wegerif. The idea of teaching thinking
skills is now widely shared across the world and initiatives have been set up in the
United States, China, Brazil, Malaysia, and Russia. These initiatives lead to ques-
tions about what is meant by terms such as “creativity” and “teaching thinking”,
questions raised, discussed, and answered in this new book series. The aims of
the series are to:
• enhance reader understanding and knowledge about theories of the growth
of thinking and creativity, both individual and collective;
• provide readers with insights and key principles that emerge from research
into teaching thinking and creativity in a range of specific areas;
• inform readers of the main approaches being used globally to develop and
assess thinking and creativity, including changes in technology and peda-
gogical strategies;
• give readers tangible, practical suggestions for improving their own or other
people’s thinking and creativity based on theory and research.
This series consists of books researching different sociocultural and educa-
tional contexts in America, Europe, and Asia. Researchers, postgraduate stu-
dents, and policy makers will be able to refer to this series.

Theory of Teaching Thinking

International Perspectives
Edited by Laura Kerslake & Rupert Wegerif

Thinking Skills and Creativity in Second Language Education

Case Studies from International Perspectives
Edited by Li Li
THINKING SKILLS AND
CREATIVITY IN SECOND
LANGUAGE EDUCATION
Case Studies from
International Perspectives

Edited by Li Li
First published 2020
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2020 selection and editorial matter, Li Li; individual chapters, the
contributors
The right of Li Li to be identified as the author of the editorial material,
and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book

ISBN: 978-1-138-29793-7 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-29794-4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-09892-0 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo Std

by Cenveo® Publisher Services
CONTENTS

Contributors vii

1 “Thinking” move in second language education  1

Li Li

2 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 17

Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

3 Pedagogies for scaffolding thinking in ESL: integrating

first principles of learning 42
Maya Gunawardena

4 Teaching theoretical linguistics through thinking skills

pedagogies 58
Haifa Al-Nofaie

5 Fostering critical thinking through questioning in EFL:

an Indonesian study 74
Maya Defianty and Kate Wilson

6 Integrating critical thinking into an EFL writing

curriculum: a mediated model 95
Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang
vi  Contents

7 Effects of multimedia presentations on the

development of foreign language listening
comprehension: a comparative study of cognitive
and metacognitive listening instructions 131
Mehrak Rahimi, Niloofar Nezad Kashani,
and Elham Soleymani

8 Designing a meta-learning programme 151

Shu-wen Lin, Julie Rattray, and Caroline Walker-Gleaves

9 TEFL postgraduate students’ perception of critical

thinking: conceptualizations, obstacles, and solutions 172
Hassan Soodmand Afshar

10 Teacher cognition of creativity in primary EFL

classrooms 195
Xuying Fan and Li Li

Index 216
CONTRIBUTORS

Hassan Soodmand Afshar  is an Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics at

the Department of English Language, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan. He
has been acting as a member of the Board of Directors of Teaching English
Language and Literature Society of Iran (TELLSI) since 2013. He also acted as
Cambridge Centre Exams Manager in Iran from 2007 to 2017. He has published
in both accredited international journals (e.g., Thinking Skills and Creativity,
Reflective Practice, The Language Learning Journal, Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, Research Papers in Education, Issues in Educational Research, e-FLT, IJLTR,
RALS, etc.) and local journals. His research interests include critical thinking
and pedagogy, reflective thinking and teaching, teacher education, ESP/EAP,
language learning strategies, and psychology of language education.

Haifa Al-Nofaie is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Taif University,

Saudi Arabia. She has also worked as a language teacher at King Saud University,
Imam Mohammad Bin Saud University. She holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics
from Newcastle University, United Kingdom, and became a fellow of the Higher
Education Academy, United Kingdom, in August 2018. Her academic interests
include bilingualism, language learning motivation, and teaching English
through critical thinking pedagogies. Dr. Al-Nofaie was a series cultural advisor
to ELT Oxford University Press between 2014 and 2015. She was one of the series
advisors of Q: Skills for Success, a special edition for Saudi Arabia. She worked as
a volunteer researcher in global citizenship education for the UNESCO between
May and December 2017.

Maya Defianty is a Lecturer at UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta where she has
taught several courses in the area related to Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Languages (TESOL). She has an extensive experience in working with
viii  Contributors

English teachers in Indonesia on how to enhance their teaching practice. Her

research interest is on teachers’ classroom assessment practice. She earned her
PhD from the University of Canberra.

Xuying Fan (Enjo) is a research fellow at the South China Normal University,
China. She has Bachelor’s degree in Education Studies, a Master’s degree in
TESOL, a Master’s degree in Educational Research, and a Doctoral degree
in Education from the University of Exeter, United Kingdom. She is also an
Associate Fellow of the Higher Education Academy in the United Kingdom. Her
primary research focus is thinking skill in language classrooms, and language
teacher cognition, focusing especially on classroom interaction. She is working
on a project on Thinking Skills and Creativity in Language Classrooms.

Maya Gunawardena is an Assistant Professor of teacher education at University

of Canberra, Australia. She has over 27 years of experience in teaching in
secondary and primary schools. She convenes undergraduate and postgraduate
courses for TESOL and mainstream teacher education. Maya mainly researches
and publishes in the fields of Applied Linguistics, literacy, and K-12 teacher
education. She is predominantly interested in developing effective pedagogies
for both secondary and primary schools in the Australian mainstream education
and TESOL contexts, where English is taught as a second language.

Niloofar Nezad Kashani  is an experienced teacher of English as a foreign

Language. She has received her master’s degree in TEFL from English Department
of Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran.

Kyung Hee Kim, Professor of Educational Psychology at the College of William

& Mary, is a former Chair of National Association of Gifted Children (NAGC)’s
Creativity Network and is the International Representative of the Division
10 of the American Psychological Association (APA). Dr. Kim has won two
bio-medical technology patents from the USPTO yet dedicated to researching
creativity and innovators. She has developed the online Creativity Quotient
(CQ) to help individuals identify and maximize their creative strengths. She
has won the Berlyne Award from APA; the E. Paul Torrance Award, the Early
Scholar Award, and the Hollingworth Award from NAGC; and the Torrance
Award from the American Creativity Association. Her big, crazy dream is to
change the world through innovations by ending test-centric education. She
described “The Creativity Crisis” in Newsweek cover story (2010) and explored
its solution in The Creativity Challenge: How We Can Recapture American
Innovation (2016).

Hang Eun Lee is currently working for a Korean American school in California.
She received her PhD from the University of Georgia specializing in Gifted and
Creative Education. She loves to work with creative people and is researching
 Contributors ix

and teaching in the gifted and creative education field both locally and
internationally. She has researched bilingualism and creativity for decades and has
several academic publications on bilingualism and creativity. Her work focuses
specifically on the creativity of the Korean American populations. She has served
creative people with multicultural backgrounds internationally, including in
Korea and the United States. She is a specialist in creative problem solving and
conducts various creativity-related projects for educators, scholars, and parents
both locally and internationally.

Li Li  is Senior Lecturer at the University of Exeter. Her research interests

include language teacher cognition, developing thinking skills, the use of new
technologies in language learning, and classroom discourse. She has published
widely in these topics in international journals. She is on the editorial board for
a prestigious journal: Thinking Skills and Creativity, and served as guest editor
twice. She is also on the editorial board for Classroom Discourse and a reviewer for
prestigious journals in applied linguistics and education. She has also co-edited
the Routledge Handbook for Researching in Teaching Thinking Skills (with Rupert
Wegerif and James C. Kaufman; Routledge, 2015). She is also the author of
Social Interaction and Teacher Cognition (Edinburgh University Press, 2017) and
New Technologies and Language Learning (Palgrave, 2017).

Mei Lin is Senior Lecturer at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom. She
specializes in teaching pedagogy, thinking skills, and learner autonomy. Lin is
a co-author of Thinking through Modern Foreign Languages (2004). Since then she
devotes much her career to the promotion of integrating teaching thinking into
English as a foreign language curriculum. She has supervised PhD studies on
integrated thinking skills curriculum in Sudan, Taiwan, and China. Lin has a
particular interest in Vygotsky’s mediation, investigating the impact of teacher
behaviours, thinking frameworks or tools on nurturing students’ thinking, and
dispositions, as well as on language competence. Lin is currently consultant
for learning community projects in Shanghai and teacher training projects on
thinking skills for primary students in Chongqing, China.

Shu-wen Lin  is Senior Assistant Professor in the International Learning

Center at Sojo University, Japan. After completing her EdD in Education at
Durham University, United Kingdom, she returned to her position as English
teacher in Taiwan. Her doctoral thesis explored students’ development in
meta-learning capacity after taking part in an experiential learning project.
She had eight years of teaching experience at secondary school level and has
recently started her teaching career in higher education in Japan. Her current
interests include metacognitive approaches to learning and teaching, as well
as effects of critical relationships between learners and teachers. She is also
interested in pedagogical strategies that develop students’ identity in using
English as a lingua franca.
x  Contributors

Mehrak Rahimi is an Associate Professor of Applied and Computational Linguistics

at English Department of Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran,
Iran. Her main fields of research include CALL, SLA, materials development and
syllabus design, and EFL teacher education.

Julie Rattray is an Associate Professor in Higher Education at Durham University.

Her research interests include the threshold concept framework, liminality,
affective dimensions of learning, and other aspects of policy and pedagogy in
Higher Education. In particular, she is interested in the ways that learners deal
with troublesome knowledge and in the extent to which affective characteristics
and attributes might influence this. She has a broad range of supervisory
experience and is currently working with students on a range of projects that
use threshold concepts theory as a framework to explore aspects of teaching,
learning, and policy issues in Higher Education, metacognitive awareness, and
psychological and affective dimensions of learning.

Elham Soleymani is an experienced teacher of English as a foreign Language. She

has received her master’s degree in TEFL from English Department of Shahid
Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran.

Caroline Walker-Gleaves  is Professor in the School of Education,

Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University. She is
interested in the progress and achievement of particular groups of learners,
including looked-after, fostered, and adopted children, together with concern
for how these learners are supported through productive and purposeful
home-school relations. Her research ranges from narrative accounts of
teachers’ beliefs and practices to how learning technology acts as a conduit
through which teachers’ and learners’ pedagogic aims are shaped and filtered.
She is especially interested in relationships, the intersectionality of difference,
diversity and emotion in pedagogic relational terms, and the ways in which
principles that stand behind frameworks of competent and excellent teacher
behaviours play out in practice.

Kate Wilson  is an Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Canberra

where she lectures in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
(TESOL). Previously, she was Head of the School of Languages and International
Education, and Director of the Academic Skills Program at the University of
Canberra. Her research interests, consultancies, and publications, including her
doctoral thesis, address critical reading and thinking in English for Academic
Purposes, and the first year experience in higher education.

Xiaoting Xiang is a Lecturer in Chongqing University of Education in China.

She completed her master’s degree in Applied Linguistics and TESOL at
Newcastle University in the United Kingdom in 2015, and worked for a short
 Contributors xi

period as a research assistant at the Foundation for Critical Thinking at Colorado

in the United States. Xiang’s research interests and passion always centre around
how to integrate thinking skills in second-language teaching, believing that
teachers, as mediators, facilitate students’ language learning through stimulating
their cognitive engagement and encouraging them to be active thinkers. She has
developed and implemented an integrated thinking skills curriculum to a college
English Reading and Writing course since 2016, and is currently involved in
teacher training projects on thinking skills and English language teaching.
1
“THINKING” MOVE IN SECOND
LANGUAGE EDUCATION
Li Li

Introduction
There is a growing global concern with “21st-century skills” (Voogt, Erstad,
Dede, & Mishra, 2013) in the field of education, and research suggests that inte-
grating good thinking skills is beneficial for developing 21st-century learners
(e.g. Mercer, 1996, 2004; Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999). In particular, higher-
order thinking skills are important for learning and social practice to develop
global citizens with creativity and innovative capacity (MacDonald, 2005). It is
more so today than ever that we need people equipped with 21st-century skills,
because people need to engage in more global collaboration and communication
to solve problems and create new knowledge, especially with the rapid develop-
ment of digital and networked technologies (Wegerif, 2006). Twenty-first-century
skills include being creative, being able to argue for a position or course of action,
and being willing to concede to stronger arguments and evidence (Li, 2016a).
Over the years, we have witnessed the global movement in curriculum reforms,
with policy reports around the world stressing that exercising critical judgement,
collaboration, problem solving, creativity, and learning to learn together (L2L2)
are crucial for future economic growth (e.g. World Bank, 2011), as well as for
personal and collective well-being in an increasingly globalized world (OECD,
2014). In light of the growing interest in creativity, good judgement, and the
ability to think logically and clearly in diverse work and education contexts, it
is clear that there is a need to develop students’ thinking skills in subject areas
(Avargil, Herscovitz, & Dori, 2012; Li, 2011; Nagappan, 2001; Wegerif, Li, &
Kaufman, 2015).
In many countries, such as England (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority,
1999), Malaysia (Abdullah, Marimuthu, & Liau, 2003), and China (Ministry of
Education [MOE], 2001), thinking skills have been proposed to be a central
2  Li Li

element of the curriculum since the new millennium. In recent years, the cul-
tivation of children’s creativity has increasingly been regarded as an educational
imperative (Skiba, Tan, Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2010), and many countries
have introduced initiatives aimed at fostering it (Craft, 2007) with various foci.
For example, in Great Britain and Georgia (USA), “creative development” is pro-
posed (Department for Children, Schools and Families [DCSF], 2008; Georgia
Department of Early Care and Learning, 2011; QCA/Df EE, 2000), whereas
culture and creativity are closely linked and widely advocated in Norway and
Iceland (MOESC, 2012; NMOER, 2012). In other parts of Europe, “imagining,
feeling, and creating” are the core of the concept of creativity (e.g. in France;
OCED, 2004), whereas in the Far East, creativity is interpreted as “the develop-
ment of creative and aesthetic appreciation” in India (Ministry of Women and
Child Development [MWCD], 2012) and “expression and creativity” are educa-
tional goals in China (MOE, 2012). In the field of language education, thinking
skills are beginning to be integrated into curriculum and pedagogy, given the
close tie between language proficiency and thinking skills (Chapple & Curtis,
2000; Renner, 1996; Tarone, 2005). Critical thinking has always been a crucial
field in second language learning, and in recent years, there has been a subtle
development of creativity in language, and relevant research suggests that lan-
guage learning is no longer focusing only on linguistic knowledge development
(e.g. Carter, 2016; Jones & Richards, 2016).

Thinking skills and creativity research in second

language learning
It is well documented in the research on second language acquisition that learn-
ers should take primary responsibility in the process of learning, whereas teach-
ers play the role of facilitating this process. This means that learners need to
take charge of the why and how in learning by making deliberate efforts in their
learning so that they do not simply remember and recall language in its abstract
form, but rather engage in critical and creative analysis and evaluation of material
at hand in order to internalize and appropriate the language (Li, 2016a, p. 267).
In the process, learners might need to collaborate to conduct a project or solve a
problem. Therefore, it requires learners to recognize different perspectives, take
initiatives, and negotiate meanings during the task. All these point to a concept
of higher-order thinking skills, which involve effort, self-regulation, imposing
meaning, considering various possibilities, and making subtle judgements and
interpretations (Resnick, 1987). Such thinking is highly valued, and students
really ought to be pushed and encouraged in this direction more (Wegerif, 2002).
Since the concept of higher-order thinking is interpreted differently by differ-
ent researchers, we see it conceptualized in empirical research as critical think-
ing, creative (possibility) thinking, group thinking, learning to learn together,
metacognition, and so on. Critical thinking and metacognition have been
widely researched in the last decade, whereas creativity and group cognition
 “Thinking” move in second language education 3

have become the research focus in recent years. The shift of focus implies that the
view of “thinking” is gradually moving from the individual to the group, from
cognitive to social development (Li, 2016a).
Integrating good thinking skills in teaching has proved to be beneficial for
academic learning, personal development, and social relations. In the language
learning literature, thinking skills and creativity are explored from different per-
spectives, with a particular focus on critical thinking, creativity and creative
thinking, and metacognition (especially in reading and writing). In what fol-
lows, I will provide a brief overview of the research in these areas.

Critical thinking
According to Fisher and Scriven (1997), criticality in thinking involves “skilled
and active interpretation and evaluation of observations and communications,
information and argumentation” (p. 21). However, the concept has been inter-
preted with different foci; for example, Atkinson (1997) associates critical think-
ing with “cultural thinking” (p. 89), highlighting the close tie between thinking
and cultural practice, whereas Lipman (2003) considers it “healthy scepticism”,
the ability to engage in evaluation with reasoning. In spite of differences among
scholars in defining the concept of critical thinking skills, there is consensus
that criticality is important. For example, Li (2016a) claims that “the ability to
recognize, construct, and evaluate arguments, and the skills of analysing, synthe-
sizing, and critiquing material, are essentially the foundation of academic success
in higher education” (p. 268). It is not surprising that the majority of existing
research on critical thinking is carried out in higher education, with a specific
focus on reading and writing skills.
In L2 studies, one aspect of research has examined the effects of critical think-
ing on second language acquisition (e.g. Ghanizadeh & Moafian, 2011; Hashemi
& Ghanizadeh, 2012). When integrated into teaching properly, critical thinking
skills can result in positive linguistic gains (DeWaelsche, 2015). For example,
Rao’s (2007) and Gibson’s (2012) studies show how teaching critical thinking in
an L2 writing class facilitates the production of more critical ideas when focusing
on writing, which also then influences the use of language. Yang, Chuang, Li,
and Tseng (2013) similarly report a positive outcome in speaking and listening
performance. Elsewhere, Wu, Marek, and Chen (2013) report better student
performance in both oral and written tasks when students were taught criti-
cal thinking skills. Interestingly, studies also suggest that the quality of critical
thought depends on the topic content, with a familiar topic generating better
critical thinking (Stapleton, 2001). Clearly, language development and critical
judgement are interrelated and interdependent. Turning to an affective aspect,
Casanave (2010) and Shahini and Riazi (2011) argue that integrating critical
thinking skills in L2 learning can motivate students to take risks. These stud-
ies extended language learning from developing linguistic competence to social
abilities, including being open-minded and prepared to take risks.
4  Li Li

Given the importance of critical thinking in language development, and the

fact that many EFL (English as a foreign language) learners demonstrate low
levels of critical thinking in reading and writing (Zhou, Jiang, & Yao, 2015),
researchers argue that critical thinking needs to be explicitly taught (Marin
& Halpern, 2011; Wilson, 2016; Wu et al., 2013). Regarding pedagogies in
facilitating critical thinking skills, various approaches are proposed to foster it,
such as integrating critical thinking in Content-Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL; Lockley, 2013). Wilson (2016) argues that critical reading pedagogy
can be realized in different ways, but that nurturing students’ critical dispo-
sitions, in particular, requires “delicate scaffolding” to support their develop-
ment as critical meaning makers. Delicate scaffolding is effective scaffolding
when the teacher sets up a challenging environment to enable students to learn
and develop beyond their current capacity. In a way, this requires students to
take control over their study and be responsible for what and how to learn.
Technology, on the other hand, provides a different sort of scaffolded help in a
non-traditional learning environment. For example, an online reading course
and forum had a positive impact on students’ thinking and academic writing
skills, according to Wang and Henderson (2014). In an English as a second lan-
guage (ESL) context, Lin, Prestona, Kharrufa, and Kong (2016) explored the
use of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (CSCLE)
as multimodal spaces for promoting critical thinking, and this study pro-
vides evidence that the use of a multitouch tabletop and an accompanying
application Digital Mysteries can make “reasoning skill” visible for second
language (L2) learning in Higher Education. Lin et al. (2016) highlight one
potential area for future exploration and research in thinking skills and crea-
tivity, which is how we embrace the affordances of technology in enhancing
higher-order thinking skills, as well as in helping learners and teachers recog-
nize the “thinking moment” (Li, 2011).

Metacognition
Closely related to critical thinking is the concept of metacognition, and research
suggests that integrating critical thinking into language learning increases stu-
dent motivation to learn about and improve their thinking, in particular with
reading and writing in second language education (Zhang, 2001). This is because
substantive reading and writing require learners to process information in a criti-
cal manner and reflect on their own thinking process. Metacognition, a term first
coined by Flavell (1979), refers to “knowledge concerning ones’ own cognitive
processes and products or anything related to them”, which includes “the active
monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes in
relation to the cognitive objects or data on which they bear, usually in the service
of some concrete goal or objective’ (p. 232). Simply put, metacognition includes
one’s knowledge of cognitive resources (knowledge) and their regulation (con-
trol). Most research in this area focuses on learners’ awareness of, and use of,
 “Thinking” move in second language education 5

a strategy in relation to their own proficiency levels (Zhang, 2010). Another area
of metacognition research is the discussion on the relationship between metacog-
nition and academic success. There is also evidence that successful learners use
different metacognitive strategies from those employed by less successful learn-
ers (Li & Larkin, 2017; Yayli, 2010; Zhang, 2001, 2010). Li (2016a) summarizes
idiosyncratic metacognitive strategies used by successful L2 learners. These
strategies included translation, the use of background and personal knowledge,
self-questioning techniques, guessing unknown words or phrases and predicting
text content, paying attention to topic sentences, picking out key words, and
compairng and contrasting the L1 and L2 knowledge domains (p. 269).
This body of research suggests that the successful and the less successful
L2 student differ in the amount and quality of the metacognitive knowledge
they possess. However, there are no differences among students from different
socio-cultural contexts (Li & Larkin, 2017). Therefore, understanding one group
of successful learners’ metacognitive knowledge and strategies might have signif-
icant implications for pedagogical improvement across cultures, because teachers
might be able to train students to use particular metacognitive strategies to mon-
itor, control, and regulate learning. This is something that is worth exploring
in the future, perhaps with a design-based research methodology, to determine
whether providing training on metacognition has a positive impact on L2
academic performance.

Creativity
Although there is a long tradition of separating the teaching of critical thinking
from the teaching of creativity (Wegerif et al., 2015), and no consensus exists as
to what creativity is and how best to encourage it (Craft, 2005), it has been rec-
ognized as central to successful teaching and learning ( Jones & Richards, 2016;
Sotto, 1994). As Wegerif et al. (2015) have pointed out, the scholarship on cre-
ativity is a rapidly increasing juggernaut that has brought academic rigour to a
field that is often thought to be “soft” (p. 3). In recent years, “creativity” has
become a significant aspect of language learning and teaching since “the Year
of Creativity and Innovation” (Official Journal of the European Union, 2008).
In language learning, creativity can be referred to as creative language or cre-
ative texts, and the field has acknowledged the importance of “using language
in creative ways to solve problems, to establish or maintain relationships and to
get people to act, think or feel in certain ways” ( Jones & Richards, 2016, p. 5).
That is to say, learning a language is ultimately a creative exercise, because each
user needs to use and combine elements of linguistic and non-linguistic knowl-
edge in new ways to achieve communicative purposes. Of course, creativity
might be viewed as “person” or “process” or “products” (Fisher, 2004). In that
respect, the concept of creativity is a “multifaceted phenomenon” ( Jones &
Richards, 2016, p. 5) or perhaps consists of “conflicting conceptions” (Nelson,
2016). When it is viewed as a product, it might concern a task, an activity, a
6  Li Li

resource, or a language output, whereas when it is viewed as a process, it con-

cerns the thinking and decisions that a person engages in during a task.
Historically, creative thinking is perceived as non-academic and less serious,
which is partially responsible for the lack of research in this area. This miscon-
ception does not exist only in second language education; it is also widespread
among teachers in other subjects, since creativity might distract learners from
engaging with academic “truths” (e.g. Beghetto, 2008; Li, 2016b). In the crea-
tivity literature, Craft (2005) distinguished big “C” from little “c” to highlight
the value of focusing on the little “c”, which concerns creative activities that one
might engage in in everyday life. The little “c” emphasizes the value and nature
of personal agency in relation to both finding and solving problems, using intui-
tion as well as logic to cope with everyday challenges, and as inherently innova-
tive, enabling forward motion in all aspects of life (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009).
However, in practice, little “c” is more difficult to pin down and harder for
teachers to engage in teaching for creativity (Li, 2016a). Kaufman and Beghetto
(2009) also propose the “mini-c”, representing the personal (Runco, 1996;
Vygotsky, 2004[1967]) and developmental (Cohen, 1989) aspects of creativity. It
is defined as the novel and personally meaningful interpretation of experiences,
actions, and events (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007), so it is similar to Niu and
Sternberg’s (2006) notion of “individual creativity”, as well as to developmen-
tal conceptions of creativity (Beghetto & Plucker, 2006; Cohen, 1989; Sawyer
et al., 2003; Vygotsky, 2004[1967]). Thus, in language learning, “mini-c empha-
sizes the dynamic, interpretive process of constructing personal knowledge and
understanding within a particular sociocultural context” (Li, 2016a, p.270).
Regarding language learning, perhaps more “mini-c” moments should be iden-
tified and developed to boost students’ confidence in learning, taking risks and
meeting challenges, being playful with language, and offering new perspectives.
Various researchers have endorsed the view that creativity in language means
to “recreate”, “refashion”, and “recontextualize” linguistic resources in commu-
nication rather than to reproduce them (Maybin & Swann, 2007; Pennycook,
2007; Tagg, 2012). Bilingualism has been shown to have a positive effect on the
development of creativity in second language learners (Dörnyei, 2005; Richards
& Cotterall, 2016). Jones and Richards (2016) claim that there is very little
understanding of what constitutes creativity, and why it is beneficial to lan-
guage learning, and how it can be integrated into teaching and learning, even
though researchers have been trying to address those very questions. Among the
limited studies, there are some useful ones that can shed light on the relation-
ship between language learning and creativity. As early as 1992, Ricciardelli
conducted a meta-analysis of 24 studies that examined creativity in bilingual
education and argued that bilingualism has a positive connection with creativity
in general. Hommel, Colzato, Fischer, and Christoffels (2011) echoed the view,
showing that bilingualism has a positive impact on creativity. They suggested
that it is the underlying processes and mechanisms of creativity that are influ-
enced by bilingual practice, not the unitary concept, per se. Kharkhurin (2007)
 “Thinking” move in second language education 7

argues that bilinguals’ experience of participation in two cultures makes them see
the world through two different conceptual systems and therefore enhances cog-
nitive flexibility, divergent thinking, and the creative expression of experiences.
Creativity does not just happen; it needs conditions to develop. In a school
environment, developing creativity might need school support, peer support
among teachers, and teachers’ willingness to take risks and adopt innovations,
as well as teacher knowledge and skills. In that respect, Richards and Cotterall
(2016) have described 11 characteristics of creative teachers. In summary, cre-
ative teachers should demonstrate flexibility, willingness to take risks, and rich
academic and pedagogical knowledge. They should also cultivate an ability to
design activities that have creative dimensions and should develop an individual
teaching style. They should display confidence and willingness to make deci-
sions about classroom management, and they should be committed to making
changes in their teaching. When working with colleagues and students, they are
interested in looking for innovative teaching ideas, customizing teaching, and
adopting technology.
This said, creative teachers cannot enhance creativity if students are not moti-
vated to participate and contribute. On that front, Chappell (2016), based on
the work of Csikszentmihalyi (1997b) and Sawyer (2007), proposed 10 condi-
tions that enhance the development of creativity in second language classrooms.
Figure 1.1 below summarizes these conditions. Nevertheless, teachers do not
need to create all these conditions in order to facilitate creativity, and not every
condition is equally important across all contexts. We have to understand that
socio-cultural contexts play a significant role in shaping these conditions.

Creativity can be enhanced if... students

produce genuine
responses to
there are each other
clear goals for
the group activity students
focus on the there is
task there are equality to
collective participate or
thinking contribute
there is a moments
shared control
over the task
conversations
group
can move
cohesion can
forward
be achieved

all participants
support each the task has a
others' language use collaborative
focus

FIGURE 1.1  Conditions to enhance creativity.

8  Li Li

The structure of the book

Despite the significance of thinking skills and creativity, integrating thinking in
language teaching has been peripheral (Pica, 2000), particularly in foreign lan-
guage instruction (Ghonsooly & Showqi, 2012; Jones & Richards, 2016; Li, 2011,
2016b; Soko, Oget, Sonntag, & Khomenko, 2008). Against this background,
educationists and researchers are constantly striving to identify new ways of
looking at and applying the principles that underpin creativity and approaches to
learning and teaching that are informed by thinking skills. This volume, there-
fore, serves as a starting point for researchers and practitioners to reflect on ways
to integrate thinking skills in second language education and to imagine possible
future research.
The chapters in this volume exemplify the centrality of thinking skills and
creativity to second language learning, and they highlight the many different
ways in which these key concepts can be investigated and explored. By adopting
different perspectives on the study of creativity and thinking skills and differ-
ent methodological positions, these chapters aim to further our understanding
of complex phenomena. Topics include, but are not limited to, curricula and
programmes in developing thinking skills, approaches to developing critical
thinking, stakeholders’ perceptions and conceptions of thinking skills, the role
of technology in developing higher-order thinking skills, and theoretical consid-
erations of developing creativity in language learning.
This book consists of 10 individual chapters from different socio-cultural con-
texts. Chapter 1 is an overall introductory chapter, which outlines the research
development of thinking skills and creativity in second language education and
provides an overview of the book. In Chapter 2, Kim and Lee discuss how bilin-
gualism affects creativity. Using a research-based CATs (Climates, Attitudes,
and Thinking skills) theory (Kim, 2016), the authors analyse the relationships
between bilingualism and creativity: How bilingualism may directly or indi-
rectly, through cognitive skills, affect creative thinking skills; and how bilin-
gualism indirectly, through bicultural, open-minded, and complexity-seeking
attitudes, affects creativity. Biculturalism is a common contributing factor to
creativity and a strong predictor of innovation. They suggest developing chil-
dren’s bilingualism first and then their creativity. In their words, children should
be encouraged to maintain their own language and cultural values while assim-
ilating into the mainstream culture (Raina, 1999) and to think with alternative
perspectives.
Gunawardena is interested in pedagogies in scaffolding thinking in ESL class-
rooms. In Chapter 3, she argues that developing newer approaches that under-
pin human learning principles would be useful to make learning much more
achievable for learners. In this sense, she points out that macro-level scaffolding
would benefit all learners. The chapter seeks to establish a practical model to
scaffold students’ thinking in ESL lessons by incorporating the “first five princi-
ples of instructional design” (Merrill, 2002) to capture students’ attention, which
 “Thinking” move in second language education 9

can promote thinking dispositions. This model was implemented in schools in

Sri Lanka, and the experience and feedback from teachers suggest that the model
is a useful guideline, but the overall educational goals and assessment might
impose barriers for teachers and learners. From a different socio-cultural con-
text, Al-Nofaie provides a narrative of how she engages in teaching higher-
order thinking skills in a Saudi Arabian theoretical linguistic classroom through
a small-scale action research project. This chapter provides a research-based
practical guide for teachers in Higher Education sectors who might be interested
in implementing a pedagogy based on thinking skills in their teaching.
Chapters 5 and 6 are devoted to critical thinking more specifically. In
Chapter 5, Defianty and Wilson argue that critical thinking applies in two
ways to language learning. First, it can be understood as critical thinking about
language in order to better understand the target language, its vocabulary, its
grammatical forms and functions, and how to apply them in social contexts for
particular purposes. Second, students can engage in critical thinking through the
target language; for example, students might be expected to interact critically
with written or spoken texts in the target language. In this chapter, they explore
how critical thinking in EFL classrooms can be stimulated through the use of
effective questioning, one of the most fundamental discourse strategies that
teachers might be able to utilize in achieving their pedagogical goals (Li, 2011).
These investigators conducted a study in EFL classes in senior high schools in
West Java, Indonesia, to explore the extent to which the teachers’ questions foster
critical thinking. The classroom data suggest that there are multiple occasions
when teachers ask their students to think critically about language but that the
majority of the questions are used to foster lower-order thinking skills, such as
information recall. They argue that teachers should be asking questions which
prompt students to apply, analyse, synthesize, and evaluate. As Li (2011) argues,
questioning techniques, interactional structures, and teacher feedback can pro-
mote or hinder thinking space, so teachers need to consciously think what ques-
tions they ask and how they ask them. In Chapter 6, Lin and Xiang evaluate
the innovation of integrating the teaching of critical thinking into the reading
and writing curriculum of a Chinese university in China. By implementing and
evaluating a mediation-based curriculum, the authors attempt to examine the
following questions: How is teaching critical thinking integrated into a college
English reading and writing curriculum? Can the framework by Paul and Elder
(2006) be used as the main mediation tools? And is there positive development
in Chinese college students’ performance in critical thinking in writing in EFL
after attending this course? Using multiple data sources, the authors draw favour-
able conclusions about the use of Paul and Elder’s (2007) framework to develop
college students’ critical thinking. This result is encouraging because it provides
exemplary work in putting a thinking-based curriculum into practice.
In Chapter 7, Rahimi, Kashani, and Soleymani investigate the effect of incor-
porating multimedia presentations into the cycle of cognitive and metacogni-
tive listening instruction on foreign language learners’ development of listening
10  Li Li

comprehension. Their study suggests that metacognitive listening strategies

instruction has a strong and positive effect on listening comprehension regardless
of the medium of presentation. The authors recommend that multimedia pres-
entations be used in cognitive listening instruction rather than in metacognitive
listening instruction, at least for lower intermediate EFL learners. In Chapter 8, Lin,
Rattray, and Walker-Gleaves report an action-research study that investigated how
the development of meta-learning capacity can be encouraged in a Taiwanese
context. It includes consideration of the principles for designing and implement-
ing a meta-learning programme, the corresponding practices, and their effects.
It concludes with some reflections on the teacher’s role as tutor and facilitator
in this programme. The meta-learning programme was an EFL elective course
aiming to equip students to cope with difficult and demanding learning situations
and develop their academic independence. The principles behind the pedagogical
practices in this programme were based on a theoretical framework that draws on
the philosophy of experience and on social constructivist and emancipatory ped-
agogies. The authors argue that drawing analogical or contrastive links between
various learning experiences can raise students’ awareness of different perspectives
on learning. The action researcher’s reflections suggest that teachers should partici-
pate in reflective practice and adopt a more humane approach to interaction.
In Chapter 9, Soodmand Afshar investigates TEFL postgraduate students’
perception of critical thinking in Iran, with a focus on their conceptualizations
of critical thinking and their perceptions of the obstacles to its development.
The study adopted the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST-Form B)
and focus-group discussions with 50 postgraduate students at Bu-Ali Sina
University, Hamedan. The study suggests that Iranian students are not highly
critical thinkers and are not familiar with the concept of critical thinking.
Soodmand Afshar pointed out several key factors which contributed to the
students’ lack of knowledge about and competence in critical thinking, includ-
ing the traditional educational system of the country, lack of time for critical
thinking, socio-political and socio-cultural factors, students’ lack of motiva-
tion, and individual characteristics and personality. There is an apparent need
to revise the curriculum and change pedagogy in order to enhance critical
thinking skills. As Li (2016b) points out, teachers play a most significant role
in implementing any innovation in education, so it is important to investigate
teacher cognition about and practices of teaching thinking skills if any pro-
gress in integrating them into language instruction is made. In this respect,
Fan and Li investigate how EFL teachers conceptualize creativity and how
they promote it in language instruction (Chapter 10). This chapter also reveals
the opportunities for, and challenges to, developing a learner’s creativity in
primary EFL classrooms. The analysis shows diverse understandings of crea-
tivity and conflicting beliefs about its promotion. Opportunities are identified
from teacher-student interaction, such as silent ways of learning and effective
feedback. Teachers’ insufficient knowledge of creativity and the exam-oriented
education system constrained its implementation in class.
 “Thinking” move in second language education 11

Towards future research on thinking

This volume addresses a number of phenomena, all related in some way to the
central understanding of teaching, learning, teachers and assessment, and the
role of thinking skills in developing second language proficiency. It is important
to point out here that this introduction, along with the chapters in this volume,
does not claim to be a comprehensive overview of research in thinking skills
and creativity in second language education. What it does do, however, is to
highlight potential issues concerning second language educators in developing
cognitively sophisticated and socially engaged learners, and provide evidence of
how thinking skills can be developed to open up space for more discussion of
integrating them into second language learning. Here, I would like to highlight
three significant areas for future development.
A first and novel direction is a focus on creativity at two levels. First, more
work is needed in terms of investigating the concept from a “process” per-
spective to understand in depth how a decision is made to solve problems and
create new knowledge, to identify when and what strategies are involved when
collective thinking is applied, and to what extent it contributes to successful
collaboration. Of course, this does not mean that we should neglect creativity
as “products”. In that respect, perhaps attention can be paid to how students
demonstrate creative thinking in tasks, activities, and their work, and to how
creativity is multifaceted, rather than simply examining linguistic creativity.
Second, “pedagogy for creativity” and “creative pedagogy” do not mean the
same. Whereas there is an abundant discussion on creative pedagogy, there
is still little research regarding “pedagogy for creativity”. It is also important
to distinguish pedagogy for creativity and creative pedagogy, in particular,
to examine what they look like in teachers’ actions in the classroom, and to
consider the relationship between them. Pedagogy for creativity focuses on
developing creativity in teaching, and creative thinking and behaviour are the
intended outcome of the teaching and learning process. Creative teaching, on
the other hand, can be defined as using imaginative or innovative approaches to
make learning more interesting, engaging, effective, or motivating. The kinds
of questions that can be asked include whether teaching for creativity requires
a certain degree of creative pedagogy and whether creative pedagogy can natu-
rally lead to teaching for creativity.
Second, the significance of learners’ and teachers’ views and experience is
important in defining the effectiveness of integrating thinking skills in the cur-
riculum. Given the central role of thinking skills in social practice and learn-
ing, it is not difficult to imagine why teachers across the world are encouraged
to integrate thinking skills into their practice. However, as Li (2016b) rightly
points out, little is known about teachers’ conceptions, beliefs, and practice
about integrating thinking skills in foreign language instruction, and there is
a clear need to examine such beliefs. More important, there is a strong case for
immediate teacher training to develop both content and pedagogical knowledge
12  Li Li

of teaching thinking skills. As research shows, insufficient content and pedagog-

ical knowledge can become barriers for teachers who are trying to develop cur-
ricula and pedagogy based on thinking skills. More research needs to be carried
out to understand how practitioners conceptualize thinking skills in their own
contexts and how the concept is translated into practice, how they promote a
particular thinking skill, what tasks and activities may be appropriate in devel-
oping “thinking space” (Li, 2011), and how to address the factors hindering
implementation of thinking skills. Another area, which is highly worth inves-
tigating is creativity in language learning. Apart from encouraging playfulness
in language (Carter, 2016), methods, materials, and tasks are needed to develop
independent, unconventional, and curious learners who are willing to take risks
and to be flexible and collaborative.
Wegerif et al. (2015) write, “We are at the beginning of a new wave of inter-
est in teaching thinking fuelled partly by the challenge of new technologies and
partly by developing countries interested in education that will lead to more
economic innovation” (p. 7). They further propose that the key to this new
wave is to engage in rigorous research into teaching thinking. What is clear from
this volume is that not only is there a very active creativity and thinking skills
research culture in the field of second language learning, there is also plentiful
evidence to indicate that this research is actually filtering through to classrooms,
where it is having a positive impact on the learning experience of students, espe-
cially in EFL environments. The discussion and timely examples presented in
this book will facilitate more innovative practice. It will also provide teachers,
administrators, policy makers, and students with guidance in welcoming think-
ing skills and creativity into the language classroom.

References
Abdullah, A. C., Marimuthu, S., & Liau. M. (2003). A study on the use of higher order think-
ing skills in the teaching of the English language in schools in Penang. In A. Pandian, G.
Chakravarthy, & S. C. Lah (Eds.), English language teaching and literacy: Research and reflections
(pp. 153–164). Serdang: University Putra Malaysia Press.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
31(1), 71–94.
Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., and Dori, Y. J. (2012). Teaching thinking skills in context-based
learning: Teachers’ challenges and assessment knowledge. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 21(2), 207–225.
Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Prospective teachers’ beliefs about imaginative thinking in K-12
schooling. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 134–142.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case
for mini-c creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 73–79.
Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2006).The relationship among schooling, learning, and cre-
ativity: “All roads lead to creativity” or “You can’t get there from here”? In J. C. Kaufman
& J. Bear (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 316–332). Cambridge,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R. (2016). Language and creativity.The art of common talk.Abingdon, England: Routledge.
 “Thinking” move in second language education 13

Casanave, C. P. (2010). Taking risks? A case study of three doctoral students writing quali-
tative dissertations at an American university in Japan. Journal of Second Language Writing,
19(1), 1–16.
Chappell, P. (2016). Creativity through inquiry dialogue. In R. H. Jones & J. C. Richards
(Eds.), Creativity in language teaching: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 130–145).
Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Chapple, L., & Curtis, A. (2000). Content-based instruction in Hong Kong: Student responses
to film. System, 28, 419–433.
Cohen, L. M. (1989). A continuum of adaptive creative behaviors. Creativity Research Journal,
2, 169–183.
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools:Tensions and dilemmas. London: Routledge.
Craft, A. (2007). Possibility thinking in the early years and primary classrooms. In A. G. Tan
(Ed.), Creativity: A handbook for teachers (pp. 231–250). Singapore: World Scientific.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow. New York: Basic Books.
Department for Children, Schools and Families [DCSF]. (2008). Statutory framework for the
early years foundation stage. Nottingham, England: Author.
DeWaelsche, S. (2015). Critical thinking, questioning and student engagement in Korean
university English courses. Linguistics and Education, 32 (Part B), 131–147.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fisher, A., & Scriven, M. (1997). Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment. Norwich,
England: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
Fisher, R. (2004). What is creativity? In R. Fisher & M. Williams (Eds.), Unlocking creativity:
Teaching across the curriculum (pp. 6–20). New York: Routledge.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Meta-cognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning. (2011). Georgia’s pre-K program content
standards. Retrieved from http://.ga.gov/documents/attachments/Content_Standards.
pdf
Ghanizadeh, A., and Moafian, F. (2011). Critical thinking and emotional intelligence:
Investigating and relationship among EFL learners and the contribution of age and
gender. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1): 23–49.
Ghonsooly, B., & Showqi, S. (2012). The effects of foreign language learning on creativity.
English Language Teaching, 5(4), 161–167.
Gibson, M. (2012). Integrating higher-order thinking skills into the L2 classroom. Retrieved
from http://dadun.unav.edu/bitstream/10171/27571/1/Gibson.pdf
Hashemi, M. R., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2012). Critical discourse analysis and critical thinking:
An experimental study in an EFL context. System, 40(1), 37–47.
Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Fischer, R., & Christoffels I. K. (2011). Bilingualism and crea-
tivity: Benefits in convergent thinking come with losses in divergent thinking. Frontiers
in Psychology, 2, 1–5.
Jones, R. H., & Richards, J. C. (2016) Creativity and language teaching. In R. H. Jones &
J. C. Richards (Eds.), Creativity in language teaching: Perspectives from research and practice
(pp. 3–15). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of
creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.
Kharkhurin, A. V. (2007). The role of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural experiences in
bilinguals’ divergent thinking. In I. Kecskes & L. Albertazzi (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of
bilingualism (pp. 175–210). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kim, K. H. (2016). The creativity challenge: How we can recapture American innovation. Amherst,
NY: Prometheus Books.
14  Li Li

Li, L. (2011). Obstacles and opportunities for developing thinking through interaction in
language classrooms. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(3), 146–158.
Li, L. (2016a). Thinking skills and creativity in second language education: Where are we
now? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 267–272.
Li, L. (2016b). Integrating thinking skills in foreign language learning: What can we learn
from teachers’ perspectives? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 273–288.
Li, L., & Larkin, S. (2017). The role of metacognition in the success of reading and writing tasks across
cultures (ELT research papers). London: British Council.
Lin, M., Preston, A., Kharrufa, A., & Kong, Z. R. (2016). Making L2 learners’ reasoning
skills visible: The potential of computer supported collaborative learning environments.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 303–322.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lockley, T. (2013). International history as CLIL: Reflection, critical thinking and making
meaning of the world. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 330–338.
MacDonald, S. (2005). A century of arts and design education. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press.
Marin, L. M., and Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in
adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
6(1), 1–13.
Maybin, J., & Swann, J. (2007). Everyday creativity in language: Textuality, contextuality and
critique. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 497–517.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom.
Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359–377.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode
of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 13–168.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational technology research and devel-
opment, 50(3), 43–59.
Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2001). Guidelines for compulsory education reform.
Retrieved from http://www.edu.cn/20010926/3002911.shtml (Chinese).
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture [MOESC]. (2012). The Icelandic national cur-
riculum guide for preschools. Retrieved from http://brunnur.stjr.is/mrn/utgafuskra/
utgafa.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/
CA2C880C51C8CE0D00257A230058FCA5/Attachment/adskr_leiksk_ens_2012.pdf
Ministry of Women and Child Development [MWCD]. (2012). Early childhood educa-
tion curriculum framework (draft). Retrieved from http://dietaizawl.weebly.com/
uploads/2/3/5/9/23594870/ecce_curriculum_framework_draft.pdf
Nagappan, R. (2001). Language teaching and the enhancement of higher-order thinking
skills. In W. A. Renandaya & N. R. Sunga (Eds.), Language curriculum and instruction in mul-
ticultural societies – Anthology Series 42. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Nelson, C. D. (2016). Cultivating creative teaching via narrative inquiry. In R. H. Jones &
J. C. Richards (Eds.), Creativity in language teaching: Perspectives from research and practice
(pp. 241–255). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The philosophical roots of Western and Eastern concep-
tions of creativity. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26, 18–38.
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research [NMOER]. (2012). Framework plan for the
content and tasks of kindergartens. Retrieved from http://www.udir.no/Upload/barnehage/
Rammeplan/Framework_Plan_for_the_Content_and_Tasks_of_Kindergartens_2011_
rammeplan_engelsk.pdf
OECD. (2014). ESP international report: Skills for social progress. Retrieved from http://
www.oecd.org/site/espforum2014/IssuesPaperESPForum2014.pdf
 “Thinking” move in second language education 15

Official Journal of the European Union (2008). DECISION No 1350/2008/EC OF THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL: concerning the European
Year of Creativity and Innovation (2009). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:348:0115:0117:EN:PDF
Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2006). A Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and tools.
Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.
Pennycook, A. (2007). “The rotation gets thick. The constraints get thin”: Creativity, recon-
textualization, and difference. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 579–596.
Pica, T. (2000). Tradition and transition in English language teaching methodology. System,
29, 1–18.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). The national curriculum handbook for teachers.
London: Author.
Qualification and Curriculum Authority/Department for Education and Employment
[QCA/DfEE]. (2000). Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage. London: Author.
Rina, M. K. (1999). Cross-cultural differences. Encyclopedia of Creativity, 1, 453–464.
Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal, 61(2),
100–106.
Renner, C. (1996, February 29–March 2). Enriching learners’ language production through
content-based instruction. (Eric Document ED411694). Paper presented at a National
Conference on Lingua e Nuova Didattica, Madena, Italy. Retrieved from http://eric.
ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/22/5a/08.pdf
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Ricciardelli, L. A. (1992). Creativity and bilingualism. Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 242–254.
Richards, J. C., & Cotterall, S. (2016). Exploring creativity in language teaching. In R. H. Jones
& J. C. Richards (Eds.), Creativity in language teaching: Perspectives from research and practice
(pp. 97–113). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental issues. New Directions
for Child Development, 72, 3–30.
Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius:The creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books.
Sawyer, R. K., John-Steiner, V., Moran, S., Sternberg, R., Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi,
M., & Nakamura, J. (2003). Creativity and development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shahini, G., & Riazi, A. M. (2011). A PBLT approach to teaching ESL speaking, writing, and
thinking skills. ELT journal, 65(2), 170–179.
Skiba, T., Tan, M., Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). Roads not taken, new roads
to take: Looking for creativity in the classroom. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.),
Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 252–269). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Soko, A., Oget, D., Sonntag, M., & Khomenko, N. (2008). The development of inventive
thinking skills in the upper secondary language classroom. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
3(1), 34–46.
Sotto, E. (1994). When teaching becomes learning. London: Cassel Wellington Publishing House.
Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students.
Written Communication, 18(4), 506–548.
Tagg, C. (2012). Scraping the barrel with a shower of social misfits: Everyday creativity in text
messaging. Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 480–500.
Tarone, E. (2005). Fossilization, social context, and language play. In Z. Han, & T. Odlin (Eds.),
Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 157–172). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling
in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
29, 403–413.
16  Li Li

Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. (M. E. Sharpe, Inc., Trans.).
Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42, 7–97. (Original work published 1967).
Wang, Y., & Henderson, F. (2014). Teaching content through Moodle to facilitate students’
critical thinking in academic reading. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 16(3), 7–40.
Wegerif, R. (2002). Literature review in thinking skills, technology and learning.
Commissioned by Future Lab. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk/research/reviews/
ts01.htm
Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between. CSCL and teach-
ing thinking skills. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1),
143–157.
Wegerif, R., Li, L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Introduction. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C.
Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking
(pp. 1–8). New York: Routledge.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., and Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning:
An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development.
Learning and Instruction, 9(6), 493–516.
Wilson, K. (2016). Critical reading, critical thinking: Delicate scaffolding in English for
Academic Purposes (EAP). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 256–265.
World Bank. (2011). Learning for all: Investing in people’s knowledge and skills to promote devel-
opment. Education sector strategy 2020. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/ESSU/Education_
Strategy_4_12_2011.pdf
Wu, W.-C.V., Marek, M. W., & Chen, N.-S. (2013). Assessing cultural awareness and linguis-
tic competency of EFL learners in a CMC-based active learning context. System, 4(3),
515–528.
Yang,Y. C., Chuang,Y., Li, L., & Tseng, S. (2013). A blended learning environment for indi-
vidualized English listening and speaking integrating critical thinking. Computers and
Education, 63, 285–305.
Yayli, D. (2010). A think-aloud study: Cognitive and meta-cognitive reading strategies of
EFL department students. Egitim Arastirmalari – Eurasian Journal of Educational Research,
38, 234–251.
Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ meta-cognitive knowledge of reading
strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Journal of Language Awareness, 10, 268–288.
Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’
knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 320–353.
Zhou, J., Jiang, Y., & Yao, Y. (2015). The investigation on critical thinking ability in EFL
reading class. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 83–94.
2
HOW DOES BILINGUALISM
AFFECT CREATIVITY?
Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

From creativity to innovation: creative climates,

attitudes, and thinking skills
Creativity begins with the spark of curiosity. “This spark can be fanned through
interests, then can be developed to expertise and passion, and then eventually into
innovation.” Innovations are the unique and useful outcomes of the process of crea-
tivity (Kim, 2016, 2017, 2018). Innovations can range from small i (personal level) to
Big I (global level), which can change one’s own life and/or others’ lives for the bet-
ter. The question addressed in this chapter is: What is the basis for this association?
Covered in this chapter are the association between bilingualism and creativity in
both small i and Big I, and what the basis for this association is. We begin by giving
a brief overview of the three steps of Kim’s research-based climates, attitudes, and
thinking skills (CATs; 2016) theory to achieve innovation: (1) Cultivating the 4S
(soil, sun, storm, and space) climates; (2) nurturing the 4S attitudes, and (3) apply-
ing ION (inbox, outbox, and newbox) thinking skills (Figure 2.1).
Next, we discuss previous research findings on the relationship between
bilingualism and creativity. Then, we examine several ways bilingualism might
be related to or affect creativity; specifically, first, how bilingualism may directly
affect creativity; second, how cognitive skills developed by bilingualism may
affect creativity; and third, how bicultural and open-minded attitudes developed
by bilingualism and just biculturalism may affect creativity. We conclude by
suggesting some ways to develop creativity into innovation.

Creative thinking skills: ION thinking skills

To achieve an innovation, children require creative thinking skills, or what
Kim (2017) calls inbox, outbox, and newbox (ION) thinking skills. First, inbox
expertise, a deep knowledge and set of skills, is the foundation of creative
18  Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

FIGURE 2.1  CATs for innovation: Creative climates, attitudes, and thinking skills.

thinking. Expertise is developed over many years through inbox thinking.

Inbox thinking is a deep processing mode that uses the skills of memoriza-
tion, comprehension, and application (Figure 2.2). Second, using this expertise
and outbox imagination, unique ideas that leap beyond the current knowl-
edge base are developed. Outbox imagination is a broad processing mode that
uses the skills of fluency (i.e. generating many ideas), flexibility (i.e. gener-
ating different kinds of ideas), and originality (i.e. generating unusual ideas;
Figure 2.3). Without outbox imagination, an expert can only reinvent the

FIGURE 2.2 ION (inbox, outbox, and newbox) thinking: Inbox expertise by knowl-
edge, comprehension, and application.
 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 19

FIGURE 2.3  ION (inbox, outbox, and newbox) thinking: Outbox imagination by
fluency, flexibility, and originality.

wheel. Only with outbox imagination does an expert become an innovator who
can combine the wheel with something else, or extend the wheel or its use, to
produce something new and exciting. Third, emerging ideas must be carefully
examined for their usefulness through inbox-critical thinking, a deeper pro-
cessing mode that uses the skills of analysis and evaluation (Figure 2.4). Finally,
selected ideas must then be combined and refined through newbox synthesis.
Newbox synthesis is connecting-dot processing modes between critical think-
ing and outbox imagination, which use the skills of connection and refinement

FIGURE 2.4  ION (inbox, outbox, and newbox) thinking: Inbox-critical thinking by
analysis and evaluation.
20  Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

FIGURE 2.5  ION (Inbox, outbox, and newbox) thinking: Newbox synthesis by
connection and refinement.

(Figure 2.5). Thus, developing children’s ION thinking skills (see details in
Kim, 2017) should be an ultimate goal of education.

Creative attitudes: 4S attitudes

Creative thinking skills must be developed and enhanced, and the most effec-
tive way to develop children’s ION thinking skills is to nurture their crea-
tive attitudes. Creative attitudes are the common characteristics of notable
innovators (Kim, 2016). Children’s attitudes not only are affected by their
climates but also affect the climates. They are categorized as sun, storm, soil,
and space attitudes (4S attitudes; see details in Kim, 2016). First, sun attitudes
are characterized as children’s big ideas and playfulness to sustain their curi-
ous impulses, which include optimistic, big-picture thinking, spontaneous,
playful, and energetic attitudes. With sun attitudes, children become inquis-
itive visionaries who follow their curiosities and apply outbox imagination
to their big ideas. Second, storm attitudes are characterized as children’s
strengths to persist with and overcome challenges, which include independ-
ent, self-disciplined, diligent, self-efficacious, resilient, risk-taking, persis-
tent, and uncertainty-accepting attitudes. With storm attitudes, children
become courageous persisters who build and use inbox expertise to achieve
an innovation despite failures. Third, soil attitudes are characterized as chil-
dren’s complex minds that find diverse resources and others’ strengths and
leverage these, which include open-minded, bicultural, mentored, complexity-
seeking, and resourceful attitudes. With soil attitudes, children become
 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 21

complex cross-pollinators who strengthen their expertise by building or

capitalizing on others’ strengths and enhance critical thinking to achieve an
innovation. Last, space attitudes are characterized as children’s noncon-
forming ideas or expressions that challenge the status quo and authorities,
which include emotional, compassionate, self-reflective, daydreaming, auton-
omous, nonconforming, gender-bias-free, and defiant attitudes. With space
attitudes, children become compassionate rebels who defy the crowd to see
what others cannot, and they broaden their outbox imagination to magnify
the uniqueness of their creation (see details in Kim, 2016).

Creative climates: 4S climates

Children are born to be creative, but their creative attitudes and thoughts can
be stifled or further nurtured by their climates. The most conducive climates
for developing creativity are similar to the climates that grow the best apples:
First, bright and warm sunlight; second, good storms; third, nutrient-diverse
soil; and last, open space. Likewise, innovations require, first, inspirational and
encouraging sun climate; second, high-expectation-holding and challeng-
ing storm climate; third, experiences- and viewpoints-diverse soil climate;
and last, deep- and free-thinking space climate (4S; Kim, 2016, 2017, 2018).
The 4S climates are the foundation that enables 4S attitudes and ION thinking
skills. Children’s sun and space attitudes promote outbox imagination, storm
attitudes help them develop inbox expertise, soil attitudes help them develop
inbox-critical thinking, and newbox synthesis requires all 4S attitudes.

Effects of bilingualism on creativity

Bilingual people’s creativity
Big I. Many notable innovators were bilingual or acquired more than one lan-
guage as they spent significant amounts of time living in a foreign country and
speaking a foreign language. For example, many eminent people of the 20th
century were first- or second-generation immigrants (Goertzel, Goertzel, &
Goertzel, 1978). Many renowned scientists had a foreign country and language
influence (Eiduson, 1962; Helson & Crutchfield, 1970; Visher, 1947). Specifically,
many of the prominent U.S. scientists in the physical and life sciences were for-
eign born and were educated in a foreign country at the undergraduate and
graduate level (Levin & Stephan, 1999). These foreign-born or foreign-educated
individuals were born or educated in countries where English is not the official
language, and immigrants come from countries that speak languages quite dif-
ferent from that of their new homeland (Simonton, 2008).
The Nobel Prize symbolizes the highest degree of creative achieve-
ment. Many Nobel laureates studied abroad (Moulin, 1955) or were born or
worked in non-English native countries but published their work in English
22  Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

(Beardsmore, 2008). Moreover, many of the Nobel laureates (e.g. Berry, 1999;
Kim, 2016; Zuckerman, 1977) and eminent scientists (Berry, 1981; Cole &
Cole, 1973; Feist, 1993; Helson & Crutchfield, 1970; Roe, 1953) have been Jews.
Kim (2016) reported that 194 Nobel laureates of the 860 total individual world-
wide recipients, who account for 22.6% of the Nobel laureates between 1901
and 2014, had at least one Jewish parent. Jews won 8.7% of the Nobel Prizes in
peace, 12.6% in literature, 21.3% in chemistry, 25.6% in physics, 26.6% in phys-
iology/medicine, and 38.7% in economic sciences. Within Nobel Prize awards,
their contribution to the scientific fields is even higher: Jews won 26.3% of the
prizes in scientific fields (chemistry, physics, physiology/medicine, and economic
sciences) worldwide. As of 2015, Jews constituted only 0.2% of the world pop-
ulation, whereas Asian people constituted 23.4% of the world population. But
between 1901 and 2014 only 37 Asian people won a Nobel Prize, accounting
for only 4.3% of the total recipients. Considering the sizes of the populations,
the ratio of winning a Nobel Prize for Jews, per person, is about 115.1, whereas
that for Asian people, per person, is about 0.184. Thus, a Jewish person is about
625 times more likely to win a Nobel Prize than an Asian person (Kim, 2016).
Jews tend to be more creative, on a per person basis, than Christian people
(Arieti, 1976; Hayes, 1989; Veblen, 1919). Jews are also well represented in other
innovations. For example, Jewish musicians are some of the greatest of the 20th
century, accounting for over 25% of the conductors, 40% of the pianists, 50% of
the cellists, and 65% of the violinists (see Kim, 2016). Because traditionally Jews
were bilingual or spoke more than one language, their high rates of innovation
can be considered indirect evidence of the effect of bilingualism on creativity
(Kim, 2016; Simonton, 2008). For example, European Jews were often exposed
to multiple languages, such as Hebrew and/or Yiddish, in addition to the offi-
cial language of the country where they resided (Simonton, 2008). Moreover,
throughout history, Jews were often violently expelled from their homes and/or
countries because of their beliefs (Mohl, 2011). This forced them to be exposed
to different kinds of languages, areas, and cultures (Kim, 2016). However, Jews’
innovations tend to depend on their receiving basic civil rights in the country
where they reside (Simonton, 2008); for example, Jews in Switzerland, where
they had more freedom, won 83 times more Nobel Prizes in the sciences than
did Jews in Russia, where they had less freedom (Berry, 1981).
Small i. Bilingualism may affect different types of creativity tasks differ-
ently (Leikin, 2012; Leikin & Tovli, 2014; Simonton, 2008). Some research
findings have indicated that bilingualism affects verbal creativity through bilin-
guals’ enhanced linguistic and verbal capacity. For example, bilinguals out-
performed monolinguals on verbal tasks (Cummins, 2000; Gollan, Montoya,
& Werner, 2002; Leikin & Tovli, 2014; Okoh, 1980; Rosselli et al., 2000),
and specifically on flexibility (Carringer, 1974; Yousefi, Soleimani, &
Ghazanfariyanpoor, 2017), on originality (Carringer, 1974), and on fluency and
elaboration (Yousefi et al., 2017). In contrast, some research findings have indi-
cated that bilinguals’ limited linguistic skills may cause a deficiency in their
 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 23

creative problem solving on verbal tasks (Bialystok, 2005; Kharkhurin, 2010a;

Hommel, Colzato, Fischer, & Christoffels, 2011). Further, bilinguals outper-
formed monolinguals on nonverbal tasks (Kharkhurin, 2010a; Leikin & Tovli,
2014), and specifically on originality (Carringer, 1974; Torrance, Gowan,
Wu, & Aliotti, 1970) and on fluency (Carringer, 1974). However, some stud-
ies show that monolinguals outperformed bilinguals on nonverbal fluency
tasks (Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2008; Gollan et al., 2002; Kharkhurin, 2010a;
Rosselli et al., 2000), but these findings are inconsistent with other stud-
ies (e.g. Carringer, 1974; Ghonsooly & Showqi, 2012; Yousefi et al., 2017).
Additional research findings suggest that learning English as a foreign language
to an advanced level enhanced verbal fluency, flexibility, originality, and elabo-
ration, even after controlling for age, gender, socioeconomic status, and previous
learning experiences (Ghonsooly & Showqi, 2012). In summary, overall, bilin-
guals demonstrate superiority in both verbal and nonverbal tasks (Kharkhurin,
2009; Ricciardelli, 1992; Simonton, 2008) and in problem solving (Adesope,
Lavin, Thompson, & Ungerleider, 2010; Cushen & Wiley, 2011).
Some reasons for the above inconsistent research findings are (a) the effect of
age on the relationship between creativity and bilingualism, (b) the length of
exposure to a foreign language, and (c) the level of language proficiency, such
as balanced/fluent bilingualism versus nonbalanced/nonfluent bilingualism. If
individuals are fluent in their native language but are not fluent in their second
language, especially when the latter is acquired in adulthood rather than child-
hood, the levels of proficiency in two languages are not balanced. The levels of
proficiency in two languages are also not balanced if the two languages are used
in totally different settings; for example, the native language being used in one
context (such as home) and the second language being used in the other (such
as school and work; Simonton, 2008). The number of years of foreign language
context also affects the level of proficiency in the foreign language (Marinova-
Todd, Marshall, & Snow, 2000; Lee 2007). Balanced bilinguals who have high
levels of proficiency in two languages outperform nonbalanced bilinguals on
cognitive tasks, including creativity tasks (Karapetsas & Andreou, 1999). The
differences in concept formation and problem solving become greater with an
increase in children’s age, which indicates that children develop more balanced
bilingualism than nonbalanced bilingualism as they grow (Bialystok, 2001, 2005;
Cummins, 2000). Early (rather than later) bilingualism and balanced (rather
than nonbalanced) bilingualism promote a more intensive development of cre-
ative thinking (Cummins, 2000; Hommel et al., 2011; Leikin, 2012; Leikin &
Tovli, 2014; Ricciardelli, 1992; Simonton, 2008). Thus, the effect of bilingual-
ism on creativity is apparent mainly when the two languages provide somewhat
equivalent and interchangeable means of communication (Simonton, 2008).
Bilingual places for creativity. The relationship between bilingualism
and creativity extends beyond the individual and into the place. Throughout
history, many of the cities and cultures recognized as centres of more remark-
able innovations have been characterized by diversity and diverse languages
24  Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

(Florida, 2008; Weiner, 2016). Political fragmentation and nationalistic revolts

and rebellions against imperial rule in history tended to resuscitate innovations
(Simonton, 1975), which occurred in times and places that were particularly
multilingual, which seemed to encourage higher frequencies of bilingualism
(Simonton, 2008). Ages of innovation in history were also supported by polyglot
civilizations that contained many diverse languages in one area, rather than in
linguistically homogeneous civilizations (Simonton, 2008). Also, notable inno-
vators in history appeared at a higher probability in times of various cultures and
languages (Simonton, 1997, 2003). In Japan, for example, a cluster of notable
innovators developed after Japan opened to foreign influence through foreign
immigration of Chinese Buddhist monks, Korean artists, and Christian mis-
sionaries; Japanese people studying under foreigners; and Japanese people stud-
ying abroad or visiting civilized regions such as China, Korea, Europe, or the
United States and then imitating foreigners’ styles or ideas (Simonton, 1997).
However, innovations tended to occur after a delayed period, which indicates
that the notable innovators seemed to develop their creativity during the initial
period of exposure (Simonton, 2003). This may suggest that these innovators had
increased amounts of exposure to bilingualism in childhood and adolescence that
contributed to their creativity development (Simonton, 2008). Contemporary
cities around the world that are characterized by innovations also exhibit diver-
sity and diverse languages (Engel, 2014; Florida, 2008; Livermore, 2016). The
highest number of U.S. companies valued at more than one billion dollars are
found in states where the largest percentage of the population speaks another
language at home, such as California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New
York (in alphabetical order; CB Insights, 2017; Center for Immigration Studies
[CIS], 2014). Creative individuals flourish in large, multicultural cities that are
open to diversity and attract individuals who differ widely in language, national-
ity, and ethnicity (Florida, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c; Florida & Gates, 2003).

Direct and indirect effects of bilingualism on creativity

Direct effects of bilingualism on creative thinking skills
Research findings suggest that bilingualism, or acquiring more than one lan-
guage, directly influences the processes that underlie creative thinking skills,
such as outbox imagination and newbox synthesis (Hamers & Blanc, 2000;
Ricciardelli, 1992). A foreign language may contribute to lifting individu-
als beyond the familiar solutions grounded in their immediate conventional
or habitual thinking and their routine or ordinary experiences, resulting in
broader, counter-stereotypical thinking for outbox imagination. Or it may
contribute to an association with individuals’ international travel and crosscul-
tural interactions, extending their intellectual horizons for outbox imagination
(e.g. Costa et al., 2014; Keysar, Hayakawa, & Gyu, 2012; Stephan, 2017). The
syntactic requirements of a foreign language may make bilinguals more sensitive
 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 25

to concepts that are not emphasized in their native language, which develops
their linguistic sensitivity. They develop alternative coding schemes through
subjunctive grammatical constructions, which also enhances their understand-
ing of the structure, grammar, and vocabulary of their native language. They
establish different associations with familiar concepts and relate concepts from
different categories, which gives them access to richer semantic networks to the
extent that words can trigger more than one set of denotations and connotations
for individuals who are experiencing two different linguistic and conceptual
systems (Lubart, 1999; Simonton, 2008). They learn the arbitrary nature of any
one linguistic representation and the lack of complete semantic correspondence
between two languages, which enhances their capacity for generating numerous
and remote associations for newbox synthesis (Gough, 1976; Mednick, 1962;
Simonton, 2004, 2008).

Indirect effects of bilingualism on creative thinking skills

Bilingualism enhances creativity through the mediating variable of intellec-
tual development that has a positive association with creative thinking skills
(Simonton, 2008), particularly inbox expertise (Kim, 2016). Components of
general intelligence (executive-functioning skills, such as attentional control,
cognitive flexibility, and working memory) are fostered during the first two
years of life (Bialystok, 2017), which may affect the development of individuals’
inbox expertise.
Cognitive skills developed by bilingualism. Bilinguals show advantages
in cognitive abilities across the lifespan, from infancy to later stages of adulthood
(Kovács & Mehler, 2009; Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2008). Despite having little
to no language proficiency, infants who are raised in bilingual environments
display (a) more flexible control over their visual attention, extracting relevant
features from visual stimuli (Bialystok, 2017; Kovács & Mehler, 2009); (b) better
stimulus encoding and recognition memory (Singh et al., 2015); and (c) greater
memory generalization across cues and contexts (Brito & Barr, 2012, 2014; Brito,
Grenell, & Barr, 2014; Brito, Sebastian-Galles, & Barr, 2015) than those raised in
monolingual environments. Bilingual infants are able to recognize the speaker’s
changes between languages even if they have never heard the languages (Ferjan
Ramírez, Ramírez, Clarke, Taulu, & Kuhl, 2017; Sebastián-Galles, Albareda-
Castellot, Weikum, & Werker, 2012; Weikum et al., 2007). This might be
because, compared to infants raised in monolingual environments focusing on
the speaker’s eyes, infants raised in bilingual environments focus their atten-
tion on the speaker’s mouth while watching speech, which provides additional
articulatory information that can be used to manage the challenging situation of
learning two languages (Pons, Bosch, & Lewkowicz, 2015). However, the eyes
also provide important emotional and communicative information, which may
indicate a possible disadvantage of focusing on the mouth (Ayneto & Sebastian-
Galles, 2017).
26  Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

Bilinguals outperform monolinguals on executive-functioning tasks that

require cognitive flexibility and attentional control, such as switching and moni-
toring, where they need to selectively attend to specific information in a context
that involves various kinds of conflict, such as misleading and irrelevant infor-
mation that may need to be ignored, or where they must switch between tasks
or responses (Adesope et al., 2010; Barac, Bialystok, Castro, & Sanchez, 2014;
Bialystok, 2017). Electroencephalography (EEG)’s event-related potential (ERP)
waveforms (which reveal the time course of cognitive processing) also show
that bilinguals either produce different waveforms (Fernandez, Tartar, Padron,
& Acosta, 2013; Kousaie & Phillips, 2012; Larson, Clayson, & Clawson, 2014;
Moreno, Wodniecka, Tays, Alain, & Bialystok, 2014; Sullivan, Janus, Moreno,
Astheimer, & Bialystok, 2014) or perform better than monolinguals do on
executive-functioning tasks, such as conflict monitoring, attention allocation,
stimulus categorization, and error processing (Morales, Yudes, Gómez-Ariza,
& Bajo, 2015; Morales, Calvo, & Bialystok, 2013). Brain activation patterns
revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) tend to show that
bilinguals engage different brain regions or networks than monolinguals when
performing not only general executive-functioning tasks (Bialystok, 2017;
e.g. Abutalebi et al., 2012; Becker, Prat, & Stocco, 2016; Gold, Kim, Johnson,
Kryscio, & Smith, 2013; Luk, Anderson, Craik, Grady, & Bialystok, 2010;
Rodríguez-Pujadas et al., 2014) but also nonverbal tasks that overlap with the
regions or networks used in language processing (Bialystok, 2017). Compared to
monolinguals, bilinguals’ recruitment of unique brain regions and their general
executive-functioning tasks in switching across verbal and nonverbal tasks indi-
cate that bilinguals develop a superior and more efficient mechanism that extends
beyond language and into switching between tasks (Anderson, Chung-Fat-Yim,
Bellana, Luk, & Bialystok, 2018). Bilinguals’ cognitive performance on these
tasks is more attributable to the effects of bilingualism than to any other factors,
such as specific languages and cultures or national origin, and these effects persist
throughout the lifespan (Bialystok, 2017).
Creativity developed by cognitive skills. Bilingualism requires skills
such as managing two language systems constantly and simultaneously, con-
trolling attention to the required language system, and inhibiting the interfer-
ence of the other language system (Bialystok, 2017). Bilinguals appropriately
control and distribute their attentional resources and develop abstract and sym-
bolic representations (Adesope et al., 2010), which newbox synthesis requires
(Kim, 2016). Thinking in a foreign language is associated with inbox-critical
thinking skills (required for newbox synthesis; Kim, 2016) by providing greater
cognitive and emotional distance than thinking in a native language does (Keysar
et al., 2012). Because different languages often feature radically different gram-
matical structures, bilinguals may develop increased cognitive flexibility that
then frees the thought processes from potential linguistic constraints (Mohanty
& Babu, 1982). Bilinguals’ first and second language proficiency affects the struc-
ture and functioning of bilinguals’ memory. The proficiency in both languages
 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 27

facilitates the strength of the connections between the conceptual and lexical
systems. Bilinguals can postulate unrelated conceptual representation through
their two languages, which promotes cognitive flexibility (Kharkhurin, 2017).
Scientific research can become a creative thinking process when it is fluid
and dynamic with different perspectives (Stein, 1974). A hypothesis that is never
reconsidered, reformulated, or restated can inhibit creative thinking. Learning
and doing things the way people have always done them may be quick and con-
venient, but once a way of doing something becomes engrained, it is unlikely
that other ways will be sought. Thus cognitive flexibility allows creative indi-
viduals to disregard presumptions and to break through barriers. Increased
flexibility can allow more ideas to enter the mind and enhance more distant
connections or combinations between ideas, so it leads to the creation of original
ideas (Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004).
Metacognition. Compared to monolinguals, bilinguals are more likely
to come up with unique verbal expressions, beyond labelling, thus exhibit-
ing superior skill in meeting cognitive demands, such as abstract thinking
(Kormi-Nouri, Moradi, Moradi, Akbari-Zardkhaneh, & Zahedian 2012;
Lee, 2007). Bilinguals, especially those who acquired their second language
early in life, tend to outperform monolinguals on metalinguistic and metacogni-
tive awareness, which is awareness of one’s own language and thought (Adesope
et al., 2010). Their insight into the abstract features of language and into their
own learning processes further enhances their metacognitive awareness and
regulation, which facilitate newbox synthesis (e.g. Adesope et al., 2010; Kim,
Shoghi, & Ghonsooly, 2015).

Indirect effects of bilingualism/biculturalism

on creative attitudes
Because intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient foundation for creative
thinking skills, the relationship between bilingualism and creativity is not always
explained by intelligence (Simonton, 2008). The acquisition of a second language
may cultivate the soil climate of diverse resources, experiences, and viewpoints
that fosters soil creative attitudes, such as bicultural, open-minded, and complexity-
seeking attitudes. Having a bicultural attitude means having a unique cul-
tural identity—accepting the new culture while retaining one’s original home
culture; having an open-minded attitude, which means deferring judgment and
considering different viewpoints; and having a complexity-seeking attitude,
which means thinking in shades of grey rather than in polar black and white
(Kim, 2016, 2017, in press).
Bicultural attitude. The relationship between bilingualism and creativity
may be attributed not to bilinguals’ language acquisition or experience with two
language systems but to their experience with two systems of cultural meanings
and values acquired in parallel with learning a foreign language. For example,
many cases of political fragmentation and nationalistic revolts and rebellions
28  Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

against imperial rule in history, which resuscitated innovations, occurred in

bilingual or multilingual time and places, which resulted in diverse cultural
systems from openness to foreign cultures, which in turn fostered bicultural
or multicultural experiences (Simonton, 2008). Another example occurs when
immigrants must become assimilated into a new cultural system. This assimi-
lation usually includes new language acquisition. Immigrants who come from
countries that speak languages very different from that of their new homeland
may be impacted by their bicultural experiences more powerfully than by their
bilingual experiences.
Foreign-language learners become familiar with a foreign culture distinc-
tive from their native culture and are forced to view the world from a different
perspective through two different conceptual systems. Thus their old attitudes
face challenge, which often provides insight into the new culture’s approach
to the analysis of information, its ways of doing things, or its decision-making
processes, all of which may enhance the language learners’ creative thinking.
Having diverse and expansive perspectives and networks increases creative think-
ing skills (Burt, 2004; Fleming, Mingo, & Chen, 2007; Kéri, 2011; Sosa, 2011;
Uzzi & Spiro, 2005). People who have been immersed in two different cultures
for extended periods show superiority in a set of creative abilities (Lee, 2007).
This set of creative abilities is the best predictor of an individual’s creativity
(Wechsler, 2006). Exposure to different cultures allows individuals to recruit
unconventional ideas, violate existing boundaries, integrate incongruent con-
cepts of differing cultures, and generate novel ideals from new and unfamiliar
sources (Kharkhurin, 2009; Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008; Maddux,
Adam, Galinsky, & Bulletin, 2010).
Biculturalism may contribute to individuals’ creative development and per-
formance beyond the contribution of bilingualism (Kharkhurin, 2010b; Leung
et al., 2008; Simonton, 2008). Creative individuals tend to be bicultural (Benet-
Martínez, Lee, & Leu, 2006; Gardner, 2011; Simonton, 1994; Tadmor, Galinsky,
& Maddux, 2012). In addition to speaking a foreign language or living in a
foreign country, they often have parents with cultural backgrounds different
from each other or who are immigrants (Bialystok, 2001; Chang, Hsu, Shih, &
Chen, 2014; Chang, Su, & Chen, 2015; Fee & Gray, 2012; Fleith, Renzulli, &
Westberg, 2002; Lee, Therriault, & Linderholm, 2012; Lee & Kim, 2011; Leung
et al., 2008; Maddux et al., 2010).
For creativity development, keeping individuals’ own cultural identities is
as important as accepting a new culture (Benet-Martínez et al., 2006; Tadmor
et al., 2012). Creative individuals adapt to the new culture while keeping their
own cultural identities intact (Leung & Chiu, 2008; Maddux & Galinsky, 2009).
Their bicultural attitude allows them to be deeply immersed in another culture
and to learn from their bicultural interactions; when they are in Rome, they
learn what Romans do and why they do it, instead of just doing what Romans
do (Leung & Chiu, 2008; Leung & Chiu, 2010; Maddux & Galinsky, 2009;
Weisberg, 1999). Jewish innovations tended to result from the bicultural attitude
 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 29

of the Jews: They kept their own culture while adapting to the main culture as
cultural outsiders (Bialystok, 2001; Breger, Epstein, Kandil, & Schwartz, 2011;
Fleith et al., 2002; Leung et al., 2008; Simonton, 1994; Smith & Silva, 2011;
Tadmor et al., 2012; Yoon et al., 2013). They opened their minds to other per-
spectives and other ways of doing things (Barel, Van IJzendoorn, Sagi-Schwartz,
& Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2010; Eschleman, Bowling, & Alarcon, 2010;
Eitinger & Major, 2010; Kaplan, 2009).
A bicultural attitude increases creative performance and the use of creativ-
ity-supporting cognitive processes (Leung et al., 2008; Maddux & Galinsky,
2009). For example, biculturals gain familiarity with the new homeland’s dis-
tinct language, customs, history, heritage, and literature and are able to look
at concepts both routine and complex through different lenses efficiently and
to develop an understanding of the culture and worldview prevalent among
the language’s native speakers, which broadens their worldview and helps them
escape the conventions and conformity pressures that limit creative minds and
expressions (Crutchfield, 1962; Maslow, 1959; Simonton, 1999). They develop
cultural sensitivity and flexible thoughts, perspectives, and behaviours (Benet-
Martínez et al., 2006; Maddux et al., 2010; Tadmor et al., 2012). Their new
cultural knowledge also allows them to think differently, to draw on a lot of
alternative ideas, and to form unique combinations of ideas (Leung & Chiu,
2010; Weisberg, 1999). They notice inconsistencies or contrasts between the cul-
tures, grapple with understanding at a deep level, generate complex strategies
to cope, and synthesize seemingly incompatible ideas (Leung & Chiu, 2010;
Tadmor et al., 2012). For example, creative bicultural comedians employ linguis-
tic and cultural idiosyncrasies to express their own cultural identity and concep-
tualizations, which they translate into another language, evoking the seemingly
identical cultural schema to highlight the differences between the two cultures,
which generates a synthesis (e.g. comedy) from the paradoxes (Fallatah, 2017).
Also, creative bicultural writers’ languages are grounded in cultural discourse
deeply rooted in their linguistic and cultural similarities and dissimilarities,
resulting in newbox synthesis (e.g. Albakry & Siler, 2012; Kim, 2016).
Open-minded and complexity-seeking attitudes. The relationship
between bilingualism and creativity may be attributed to bilinguals’ open-
minded and complexity-seeking attitudes, which are nurtured in parallel
with learning a foreign language and/or a foreign culture. Bilinguals out-
perform monolinguals on tasks that represent an open-minded attitude (e.g.
Kharkhurin, 2010a; Kharkhurin & Samadpour Motalleebi, 2008), which
is nurtured by exposure to diversity and diverse experiences and languages
(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005). Bilingualism nurtures individuals’
open-mindedness, perhaps because mastering a foreign language requires them
(a) to be open to seemingly strange syntactic structures, illogical idiomatic
expressions or figures of speech, and words that look or sound similar to words
in their native language but have different meanings and/or (b) to deliberately
step out of the comfort zone of the system and structure of their native language
30  Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

to embrace and absorb those of a foreign language (Kharkhurin, 2010a). It

might be because bilinguals’ knowledge and experience of a foreign language
and a foreign culture, and different nuances in words or conceptions of com-
mon cultural issues, make them more flexible in envisioning differences and
similarities among different people and ideas.
Creative individuals are open to new experiences, instead of being satisfied
with the familiar, and open-mindedness is one of the attitudes most characteristi-
cally found among creative individuals (Da Costa, Páez, Sánchez, Garaigordobil,
& Gondim, 2015; Feist, 1999; Fleeson, 2001; Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016;
Li et al., 2015; Ma, 2009). Creative individuals embrace people, perspectives,
ideas, and views that are radically different from their own; they see the bigger pic-
ture and recognize how others arrive at their conclusions. They develop a flexible
mindset for learning constantly and finding new understandings by questioning
and changing engrained beliefs about how things are (Mezias & Starbuck, 2003).
Their open-minded attitude may facilitate their development of skills in keeping
a large mental and emotional reservoir of potential solutions, in generating an
original idea, and in evaluating multiple solutions (Feist, 1999; McCrae, 1987;
Russ, 1993). Their minds stay open long enough to get new and more information
and experiences (Buchanan & Bandy, 1984; Buchanan & Taylor, 1986; Carne &
Kirton, 1982; Carter, Nelson, & Duncombe, 1983; Cheng, Kim, & Hull, 2010;
Gryskiewicz & Tullar, 1995; Hall & MacKinnon, 1969; Helson, 1971; Isaksen,
Lauer, & Wilson, 2003; Jacobson, 1993; Johnson, 2003; Kharkhurin, 2010a;
Kharkhurin & Samadpour Motalleebi, 2008; Myers, McCaulley, & Most, 1985;
Richter & Winter, 1966). Unique ideas often come after problems are understood
and considered from many different perspectives, and after more obvious or read-
ily available ideas have been examined and discarded (Christensen, Guilford, &
Wilson, 1957; De Dreu et al., 2012; Osborn, 1963; Parnes, 1961; Paulus, Kohn, &
Arditti, 2011; Paulus, Nakui, Putman, & Brown, 2006; Putman & Paulus, 2009).
Balanced bilinguals may nurture more open-minded attitudes; and/or open-
minded individuals may become more balanced bilinguals, which may increase
their creative thinking skills (Simonton, 2008).
Biculturals’ creativity is facilitated through their marginality, or by their being
cultural outsiders (Benet-Martínez et al., 2006). Bilinguals tend to welcome mul-
tiplicity and embrace even the conflicting aspects of the blended culture (Albakry
& Siler, 2012). These conflicting, multiple perspectives may enhance cognitive
flexibility, outbox imagination, and unique expressions (Kharkhurin, 2007; Kim,
2016), as well as mental complexity, which fosters a complexity-seeking attitude
(Bialystok, 2001; Fleith et al., 2002; Leung et al., 2008).

Implications
Since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act became law in the United States,
some educators and immigrant parents have forced children to adapt to American
culture only and to focus on learning only English to increase the students’
 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 31

English test scores—instead of supporting and celebrating their bilingualism or

biculturalism. Such children have been encouraged to leave behind their own
language and culture (Hanna, 2011) for the sake of achieving high standardized
achievement test scores (Kim, 2016). However, learning a foreign language has
many advantages, especially balanced bilingualism, which enhances creativity
directly and/or indirectly by developing cognitive skills and bicultural, open-
minded, and complexity-seeking attitudes. Learning the language and culture
of the mainstream people, while keeping their own, is critical not only for indi-
viduals’ creativity but also for their well-being (Smith & Silva, 2011). Lifelong
bilingualism contributes a neural reserve and hence somewhat inhibits later cog-
nitive decline in healthy bilingual older adults—a benefit that monolingual older
adults do not experience (Anderson, Grundy et al., 2018; Grady, Luk, Craik, &
Bialystok, 2015; Luk, Bialystok, Craik, & Grady, 2011). Thus bilingualism can
be a means of postponing symptoms of dementia (Bialystok, 2017; Gold, 2016).
Additionally, bilingualism helps people appreciate literature in the original lan-
guage, develop a global citizenship mindset and values, and advance careers in
the interconnected world (Stein-Smith, 2018). Yet developing balanced bilin-
gualism takes a long time and should be started earlier in life. Learning a foreign
language, studying abroad, or living in a foreign country may not enhance indi-
viduals’ creativity if such an experience is short or occurs later in life, or if they
are not immersed in the new culture. Some immigrants are often more tradi-
tional in terms of their native culture than those still living in the home country
(Kim, Yang, Atkinson, Wolfe & Hong, 2001). Even expatriates or third culture
kids (TCKs: Children who grow up living outside of their parents’ original cul-
ture [Pierce & Kim, 2014]) have ethnocentric worldviews (Greenholtz & Kim,
2009) if they live only in a cultural bubble (engaging in only limited interactions
with the local culture) surrounded by other TCKs, which limits their creative
thinking.
Children should be encouraged to maintain their own language and cul-
tural values, while assimilating into the mainstream culture (Raina, 1999).
Adults should help children build appreciation for their unique cultural iden-
tity by teaching them that a foreign accent is a sign of courage and intelli-
gence—displayed by people who were brave enough to cross an ocean or a
barrier to come to the foreign country and make a foreign place their new
home, and are intelligent enough to learn a second language—and that foreign
accent may also be a sign of creativity. They should introduce them to a diver-
sity of languages, people, and cultures; model multicultural sensitivity through
interactions with others from different cultural backgrounds; and teach them
how to observe and ask questions that support appropriate multicultural com-
munications. TCKs should be given opportunities to be immersed in the local
culture, to burst the cultural bubble, and to extend their network beyond what
may be available at school, engaging in a new circle of friends and taking
advantage of opportunities to get to know their local peers on a much deeper
level (Langford, 2014/2015).
32  Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

Adults should encourage children from a collectivistic culture to think I,

to stress uniqueness, instead of we, and those from an individualistic culture
to think we, to stress similarities, instead of I (Stapel & Koomen, 2001; Van
Baaren, Horgan, Chartrand, & Dijkmans, 2004; Wiekens & Stapel, 2008).
Adults should also encourage children who incline toward individualism,
and who emphasize their freedom to be different and their need for creative
self-expression (i.e. internal processes rather than external processes), to work
autonomously, to express themselves freely with minimum restraints, and to
generate unique ideas and outcomes. By the same token, children who incline
toward collectivism, and put little emphasis on unique ideas and outcomes
(i.e. external products rather than internal processes) should be encouraged to
recognize their inner needs for free self-expressions (Yi, Hu, Scheithauer, &
Niu, 2013; e.g. Lassig, 2013).
Bilingualism enhances children’s creative thinking skills directly and/or nur-
tures cognitive skills that are conducive to creative thinking, especially inbox
expertise that is also facilitated by children’s storm attitudes, which are nurtured
by a high-expectation and challenging storm climate. Further, bilingualism and
biculturalism nurture a resources-, experiences-, and viewpoints-diverse soil cli-
mate, which nurture soil attitudes that facilitate children’s inbox-critical think-
ing. Additionally, innovations require not only an inspirational and encouraging
sun climate to nurture children’s sun attitudes, but also a deep- and free-thinking
space climate to nurture their space attitudes, which make outbox imagination
possible. Just as growing the best apples requires bright and warm sunlight, good
storms, nutrient-diverse soil, and open space, innovations require the 4S climates
that nurture the 4S attitudes, which enable ION thinking skills to achieve inno-
vation (Kim, 2016).

References
Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P. A., Green, D. W., Hernandez, M., Scifo, P., Keim, R., Cappa, S. F.,
& Costa, A. (2012). Bilingualism tunes the anterior cingulate cortex for conflict monitor-
ing. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 2076–2086.
Adesope, O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and
meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research,
80, 207–245.
Albakry, M., & Siler, J. (2012). Into the Arab-American borderland: Bilingual creativity in
Randa Jarrar’s “Map of home.” Arab Studies Quarterly, 34, 109–121.
Anderson, J. A. E., Chung-Fat-Yim, A., Bellana, B., Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2018). Language
and cognitive control networks in bilinguals and monolinguals. Neuropsychologia 117,
352–363.
Anderson, J. A. E., Grundy, J. G., De Frutos, J., Barker, R. M., Grady, C. & Bialystok, E.
(2018). Effects of bilingualism on white matter integrity in older adults. NeuroImage, 167,
143–150.
Arieti, S. (1976). Creativity:The magic synthesis. New York: Basic Books.
Ayneto, A., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2017). The influence of bilingualism on the preference
for the mouth region of dynamic faces. Developmental Science, 20, e12446.
 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 33

Barac, R., Bialystok, E., Castro, D. C., & Sanchez, M. (2014). The cognitive development of
young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29,
699–714.
Barel, E.,Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Sagi-Schwartz, A., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2010).
Surviving the Holocaust: A meta-analysis of the long-term sequelae of a genocide.
Psychological Bulletin, 136, 677–698.
Beardsmore, H. B. (2008). Multilingualism, cognition and creativity. International CLIL
Research Journal, 1(1), 4–19.
Becker,T. M., Prat, C. S., & Stocco, A. (2016). A network-level analysis of cognitive flexibility
reveals a differential influence of the anterior cingulate cortex in bilinguals versus mono-
linguals. Neuropsychologia, 85, 62–73.
Benet-Martínez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. (2006). Biculturalism and cognitive complexity:
Expertise in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 386–407.
Berry, C. (1981).The Nobel scientists and the origins of scientific achievement. British Journal
of Sociology, 32, 381–391.
Berry, C. (1999). Religious traditions as contexts of historical creativity: Patterns of scien-
tific and artistic achievement and their stability. Personality & Individual Differences, 26,
1125–1135.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (2005). Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In F. Kroll &
A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approach (pp. 417–432).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience.
Psychological Bulletin, 143, 233–262.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Freedman, M. (2007). Bilingualism as a protection against the
onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia, 45, 459–464.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger
and older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34,
859–873.
Breger, S., Epstein, N., Kandil, C.Y., & Schwartz, A. E. (2011). A Moment symposium:The origins
of Jewish creativity. Moment, 32–37.
Brito, N., & Barr, R. (2012). Influence of bilingualism on memory generalization during
infancy. Developmental Science, 15, 812–816.
Brito, N., & Barr, R. (2014). Flexible memory retrieval in bilingual 6-month-old infants.
Developmental Psychobiology, 56, 1156–1163.
Brito, N. H., Grenell, A., & Barr, R. (2014). Specificity of the bilingual advantage for mem-
ory: Examining cued recall, generalization, and working memory in monolingual, bilin-
gual, and trilingual toddlers. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1369.
Brito, N. H., Sebastian-Galles, N., & Barr, R. (2015). Differences in language exposure and its
effects on memory flexibility in monolingual, bilingual, and trilingual infants. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 18, 670–682.
Buchanan, D. R., & Bandy, C. (1984). Jungian typology of prospective psychodramatists:
Myers-Briggs type indicator analysis of applicants for psychodrama training. Psychological
Reports. 55, 599–606.
Buchanan, D. R., & Taylor, J. A. (1986). Jungian typology of professional psychodramatists:
Myers-Briggs type indicator analysis of certified psychodramatists. Psychological Reports,
58, 391–400.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2),
349–399.

BK-TandF-LI_TEXT_9781138297937-190406-Chp02.indd 33 19/06/19 10:13 AM

34  Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

Carne, G., & Kirton, M. J. (1982). Styles of creativity: Test-score correlations between Kirton
Adaption-Innovation Inventory and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Psychological Reports,
50, 31–36.
Carringer, D. C. (1974). Creative thinking abilities in Mexican youth: The relationship of
bilingualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 492–504.
Carter, B. A., Nelson, D. L., & Duncombe, L. W. (1983). The effect of psychological type on
the mood and meaning of two collage activities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy,
37, 688–693.
CB Insights. (2017). The United States of Unicorns: Every US company worth $1B+ in one
map. Retrieved from https://www.cbinsights.com/research/startup-unicorns-us-map/
Center for Immigration Studies [CIS]. (2014). One in five U.S. residents speaks for-
eign language at home, record 61.8 million. 3 Oct 2014. Retrieved from https://cis.org/
One-Five-US-Residents-Speaks-Foreign-Language-Home-Record-618-million
Chamorro-Premuzic,T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Chang, J. H., Hsu, C. C., Shih, N. H., & Chen, H. C. (2014). Multicultural families and crea-
tive children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 1288–1296.
Chang, J. H., Su, J. C., & Chen, H. C. (2015). Cultural distance between parents’ and chil-
dren’s creativity: A within-country approach in Taiwan. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 21, 477–485.
Cheng, Y., Kim, K. H., & Hull, M. F. (2010). Comparisons of creative styles and personality
types between American and Taiwanese college students and the relationship between
creative potential and personality types. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4,
103–112.
Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P., & Wilson, R. (1957). Relations of creative responses to
working time and instructions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(2), 82–88.
Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Costa, A., Foucart, A., Hayakawa, S., Aparici, M., Apestguia, J., Heafner, J., & Keysar, B. (2014).
Your morals depend on your language. PLoS One, 9, e94842.
Crutchfield, R. (1962). Conformity and creative thinking. In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M.
Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 120–140). New York:
Atherton Press.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Tonawanda,
NY: Multilingual Matters.
Cushen, P. J., & Wiley, J. (2011). Aha! Voila! Eureka! Bilingualism and insightful problem
solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 458–462.
Da Costa, S., Páez, D., Sánchez, F., Garaigordobil, M., & Gondim, S. (2015). Personal factors
of creativity: A second order meta-analysis. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
31, 165–173.
De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., Baas, M., Wolsink, I., Roskes, M. J. P., & Bulletin, S. P. (2012).
Working memory benefits creative insight, musical improvisation, and original ideation
through maintained task-focused attention. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38,
656–669.
Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control:
Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, 30, 343–353
Eiduson, B. T. (1962). Scientists:Their psychological world. New York: Basic Books.
Eitinger, L., & Major, E. F. (2010). Stress of the Holocaust. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz
(Eds.), Handbook of stress. New York: Free Press.
 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 35

Engel, J. S. (Ed.) (2014). Global clusters of innovation: Entrepreneurial engines of economic growth
around the world. London: Elgar.
Eschleman, K. J., Bowling, N. A., & Alarcon, G. M. (2010). A meta-analytic examination of
hardiness. International Journal of Stress Management, 17, 277–307.
Fallatah, W. (2017). Bilingual creativity in Saudi stand-up comedy. World Englishes,
36, 666–683.
Fee, A., & Gray, S. J. (2012). The expatriate-creativity hypothesis: A longitudinal field test.
Human Relations, 65, 1515–1538.
Feist, G. J. (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science,
4, 366–371.
Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. (pp. 273–296). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ferjan Ramírez, N., Ramírez, R. R., Clarke, M., Taulu, S., & Kuhl, P. K. (2017). Speech
discrimination in 11-month-old bilingual and monolingual infants: A magnetoencepha-
lography study. Developmental Science, 20, e12427. doi: 10.1111/desc.12427
Fernandez, M., Tartar, J. L., Padron, D., & Acosta, J. (2013). Neurophysiological marker of
inhibition distinguishes language groups on a nonlinguistic executive function test. Brain
and Cognition, 83, 330–336.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure-and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as
density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027.
Fleith, D. de S., Renzulli, J. S., & Westberg, K. L. (2002). Effects of a creativity training
program on divergent thinking abilities and self-concept in monolingual and bilingual
classrooms. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 373–386.
Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and
creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 443–475.
Florida, R. (2002a). Bohemia and economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 2(1),
55–71.
Florida, R. (2002b). The economic geography of talent. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 92, 743–755.
Florida, R. (2002c). The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community
and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Florida, R. (2008). Who’s your city? How the creative economy is making where to live the most
important decision of your life. New York: Basic Books.
Florida, R., & Gates, G. (2003). Technology and tolerance: The importance of diversity to
high-technology growth. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center for Urban and
Metropolitan Policy.
Ghonsooly, B., & Showqi, S. (2012). The effects of foreign language learning on creativity.
English Language Teaching, 5(4), 161–167.
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Goertzel, M. G., Goertzel,V., & Goertzel,T. G. (1978). 300 Eminent personalities: A psychosocial
of the famous. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gold, B. T. (2016). Lifelong bilingualism, cognitive reserve and Alzheimer’s disease: A review
of findings. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6, 171–189.
Gold, B. T., Kim, C., Johnson, N. F., Kryscio, R. J., & Smith, C. D. (2013). Lifelong bilin-
gualism maintains neural efficiency for cognitive control in aging. Journal of Neuroscience,
33, 387–396.
Gollan,T. H., Montoya, R. I., & Werner, G. A. (2002). Semantic and letter fluency in Spanish–
English bilinguals. Neuropsychology, 16, 562–576.
36  Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

Gough, H. G. (1976). Studying creativity by means of word association tests. Journal of Applied
Psychology and Personality, 61, 348–353.
Grady, C. L., Luk, G., Craik, F. I. M., & Bialystok, E. (2015). Brain network activity in mono-
lingual and bilingual older adults. Neuropsychologia, 66, 170–181.
Greenholtz, J., & Kim, J. I. (2009).The cultural hybridity of Lena: A multi-method case study
of a third culture kid. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 391–398.
Gryskiewicz, N. D., & Tullar, W. L. (1995). The relationship between personality type and
creativity style among managers. Journal of Psychological Type, 32, 30–35.
Hall, W. B., & MacKinnon, D. W. (1969). Personality inventory correlates of creativity among
architects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 322–326.
Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Hanna, P. L. (2011). Gaining global perspective: Educational language policy and planning.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,14, 733–749.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). The complete problem solver (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Helson, R. (1971). Women mathematicians and the creative personality. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 36, 210–220.
Helson, R., & Crutchfield, R. S. (1970). Mathematicians: The creative researcher and the
average. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 250–257.
Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Fischer, R., & Christoffels, I. (2011). Bilingualism and creativ-
ity: Benefits in convergent thinking come with losses in divergent thinking. Frontiers in
Psychology, 2, 273.
Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., & Wilson, G.V. (2003). An examination of the relationship between
personality type and cognitive style. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 343–354.
Jacobson, C. M. (1993). Cognitive styles of creativity: Relations of scores on the Kirton
Adaption-Innovation Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator among managers
in USA. Psychological Reports, 72, 1131–1138.
Johnson, R. C. (2003). Study of the relationship between cognitive styles of creativity and
personality types of military leaders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, (10-A).
Kaplan, R. (2009). Soaring on the wings of the wind: Freud, Jews and Judaism. Australasian
Psychiatry, 17, 318–325.
Karapetsas, A., & Andreou, G. (1999). Cognitive development of fluent and nonfluent bilin-
gual speakers assessed with tachistoscopic techniques. Psychological Reports, 84, 697–700.
Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2016). The big five, the huge two, and creative self-beliefs: A
meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 214–232.
Kéri, S. (2011). Solitary minds and social capital: Latent inhibition, general intellectual
functions and social network size predict creative achievements. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, the Arts, 5, 215–221.
Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & Gyu, A. S. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a
foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23, 661–668.
Kharkhurin, A.V. (2007). The role of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural experiences in bilin-
guals’ divergent thinking. In I. Kecskes & L. Albertazzi (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of bilingual-
ism (pp.175–210). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kharkhurin, A. V. (2009). The role of bilingualism in creative performance on divergent
thinking and invented alien creatures tests. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 59–71.
Kharkhurin, A. V. (2010a). Bilingual verbal and nonverbal creative behavior. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 211–226.
Kharkhurin, A.V. (2010b). Sociocultural differences in the relationship between bilingualism
and creativity potential. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 776–783.
 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 37

Kharkhurin, A.V. (2017). Language mediated concept activation in bilingual memory facili-
tates cognitive flexibility. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–16.
Kharkhurin, A. V., & Samadpour Motalleebi, S. N. (2008). The impact of culture on the
creative potential of American, Russian, and Iranian college students. Creativity Research
Journal, 20, 404–411.
Kim, K. H. (2016). The creativity challenge: How we can recapture American innovation. Amherst,
NY: Prometheus Books.
Kim, K. H. (2017). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking — Figural or Verbal:
Which One Should We Use? Creativity. Theories-Research-Applications, 4, 302–321.
Kim, K. H. (2018). How can parents and teachers cultivate creative climates for children to
become innovators? Childhood Education, 94(2), 10–17.
Kim, K. H. (in press). Demystifying creativity: What creativity isn’t and is. Roeper Review.
Kim, K. H., & Lee, J. (in press). Creative and Gifted Education in Korea: Using the CATs
Theory to Illustrate How Creativity Can Grow into Innovation. In S. Smith, Australasian-
Pacific Handbook on Giftedness and Talent, Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Springer Social and
Behavioural Sciences.
Kim, B. S.,Yang, P. H., Atkinson, D. R.,Wolfe, M. M., & Hong, S. (2001). Cultural value simi-
larities and differences among Asian American ethnic groups. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 7, 343–361.
Kormi-Nouri, R., Moradi, A.-R., Moradi, S., Akbari-Zardkhaneh, S., & Zahedian, H.
(2012). The effect of bilingualism on letter and category fluency tasks in primary
school children: Advantage or disadvantage? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
15(2), 351–364.
Kousaie, S., & Phillips, N. A. (2012). Ageing and bilingualism: Absence of a “bilingual
advantage” in Stroop interference in a nonimmigrant sample. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 65, 356–369.
Kovács, A. M., & Mehler, J. (2009). Flexible learning of multiple speech structures in bilingual
infants. Science, 325, 611–612.
Langford, M. (2014/2015 Winter). American in Britain, 22–23. London: Elliott.
Larson, M. J., Clayson, P. E., & Clawson, A. (2014). Making sense of all the conflict: A theoret-
ical review and critique of conflict-related ERPs. International Journal of Psychophysiology,
93, 283–297.
Lassig, C. J. (2013). Approaches to creativity: How adolescents engage in the creative process.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 3–12.
Lee, H., & Kim, K. H. (2011). Can speaking more languages enhance your creativity?
Relationship between bilingualism and creative potential among Korean American
students with multicultural link. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1186–1190.
Lee, C. S., Therriault, D. J., & Linderholm, T. A. C. P. (2012). On the cognitive benefits of
cultural experience: Exploring the relationship between studying abroad and creative
thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 768–778.
Lee, H. E. (2007). The relationship between bilingualism and creativity of Korean
Americans. (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/
lee_hang-eun_200708_phd
Leikin, M. (2012). The effect of bilingualism on creativity: Developmental and educational
perspectives. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17, 431–447.
Leikin, M., & Tovli, E. (2014). Bilingualism and creativity in early childhood. Creativity
Research Journal, 26, 411–417.
Leung, A. K., & Chiu, C.Y. (2008). Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and open-
ness to experience on creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 376–382.
38  Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

Leung, A. K., & Chiu, C.Y. (2010). Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness, and creativ-
ity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 723–741.
Leung, A., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008). Multicultural experience
enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169.
Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1999). Are the foreign born a source of strength for U.S.
science? Science, 285, 1213–1214.
Li, W., Li, X., Huang, L., Kong, X., Yang, W., Wei, D., … Liu, J. (2015). Brain structure links
trait creativity to openness to experience. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10,
191–198.
Livermore, D. (2016). Driven by difference: How creative companies fuel innovation through diversity.
New York: Amacom.
Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity
(pp.339–350). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Luk, G., Anderson, J. A. E., Craik, F. I. M., Grady, C., & Bialystok, E. (2010). Distinct neural
correlates for two types of inhibition in bilinguals: Response inhibition versus interfer-
ence suppression. Brain and Cognition, 74, 347–357.
Luk, G., Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Grady, C. L. (2011). Lifelong bilingualism maintains
white matter integrity in older adults. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 16808–16813.
Ma, H.-H. (2009). The effect size of variables associated with creativity: A meta-analysis.
Creativity Research Journal, 21, 30–42.
Maddux, W. W., Adam, H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). When in Rome… Learn why the
Romans do what they do: How multicultural learning experiences facilitate creativity.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 731–741.
Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relation-
ship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,
1047–1061.
Marinova-Todd, S. H., Marshall, D. B., & Snow, C. E. (2000).Three misconceptions about age
and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 9–34.
Maslow, A. H. (1959). Creativity in self-actualizing people. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity
and its cultivation (pp. 83–95). New York: Harper & Row.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69,
220–232.
Mezias, J. M., & Starbuck, W. H. (2003). What do managers know, anyway? Harvard Business
Review, 81(5), 16–18.
Mohanty, A. K., & Babu, N. (1982). Bilingualism and metalinguistic ability among Kond
tribals in Orissa, India. Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 15–22.
Mohl, A. (2011). The evolution of anti-Semitism: Historical and psychological roots. Journal
of Psychohistory, 39, 115–128.
Morales, J., Calvo, A., & Bialystok, E. (2013).Working memory development in monolingual
and bilingual children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 187–202.
Morales, J.,Yudes, C., Gómez-Ariza, C. J., & Bajo, M. T. (2015). Bilingualism modulates dual
mechanisms of cognitive control: Evidence from ERPs. Neuropsychologia, 66, 157–169.
Moreno, S., Wodniecka, Z., Tays, W., Alain, C., & Bialystok, E. (2014). Inhibitory control in
bilinguals and musicians: Event related potential (ERP) evidence for experience-specific
effects. PLoS ONE, 9, e94169.
Moulin, L. (1955). The Nobel Prizes for the sciences from 1901–1950: An essay in sociolog-
ical analysis. British Journal of Sociology, 6, 246–263.
 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 39

Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., & Most, R. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use
of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Okoh, N. (1980). Bilingualism and divergent thinking among Nigerian and Welsh school
children. Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 163–170.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination; principles and procedures of creative problem-solving
(3rd ed.). New York: Charles Schribner’s.
Parnes, S. J. (1961). Effects of extended effort in creative problem solving. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 52, 117–122.
Paulus, P. B., Kohn, N. W., & Arditti, L. E. (2011). Effects of quantity and quality instructions
on brainstorming. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 38–46.
Paulus, P. B., Nakui, T., Putman,V. L., & Brown,V. R. (2006). Effects of task instructions and
brief breaks on brainstorming. Group Dynamics:Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 206–219.
Pierce, A. R., & Kim, K. H. (2014). Third culture kids. In S. Thompson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Diversity and Social Justice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pons, F., Bosch, L., & Lewkowicz, D. J. (2015). Bilingualism modulates infants’ selective atten-
tion to the mouth of a talking face. Psychological Science, 26, 490–498.
Putman, V. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2009). Brainstorming, brainstorming rules and decision
making. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 29–40.
Raina, M. K. (1999). Cross-cultural differences. Encyclopedia of Creativity, 1, 453–464.
Ricciardelli, L. A. (1992). Bilingualism and cognitive development: A review of past and
recent findings. Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 242–254.
Richter, R. H., & Winter, W. D. (1966). Holtzman Inkblot correlates of creative potential.
Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 30(1), 62–67.
Rodríguez-Pujadas, A., Sanjuán, A., Fuentes, P.,Ventura-Campos, N., Barrós-Loscertales, A.,
& Ávila, C. (2014). Differential neural control in early bilinguals and monolinguals during
response inhibition. Brain and Language, 132, 43–51.
Roe, A. (1953). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Araujo, K., Weekes,V. A., Caracciolo,V., Padilla, M., Ostrosky-Solís, F.
(2000). Verbal fluency and repetition skills in healthy older Spanish–English bilinguals. Applied
Neuropsychology, 7(1), 17–24.
Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Albareda-Castellot, B.,Weikum,W. M., & Werker, J. F. (2012). A bilingual
advantage in visual language discrimination in infancy. Psychological Science, 23, 994–999.
Shoghi, S., & Ghonsooly, B. (2015). The nature of metacognitive awareness in foreign lan-
guage learners and its interaction with creativity. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
6, 1051–1057.
Simonton, D. K. (1975). Sociocultural context of individual creativity: A Transhistorical
time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1119–1133.
Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness:Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1997). Foreign influence and national achievement: The impact of open
milieus on Japanese civilization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 86–94.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Creative cultures, nations, and civilizations: Strategies and results.
In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration
(pp. 304–325). New York: Oxford University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
40  Kyung Hee Kim and Hang Eun Lee

Simonton, D. K. (2008). Bilingualism and creativity. In J. Altarriba, & R. R. Heredia

(Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes (pp. 147–166). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Singh, L., Fu, C. S., Rahman, A. A., Hameed,W. B., Sanmugam, S., Agarwal, P., & the GUSTO
Research Team. (2015). Back to basics: A bilingual advantage in infant visual habituation.
Child Development, 86, 294–302.
Smith, T. B., & Silva, L. (2011). Ethnic identity and personal well-being of people of color: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 42–60.
Sosa, M. E. (2011). Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and
social networks. Organization Science, 22(1), 1–21.
Stapel, D. A., & Koomen,W. (2001). I, we, and the effects of others on me: How self-construal
level moderates social comparison effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
766–781.
Stein, M. I. (1974). Stimulating creativity: Individual procedures. New York: Academic Press.
Stein-Smith, K. (2018). Foreign languages and creativity — The quiet connection in
a globalized/interconnected world: How focusing on “deep work” can help foster
creativity and foreign language competency. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
9(1), 34–41.
Stephan, E. (2017). The influence of a foreign versus native language on creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 29, 426–432.
Sullivan, M. D., Janus, M., Moreno, S., Astheimer, L., & Bialystok, E. (2014). Early stage
second-language learning improves executive control: Evidence from ERP. Brain and
Language, 139, 84–98.
Tadmor, C. T., Galinsky, A. D., & Maddux, W. W. (2012). Getting the most out of living
abroad: Biculturalism and integrative complexity as key drivers of creative and profes-
sional success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,103, 520–542.
Torrance, E. P., Gowan, J. C., Wu, J.-J., & Aliotti, N. C. (1970). Creative functioning
of monolingual and bilingual children in Singapore. Journal of Educational Psychology,
61(1), 72–75.
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American
Journal of Sociology, 111, 447–504. [Database]
Van Baaren, R. B., Horgan, T. G., Chartrand, T. L., & Dijkmans, M. (2004). The forest, the
trees, and the chameleon: Context dependence and mimicry. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 86, 453–459.
Veblen, T. (1919). The intellectual preeminence of Jews in modern Europe. Political Science
Quarterly, 34, 33–42.
Visher, S. S. (1947, Autumn). Starred scientists: A study of their ages. American Scientist,
35, 543, 570, 572, 574, 576, 578, 580.
Wechsler, S. (2006).Validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking to the Brazilian cul-
ture. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 15–25.
Weikum,W. M.,Vouloumanos, A., Navarra, J., Soto-Faraco, S., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Werker,
J. F. (2007). Visual language discrimination in infancy. Science, 316, 1159. doi: 10.1126/
science.1137686
Weiner, E. (2016). The geography of genius: A search for the world’s most creative places from ancient
Athens to Silicon Valley. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (Vol. 226). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Wiekens, C. J., & Stapel, D. A. (2008). I versus we:The effects of self-construal level on diver-
sity. Social Cognition, 26, 368–377.
 How does bilingualism affect creativity? 41

Yi, X., Hu, W., Scheithauer, H., & Niu, W. (2013). Cultural and bilingual influences on
artistic creativity performances: Comparison of German and Chinese students. Creativity
Research Journal, 25, 97–108.
Yoon, E., Chang, C. T., Kim, S., Clawson, A., Cleary, S. E., Hansen, M., John, P. B., Chan,
T. K. (2013). A meta-analysis of acculturation/enculturation and mental health, Journal of
Counseling Psychology 60(1), 15–30.
Yousefi, R., Soleimani, M., & Ghazanfariyanpoor, S. (2017). Comparison between switch-
ing and creativity among bilingual and monolingual children. Journal of Rehabilitation,
18(1), 1–12.
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite. New York: Free Press.
3
PEDAGOGIES FOR SCAFFOLDING
THINKING IN ESL
Integrating first principles of learning

Maya Gunawardena

Introduction
Despite the tremendous growth in the teaching and learning endeavours and the
abundance of learning resources, teachers who teach courses such as English as a
second language (ESL), English as a foreign language (EFL), English for Specific
purposes (ESP), and English for Academic purposes (EAP) face numerous chal-
lenges in engaging their learners in the instructed learning settings. Teaching
reading has been found to be influential because it impacts all language skills
(Birch, 2002). Recent studies on thinking skills in teaching ESL have examined
new ways to increase engagement in students’ learning by minimizing student
inhibition and promoting interaction and active thinking (Cheng, 2010).
Previous research argues that cultural issues and education traditions in some
countries seem to affect students’ learning, particularly how students interact
with their peers and teachers (Li & Wegerif, 2014; Gunawardena et. al., 2017).
Studies on teaching critical thinking have also highlighted cultural differences
in the way students develop thinking dispositions (Arkinson, 1997; Paton, 2010).
Despite these cultural variables, scaffolding has been found to be necessary
and useful for effective learning (Wilson, 2017). In the course of scaffolding
thinking, thinking routines are useful ways of helping students to develop their
thinking styles and dispositions (Harvard University Visible Learning Project).
Therefore, universal principles such as scaffolding have been found to be useful
in the instructional design for all contexts, despite different cultural styles in
learning and teaching.
There is a plethora of literature on how to teach ESL reading, writing, gram-
mar, listening, and speaking, including the pronunciation of English. Such
frameworks and ideas have been found to be useful for teacher education, yet
some are controversial because they were developed and empirically tested in
 Pedagogies for scaffolding thinking in ESL 43

the West. Recent research into promoting thinking skills has expanded and
enriched such pedagogies irrespective of the context (Chamot, 1995; Tarvin
& Al-Arishi, 1991). Research into scaffolding thinking in ESL needs further
expansion. The focus on explicit thinking in other subject areas has been found
to be useful for developing more effective learning and teaching by addressing
inherent dilemmas. However, currently teaching thinking is not as significant
in ESL as in other skill-based areas. Wilson (2017) argues that “critical reading
pedagogy can be realized in different ways, but that nurturing students’ critical
dispositions, in particular, requires delicate scaffolding to support their develop-
ment as critical meaning-makers” (p. 256).
Therefore, this chapter aims to develop a framework to scaffold reading in
ESL by incorporating Merrill’s (2002) first principles of learning. Developing a
holistic teaching framework for scaffolding thinking in ESL in different stages
of reading lessons (pre, while, and post) will enhance the process of “nurtur-
ing students’ critical dispositions” (Wilson, 2017, p. 256). The framework has
been given the acronym, KADEI, (see details later in this chapter). This chapter
will also examine two exemplars adopting the KADEI framework to develop
thinking routines for critical reading. This framework aims to negotiate chal-
lenges of developing thinking in ESL where students’ language competencies
are lower and cultural factors may impinge on their learning. The chapter will
also discuss the implications of adopting such an approach to promote thinking
and learning in ESL.

Ongoing issues in ESL teaching and learning

Due to the phenomenal spread of English and the greater demand for English
education in the current workforce and the modern market, students are more
motivated to learn English than ever before. Increasingly, we hear stories of suc-
cessful learners who develop native-like fluency in both written and oral com-
munication in English. However, many learners still achieve only limited skills;
hence, they struggle to survive in the local and international workforce of the
21st century.
Governments, such as the Sri Lankan government, have introduced or revised
education reforms to increase students’ competencies in English so that they
may become more successful global citizens. Due to distributional issues and
the ongoing economic reasons, textbooks are still the main resource being used
in the government primary and secondary schools in most developing coun-
tries. Students’ lack of motivation and disengagement in learning English are
still major challenges in secondary schools. With the increasing access for a larger
pool of technological and print-based resources on the internet, inconsistencies
in teachers’ practice seem to increase. The most disadvantaged in this regard are
students from rural areas.
Student factors also affect developing students’ language competencies and
hence thinking skills. Among them, students’ attitudinal and cultural factors
44  Maya Gunawardena

are well known (Canagarajah, 1999; Gunawardena et al., 2017). Textbook-

based learning has been found to be problematic in any learning context
because the content is chosen by the textbook writers, and it may not neces-
sarily fall within students’ interests. This can also reflect mismatches between
generations (curriculum writers) and the perceived assumptions of students’
interests. Therefore, these factors may influence efforts to generate interactive
student discussions. Choy and Cheah (2009) argue that teachers’ involvement is
necessary to help students to think critically. In line with Choy and Cheah, it
could be argued that teachers should not be constrained by the themes and the
content in textbooks because there are numerous ways that teachers can help
engage students in extending their learning. Recent research into thinking in
ESL has shown us new directions to promote motivation and engagement in
students’ learning.

Scaffolding in ESL teaching

The metaphor of scaffolding, which was first introduced by Wood, Bruner,
and Ross (1976) and later illustrated by Vygotsky (1978), has been viewed as
an appealing and useful technique for boosting students’ cognitive- and skill-
based development (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005). It resonates with teachers’
day-to-day practice, but it is sometimes taken for granted that any teacher
interaction is loosely viewed as scaffolding (Mercer, 1994). Hammond (2001)
and Hammond & Gibbons (2005) explore subtle issues with the metaphor
of scaffolding and its use, and they argue that scaffolding should occur in
collaborative environments, rather than the teacher playing the role of the
more knowledgeable other (MKO). In collaborative environments learn-
ers also contribute to construct knowledge together with the MKO. This
negotiating process “contributes to ongoing development of social and cul-
tural understanding and ways of thinking about the world” (Hammond &
Gibbons, 2005, p. 15).
Therefore, scaffolding thinking is also a useful endeavour to stimulate stu-
dents help them get used to the routines of thinking (Harvard University Zero
Project, 2015). Language plays a vital role in scaffolding, and effective scaffold-
ing requires clear goals and structured activities that enable student teaching
(Hammond & Gibbons, 2001: Mercer, 1994). Macro-level scaffolding, where
there is a clearly articulated scaffolding framework, is arguably more impor-
tant than teacher intervention in helping students accomplish a task at any level.
Scaffolding thinking in ESL as discussed in this chapter takes this macro approach
to help students to develop routines of critical thinking in reading. There are
insufficient research-based frameworks that consider the difficulties faced by
ESL learners. The curriculum cycle model (Derewianka, 1990; Hammond &
Gibbons, 2001) is a literacy teaching pedagogical model of teaching writing.
In this model, three stages are identified as important in helping ESL students
to accomplish literacy-related tasks: Building the field, joint construction, and
 Pedagogies for scaffolding thinking in ESL 45

independent construction. This model is developed based on the gradual release

of responsibility model (Fisher et al. 2008; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), under
the assumption that “with strong vertical alignment and purposeful instruction,
students learn” (Fisher, 2008, p. 3), and therefore models such as the curriculum
cycle help teachers to provide macro-level organized scaffolding to guide stu-
dents to accomplish difficult writing tasks in response to individual and whole-
class-based instructions. The curriculum cycle model is more appropriate for
teaching writing, where students get to examine genres of texts and their char-
acteristics (building the field); they work with the teacher and create similar
texts ( joint construction); and then they independently create texts (independent
contribution) based on their knowledge about such genres (Derewianka, 1990;
Hammond & Gibbons, 2001).
Current pedagogical intervention models for teaching reading consider stu-
dents’ language barriers, literacy needs, and reciprocity in reading and writing.
However, thinking routines or metacognitive strategies (Zero Project) have not
yet been embedded into these frameworks and models. As a result of the efforts
to incorporate scaffolding thinking into ESL research and practice, this paper
advocates helping students to participate in the construction of their knowl-
edge and to become good thinkers. I argue that it is important to provide clear
“delicate macro-level support” (Wilson, 2017) to create thinking dispositions
and thinking routines by drawing on the principles of learning. As an expe-
rienced teacher in ESL contexts, I see the benefits of scaffolding thinking to
(1) engage learners more in active learning, (2) make the content more memo-
rable by allowing them to reflect deeply on content, (3) create pathways or rou-
tines so that they are readily available in future learning, (4) motivate learners by
increasing their capabilities in thinking and learning (knowledge is constructed
by them), and (5) encourage students to co-construct learning and create their
thinking dispositions.

Thinking skills and language learning

The relationship between thinking skills and language learning superficially
looks paradoxical, because thinking requires a language and ESL learners may
not have enough language repertoire to think in a language that is unfamiliar
to them. However, recent research demonstrates that thinking does involve the
learner in deep learning, leading to more responsive actions (Chamot, 1995;
Tarvin & Al-Arishi, 1991; Wilson, 2017). Further, “cognitive development and
language development go hand in hand; language is a tool through which the
child comes to understand the world” (Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989, p. 201).
Hence, teaching a language in isolation seems less effective; the content that
stimulates students’ thinking provides a motivational incentive for students to
learn a language (Snow et al., 1989). This was the main proposition for the
ESL curriculum developed as “the content integration model” in the 1980s
(Cummins, 1980, 1981), which is now in practice in some contexts. However,
46  Maya Gunawardena

this content obligatory model in the mainstream curriculum has several draw-
backs, such as the potential lack of ESL teachers with specialist subject knowl-
edge and the fact that many students are not acquiring the content due to
their language barriers. Thus content integration is not being widely supported
and implemented in some contexts, and ESL is still often taught as a separate
subject.
An alternative and much more feasible approach is to include content that
interests learners and get them to deeply reflect on content, as an incentive to
learn the language. The information gap between the students and the ESL
teacher would provide an authentic, natural context for interaction (Snow
et al., 1989) between them. It would also allow students to mentally engage with
the content at a deeper level despite their language barriers, and teachers could
act as more knowledgeable persons (Vygotsky, 1978) who can assist them with
language-related problems.
It is then the teachers’ duty to facilitate students’ language-learning and
deep-thinking skills and critical dispositions by adopting appropriate pedago-
gies that will sufficiently equip learners with skills for comprehension, and by
further integrating the content with their real-life experiences (Merrill, 2002).
Teachers may have a different orientation to developing thinking (Gunawardena
et al., 2017) and critical pedagogy (Wilson, 2017); however, scaffolding their
thinking using a macro model would assist all students who are learning the
language and relating it to the world around them.
The Gunawardena et al. (2017) study indicated that teachers are in con-
sistent agreement with the importance of embedding thinking into their
reading lessons; yet their descriptions of the lessons demonstrated that they
used the term scaffolding loosely and referred only to micro-level scaffold-
ing. Merrill’s first principles of learning resonate with teachers, and there-
fore these principles are embedded in the model discussed in this paper,
which seeks to provide macro-level scaffolding where students read texts to
construct knowledge and broaden their ESL language repertoire in a more
engaging environment.

Merrill’s principles of learning

David Merrill is a renowned scholar from the United States who closely worked
with the father of instructional design, Robert Gagne, in developing effec-
tive techniques for delivering information to learners in an instructed setting.
In a paper published in 2002, Merrill describes several crucial instructional
principles “related to creating learning environments and products rather than
describing how learners acquire knowledge and skills from these environments
or products” (p. 46). In summary, Merrill calls these principles problem-centred
instruction, a term that has been adopted by many instructional designers and
teachers. In this paper (Merrill, 2002), he discusses five interrelated fundamen-
tal human learning principles that are useful in instructional design to promote
 Pedagogies for scaffolding thinking in ESL 47

learning. By examining several design theories (p. 45), he identifies five phases
of effective instruction:

1. Task or problem-centred—learning is promoted when instruction

focuses on relevant real-world tasks or problems, including a series of tasks
or problems that progress from simple to complex.
2. Activation—learning is promoted when learning begins with recalling
students’ prior knowledge. This activation can also include a foundational
learning experience on which new learning can be based.
3. Demonstration—learning is promoted when students can see clear learn-
ing intentions and also when new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner.
4. Application—learning is promoted when students apply new knowledge as
in real-world tasks or in solving real-world problems (students will benefit by
receiving effective feedback and appropriate guidance during application).
5. Integration—learning is promoted when students are encouraged to inte-
grate their new knowledge into their life through reflection, discussion,
debate, and/or presentation of new knowledge.

Developing a framework to scaffold thinking in ESL reading

A close examination of the above principles demonstrates that they are useful
not only in instructional design but also in developing effective pedagogical
frameworks or teaching models, particularly in developing delicate scaffolding
taxonomies. For convenience, and based on the need to promote reading skills,
this chapter has slightly adapted useful principles to develop a framework for
scaffolding students’ thinking in the English classroom to engage in effective
reading. The first principle, the problem-based learning is effective; however,
it is not always possible to offer content as problems in all learning contexts.
Therefore, it has been excluded in the design of this framework. The principles
adapted from Merrill (2002) are as follows:

Principle 1: Filling in a knowledge gap

In normal classrooms, teachers expect students to acquire content that they pre-
scribe for students, and this has offered many challenges for students who are
usually at different phases of their learning and whose motivational levels to learn
the content that teachers want them to master are low. Early researchers of learn-
ing, such as Bruner (1978) and Vygotsky (1978), have seen the need for teachers
estimating students’ prior knowledge to connect students to new knowledge.
However, this is not enough for a teacher unless students also see a clear connec-
tion between what they know, what they are going to learn, and why they need
to acquire that information or skill. Teachers should strive to help their students
understand that what they are going to learn will fill a gap in their knowledge.
Maier and Richter (2014) argue that “learners with strong prior beliefs tend
48  Maya Gunawardena

to construct a one-sided mental representation that is biased towards belief-

consistent information” (p. 51). Therefore, it is important to help students unlock
such beliefs by examining other perspectives.
The ESL curriculum often puts students in a more demanding situation: stu-
dents confront an extra challenge of presenting new information in another lan-
guage. However, learning something new (information or a skill or a perspective)
in this class benefits students by keeping them focused and holding their attention.
The teacher participants in the Gunawardena et al. (2017) study thought simple
and less cognitively demanding themes could motivate students to learn English,
but they were referring to some interesting information pieces, stories, and per-
sonal recounts in student textbooks, where they could put more emphasis on
moral values. However, having a knowledge gap in students is a necessity for any
classroom because English-based skills such as vocabulary and grammar can be
integrated into these lessons. Learners often may not see problems themselves, so
teachers can strategize learning by using activities that help students recognize the
gap between what they know and what they still must learn in order to increase
their understanding. This gap in their knowledge can drive their learning.

Principle 2: Activation of thinking

Now students identify their knowledge gap, teachers can lead them through
thinking-based activities where teachers scaffold their thinking. This can be
done in many ways (e.g. by asking questions about the information or getting
students involved in a problem-based activity). This phase of the lesson is where
students enquire about knowledge. Teachers can only support them to think.
This is a very important stage of a lesson, wherein students are stimulated to
find new knowledge. They can work in groups or pairs to think about the topic
under discussion. An enquiry approach to learning has shown promising results
in many subjects, and it can be useful in ESL teaching as well. There is a real
dilemma here, because students’ English language repertoire can be limited,
making it difficult for them to activate their thinking (they may be accustomed
to thinking only in their mother tongue). However, this stage is useful, and
teachers can use the bilingual approach to translate their questions or any other
responses. Teachers also can utilize ‘thinking routines’ (Visible thinking) to
facilitate students’ thinking. Visible thinking provides strategies (core routines)
for teachers to help students to get started with active thinking.

Principle 3: Demonstration (Learning intentions

and new knowledge)
This stage is, as Merrill suggests, another phase of a lesson where a teacher can show
the learners where they are heading. Research reveals that students like teachers
telling them about what they are expected to learn. This explicit discussion with
students has been found to be useful prompting them to reflect on their own
 Pedagogies for scaffolding thinking in ESL 49

learning and to develop a clear understanding of academic goals. Demonstration

includes two phases: Demonstration of learning goals or intentions and demon-
stration of new knowledge. Learning is promoted when instructors demonstrate
what is to be learned rather than merely offering information about what is to
be learned. This level of goal orientation has been found to be a driver of effec-
tive learning. Demonstration can also include showcasing what they have learned
explicitly in the lessons. This will assist students in whole-class instruction, because
some may not necessarily learn what teachers want them to learn.

Principle 4: Expand knowledge

In this stage of thinking, students themselves take the lead, as they learn to
expand and commit themselves to learning more about the topic. It is important
for students to know that knowledge can be extended and that it changes over
time and context. They need to discover different perspectives on the topic; con-
templation of the topic from different angles can help students to remember and
use knowledge in practice.

Principle 5: Integration of the knowledge into everyday

life contexts
This last, pertinent stage of student learning resembles a step from Bloom’s tax-
onomy, where students apply knowledge in real-life contexts. Students’ mental
structures get strengthened when they see that knowledge or cognitive informa-
tion can be relevant to their own lives, enhance their thinking, and affect their
behaviour. Here students see that knowledge is not abstract and can be applied
daily. They also need to realize that knowledge can evolve further, and they
should be able to see the dynamics of how knowledge is applied in the real world.
Hence, the steps of reading instruction are as follows: Knowledge gap,
Activation of thinking, Demonstration (goals and new knowledge), Expand
knowledge, and Integration of knowledge in the real world. Therefore, this
framework is called the KADEI framework. The acronym will help teachers to
remember each step of their lessons and they can use these as progressive steps in
scaffolding reading lessons.

The KADEI framework and its application

The KADEI framework can be diagrammatically represented as in Figure 3.1. It
shows different progressive stages of ESL reading lessons. These hierarchical
steps will help teachers to scaffold students’ thinking in learning new knowl-
edge and the language repertoire, particularly vocabulary skills. This will
present a more holistic approach, as opposed to just reading or reading com-
prehension in the ESL classroom. The framework offers a dual purpose of
increasing language skills and developing critical reading. Tables 3.1 and 3.2
50  Maya Gunawardena

TABLE 3.1  KADEI in application: Reading about Queen Victoria (an information piece)

KADEI steps Teacher activity Student activity

Knowledge gap Teacher introduces the topic Complete the tasks

and asks students to complete Share their sheets with a
the Y chart or the KWL chart partner
about Queen Victoria
To ease the difficulty, they can
include words and symbols
(not complete sentences)
Teachers can have access to the
Y and KWL chart templates
via a simple Google search
Activation Teacher asks students to think Think and write
about what they would like to questions and share
know about Queen Victoria their questions with
They can write one or two the class
enquiry questions
Demonstration Before students read the text, Listen, tell, think, and
1. Demonstrate learning teacher provides a few summarize
goals (pre-reading) questions for which they will
2. Demonstrate learned seek answers in the text
knowledge Teacher asks the students to read
(post-reading) the text and helps them to
summarize the content
Expand learning and Teacher asks students to think Research or talk with
thinking beyond to about what people may say partners, and present
connect about Queen Victoria, apart their findings to the
from what they have just class
learned (Teacher can provide
resources such as videos and
texts to help them arrive at
their conclusions)
Integration of Teachers asks students to Students connect
knowledge compare Queen Victoria with themes and topics and
modern-day queens (teacher have their own views
can provide examples, or about the world and
students can work the country
independently or in groups)

provide two examples of how a teacher might use the KADEI framework in
facilitating reading. The two reading examples are drawn from the Sri Lankan
state school textbook for grade 11, and they are quite self-explanatory in their
content, so that readers from other contexts may be able to understand the les-
son procedure and proposed activities.
Table 3.1 provides the sequence of a reading lesson where KADEI is applied
in scaffolding students’ thinking. The lesson is an information text about Queen
Victoria written by a local panel of teachers. The lesson objective is to increase
students’ basic reading comprehension skills, such as skimming and scanning to
answer a few simple questions provided in the text. The procedure has embedded
 Pedagogies for scaffolding thinking in ESL 51

Integration

Expand

Demonstration

Activation

Global Local
Context Knowledge Context
Gap
De

ge f
mo Go

led n o
ns als

ow tio
tra

Students’ Prior

Kn ra
w st
tio

Knowledge

Ne mon
n
of

De

Views and Perspectives

Regional Context

FIGURE 3.1  The KADEI framework for scaffolding students’ thinking in reading lessons.

TABLE 3.2  KADEI in application: Reading about friendship (an opinion piece)

KADEI steps Teacher activity Student activity

Knowledge gap Teacher introduces the topic Complete the task and
and asks students to write their share their thoughts with
own opinions about friendship other students
Activation Teacher gets students to think Think and write
about different views/questions questions and share their
about friendship questions with the class
Demonstration Before reading the text, teacher Listen, tell, think, and
1. Demonstrate learning provides a few questions for summarize
goals (pre-reading) which they will seek answers
2. Demonstrate learned in the text
knowledge Teacher asks the students to read
(post-reading) the text to help them
summarize the content
Expand learning and Teacher asks students to think Research or talk with
thinking beyond to about how culture might partners, and present
connect influence friendship (teacher their findings to the class
can provide resources help them
arrive at their conclusions)
Integration of Teacher gives students different Students connect themes
knowledge cultural contexts and asks them and topics and have their
to research what friends do on own views about the
different occasions world and the country

BK-TandF-LI_TEXT_9781138297937-190406-Chp03.indd 51 21/06/19 1:17 PM

52  Maya Gunawardena

learning principles into the KADEI framework to engage learners in thinking

and making connections with the content and beyond.
Provided in Table 3.2 is another example of the application of KADEI. This
lesson is also from the textbook prescribed for grade 11 students in Sri Lankan
government schools.

Teachers’ perceptions of the KADEI model

Ten experienced teachers (with over 10 years of teaching experience) who
currently teach in the secondary schools (grades 10 and 11) in Sri Lanka
volunteered to adopt the model in their ESL reading lessons. They have
provided useful feedback on its application. Teachers were asked to read an
introduction to the model, utilize the procedures suggested in the model in
their reading lessons, discuss their views about it, and compare it with their
current approaches to teaching reading. This is a small random convenient
sample (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016), and it is acknowledged that gen-
eralizations cannot be drawn. However, teachers’ feedback was found to be
immensely valuable for a practitioner who intends to try out the model;
hence, the following section of this chapter provides a brief snapshot of teach-
ers’ perceptions of the model. It is also important to note that in this pilot
study, the KADEI model was used only in a few lessons; therefore, further
research, where teachers adopted the model for a longer period, undoubtedly
would provide more fruitful results.
All ten teachers, who read about the KADEI model and implemented it in
a few of their lessons, were in consistent agreement with the model’s purpose.
They thought that the model aimed to address an existing gap in students’ learn-
ing. All of them thought that the current learning tradition of ESL in the second-
ary school fails to encourage learners’ active engagement both in deep reading
and thinking; they assumed that this gap has become even wider with the use
of the internet, because students can easily locate content-related information
and they pay less attention to detail. Therefore, teachers were optimistic that the
model would indeed benefit teachers as they consider thinking and deep learning
in the learning of ESL. This result supports the findings of the Gunawardena
et al. (2017) study.
However, they pointed out the need for changing education goals and national
assessment paradigms to make learners more engaged in their reading. As per-
ceived by the participants, many teachers (in this context) currently tend to put
significant emphasis on grammatical accuracy in ESL teaching, which seemingly
frustrates many young learners: “They get over-corrected in English classrooms” (T2).
As noted by many participants, teachers are compelled to focus on grammar
because they prepare learners to take the national examination at the end of grade
11, where they must answer questions with grammatical accuracy. Students are
graded on their language competency: “So, they do not see the purpose of content
knowledge in a culture [where] examination is an end point and the topics have no relevance
 Pedagogies for scaffolding thinking in ESL 53

to their examination” (T3). “They want the teachers’ help them with the exam by giving
them past questions” (T8). Therefore, the national examination culture seems to
be a crucial obstacle for learner engagement in learning.
The problem of students’ detachment from the content, as some teachers
think, was a significant obstacle for providing students with activities for reading,
thinking, and expanding, which ultimately results in students’ disengagement.
It is also important to note that the time when the KADEI framework was used
may have been the reason why teachers have experienced such dilemmas. One
teacher said: “This is towards the end of the year and students are not very focused,
and students in grade 11 can only think about their examination” (T10). If the model
had been adopted in a different period, the results might have been different.
Therefore, the results can be inconclusive, yet examination can generally be
regarded as a constraint for teacher flexibility in instructional design for ESL in
senior secondary classes.
The above situation, if it relates to any context (perhaps it does to many
ESL contexts in their own countries), contradicts Merrill’s argument for active
learning in a problem-based environment to decrease disengagement and
underachievement. Connecting learners with the content may be much eas-
ier than connecting learners to language structures or vocabulary in isolation
(Cummins, 1980, 1981). However, teachers’ are preoccupied with the upcoming
examination, (“to teach the test”) and they seem to address students’ imme-
diate needs. Students’ expectation of teachers helping them with the potential
examination questions can be justifiable, because in contexts such as Sri Lanka,
passing the examination is essential for entering higher education and to obtain
employment opportunities; their tacit knowledge of content or language is least
important, and the examination result is a critical determiner of their future.
Teachers have also noted potential problems of the model: Steps are long
and difficult to execute in one lesson (40 minutes in this context) (T1, T2, and
T7); students’ language abilities are limited, and using KADEI in a multilevel
classroom is a challenge (T10 and T9); students’ general knowledge is poor, and
therefore they did not engage in conversations as expected (T1, T3, T8, and T6);
they are not used to the culture of asking questions and thinking beyond, and
they waited for the teachers to fill in the gaps (T1). These limitations were noted
consistently across ten teachers — some explicitly and others implicitly, in the
context of similar problems. Such problems as poor language knowledge, time
constraints, multilevel classrooms, and issues with learning and teaching tradi-
tions exist in many contexts.
I argue that the above problems cannot necessarily be attributed to the prob-
lems with the proposed model as they resonate with the problems that the
model attempts to address by embedding Merrill’s principles. Teachers need
to be equipped with resources and skills to mitigate such typical problems
that ESL teachers confront in an instructed setting. One teacher (T5) reported
applying the KADEI procedures without any problems and found the stu-
dents fully engaged with the controversial topic, which was “advantages and
54  Maya Gunawardena

disadvantages of technology”. Another teacher (T4) also reported applying the

model successfully in teaching a reading lesson about “Mahatma Gandhi” and
also saw some resemblance of the model to the E 5 method: Engage, Explore,
Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate (Duran & Duran, 2004). The E 5 is an
enquiry model that is widely used in teaching sciences. Enquiry learning is
promising, and students’ information literacy skills (Castaneda-Pena, Barbosa-
Chacon, & Sanchez, 2017) need to be improved for the successful applica-
tion of such enquiry-based models. It is also vitally important that all teachers
(professional learning communities) and the school support the shift in learn-
ing; it is necessary to have a shift in the school culture and learning traditions
to make changes happen in learning and teaching and in the value structures
of a community (DuFour, 2004; Snow-Gerono, 2005). Further research into
the implementation of the KADEI model is required to confirm its efficacy,
universality, and generalizability.

The implications of the KADEI model

Scaffolding is a principle that might be taken for granted for simply helping stu-
dents in their learning. Therefore, macro scaffolding frameworks such as the cur-
riculum cycle (Derewianka, 1990) and the KADEI framework, as shown in this
chapter, can be regarded as useful guides for teachers. There are various factors
which impact on student learning, and therefore it is vital to understand how stu-
dent learning can be promoted in an instructed environment. Merrill’s principles
are interesting, and they are useful for promoting learner engagement in learn-
ing. However, embedding them in teaching is not always easy, so frameworks
such as these models may facilitate the application of such valuable principles.
The KADEI model aims to offer useful guidelines for teachers in helping
students to think and expand learning knowledge by making connections with
them and the world. This may look like a prescriptive and rigid approach to
the teaching of reading. However, creative teachers can use the model wisely
in their own way by incorporating interesting activities into their lesson plans
and assigning students to work on their own enquiry projects in their own time.
Education traditions, goals, and systems, as shown above, can be regarded as
major obstacles to practical application; however, teachers need to engage in
professional decision making on behalf of their students. As Kramsch (1993) says,
“classroom teaching is a juggling act that requires instant-by-instant decisions
based on both local and global knowledge and on an intuitive grasp of the situ-
ation” (p. 3). Teachers are intellectuals who must make apt professional decisions
to increase student learning.
For many ESL learning contexts, deep thinking-based approaches are
novel, and the acute implementation of a model such as KADEI is challeng-
ing. Teachers cannot fight the battle alone. One possible way to overcome
such problems is to develop professional learning communities (DuFour, 2004;
Snow-Gerono, 2005) dedicated to making a shift happen in the school culture.
 Pedagogies for scaffolding thinking in ESL 55

DuFour argues that there is a need for congruity between teachers and leaders of
schools and that they should collaboratively commit to ensuring that all students
learn and are successful in achieving desired results, irrespective of their entry
levels and learning barriers.
This chapter has highlighted the need for a macro model for scaffolding
thinking. If teachers use approaches such as KADEI, students will develop
an automated path to think, research, and expand their understanding of the
world. Often ESL lessons terminate in reading comprehension and building
vocabulary skills (or simply addressing the needs of the education traditions,
such as meeting the examination needs mentioned in this chapter). Through
KADEI, students can extend their learning beyond facts or information and
arrive at divergent thinking, thereby increasing their cognitive and metacog-
nitive skills.
The KADEI model aims to address the challenges inherent in the use of a text-
book for learning by providing guidelines for thinking and extension through
whatever resources are available to learners. Despite the limitations of the use of
textbooks, poor countries can only afford to provide a textbook, which is indeed
better than having no resources for learning. Therefore, teachers need to be
equipped with approaches to use textbooks in the 21st century to develop criti-
cal reading skills. There is also a dire need to change the entire school culture to
produce more informed citizens.

Conclusion
This chapter has presented a macro model to scaffold thinking in teaching
reading in ESL lessons. Despite the limitation of students’ language compe-
tencies, the KADEI framework offers useful ideas for teachers to help students
develop thinking dispositions when learning English. It has incorporated use-
ful principles from Merrill’s paper (2002) to motivate and increase learner
engagement in reading and developing critical reading skills. It provides
examples only to assist teachers in implementing the model, which should
not be used as a prescriptive or rigid model. Teachers can incorporate various
teaching strategies to make reading more interesting for their learners. The
chapter also examined the efficacy of the model, based on a small sample
of teachers executing the model in their reading lessons. However, findings
are inconclusive; the model must be used in many contexts in order for its
effectiveness in all contexts to be evaluated. There is no “one-size-fits-all”
model, and teachers are requested to test the KADEI model and amend it for
their purposes. The main proposition for embedding thinking-based learn-
ing is universally supported in modern education (Chamot, 1995; Harvard
University Zero Project, 2015; Merrill, 2002; Tarvin & Al-Arishi, 1991;
Wilson, 2017). We need to create a culture of thinking to produce successful
learners who can make informed decisions, and they must be ready for the
unpredictable, rapidly changing world.
 56  Maya Gunawardena

ESL lessons should provide opportunities for students to develop thinking

skills despite the limitations of the language barrier. Thinking will promote
deep learning and learner students, so in designing learning experiences for stu-
dents, teachers must consider providing opportunities for thinking. Thinking
about the content can be a bridge or vehicle and an incentive for a language
learner. Creating a culture of thinking in ESL reading necessitates a whole-
school approach, and teachers need to work in collaboration, in their professional
learning communities, to discuss and mitigate the problems inherent in lan-
guage learning and to negotiate the challenges that arise in implementing novel
teaching approaches.

References
Arkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
31(1), 71–94.
Birch, B. M. (2002). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Campbell, J., & Li, M. (2008). Asian students’ voices: An empirical study of Asian students’
learning experiences at a New Zealand university. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 12(4), 375–396.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Castaneda-Pena, H. A., Barbosa-Chacon, J. W., & Hormiga-Sanchez, M. (2017). Exploring
the complementarity between information literacy and foreign language competencies.
Revista ESPACIOS, 38(35), 41.
Chamot, A. (1995). Creating a community of thinkers in the ESL/EFL. TESOL Matters,
5(5), 1–16.
Cheng, V. M. (2010). Tensions and dilemmas of teachers in creativity reform in a Chinese
context. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(3), 120–137.
Choy, S. C., & Cheah, P. K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students
and its influence on higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(2), 198–206.
Cummins, J. (1980). The exit and entry fallacy in bilingual education. NABE Journal, 4(3),
25–59.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In J. Cummins, Schooling and language minority
students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: California State Department
of Education, California State University, National Evaluation, Dissemination and
Assessment Center.
Derewianka, B. (1991). Exploring how texts work. Newtown, New South Wales: PETA.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership,
61(8), 6–11.
Duran, L. B., & Duran, E. (2004). The 5E instructional model: A learning cycle approach for
inquiry-based science teaching. Science Education Review, 3(2), 49–58.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.
Fisher, D. (2008). Effective use of the gradual release of responsibility model. Author
Monographs, 1–4. Retrieved from https://www.mheonline.com/_treasures/pdf/doug-
las_fisher.pdf

BK-TandF-LI_TEXT_9781138297937-190406-Chp03.indd 56 19/06/19 10:19 AM

 Pedagogies for scaffolding thinking in ESL 57

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2008). Shared readings: Modeling comprehension, vocabulary,
text structures, and text features for older readers. The Reading Teacher, 61(7), 548–556.
Gunawardena, M., Sooriyampola, M., & Walisundara, N. (2017). Scaffolding thinking in ESL
lessons: Negotiating challenges. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 279–285.
Hammond, J. (2001). Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education.
Newtown, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association,
Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005) Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaf-
folding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1)6–30.
Harvard University Zero Project. http://www.pz.harvard.edu/ accessed and viewed
10/11/17.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li, L., & Wegerif, R. (2014).What does it mean to teach thinking in China? Challenging and
developing notions of ‘Confucian education’. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 11, 22–32.
Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2014). Fostering multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive
strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition and
learning, 9(1), 51-74.
Mercer, N (1994). Neo-Vygotskian theory and classroom education. In B. Steirer & J. Maybin
(Eds.), Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 43–59.
Paton, M (2010). Asian students, critical thinking and English as an academic lingua franca.
Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 32(1) 27–39.
Pearson, P. D., and Gallagher, M. C. (1983).The instruction of reading comprehension. Higher
Education, 20(2), 198–206.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of
language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2),
201–217.
Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2005). Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS teachers
identify the benefits of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(3), 241–256.
Tarvin, W., & Al-Arishi, A. (1991). Rethinking communicator language teaching: Reflection
and the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 9–27.
Visible thinking: http://www.visiblethinkingpz.org/VisibleThinking_html_files/01_Visible
ThinkingInAction/01a_VTInAction.html viewed 10/11/17.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, K. (2017). Critical reading, critical thinking: Delicate scaffolding in English for
academic purposes (EAP). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 256–265.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

BK-TandF-LI_TEXT_9781138297937-190406-Chp03.indd 57 19/06/19 10:19 AM

4
TEACHING THEORETICAL
LINGUISTICS THROUGH
THINKING SKILLS PEDAGOGIES
Haifa Al-Nofaie

Introduction
This chapter reports a small-scale action research of my implementation of
the thinking skills pedagogy for teaching theoretical linguistics to Saudi uni-
versity students. The students are specializing in the field of foreign languages
(i.e. English Language major) at Taif University. It is hoped that this chapter will
serve as a research-based practical guide for linguistics instructors teaching in
Middle Eastern higher education sectors who might find the teaching of English
theoretical linguistics to non-natives challenging.
The chapter starts by highlighting the merits of using thinking skills pedagogies
for teaching foreign languages and providing a rationale for teaching theoretical
linguistics through thinking skills pedagogies. The chapter then discusses the meth-
odology adapted for carrying out this study in a classroom of 50 female students
majoring in English Language at Taif University, Saudi Arabia. This is followed by
the Findings section, where illustrations of some extracts from classroom discus-
sions of activities designed for teaching theoretical linguistics are presented and dis-
cussed in relation to literature. Students’ views of the implemented pedagogy were
obtained from a focus group and interviews. The discussion of the main findings
is supported by my reflections, as the class instructor and researcher, on the design,
implementation procedures, and assessment methods used. The chapter ends with
suggested criteria for successfully implementing thinking skills pedagogies that are
designed for teaching linguistics courses but could be adapted to other majors.

Background on thinking skills pedagogies

in the EFL classroom
One of the teaching pedagogies that have attracted my attention as an academic is
that of thinking skills. I have two reasons for infusing this pedagogy into my teach-
ing practices. One is that many Saudi higher education (henceforth HE) institutions
 Teaching through thinking skills pedagogies 59

emphasize the need for implementing thinking skills into their foreign language
programmes without providing implementation guidance that could be followed by
instructors (Al-Nofaie, 2013). Another reason is that only a limited number of stud-
ies have investigated the merits of implementing thinking skills for teaching foreign
language majors. Available studies shed light on the application of thinking skills
for teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL), more specifically for teaching
language skills: writing, reading, and speaking skills (e.g. Alwehaibi, 2012; Fairley,
2009; Park, 2011; Rahimi, 2013, 2018). According to the findings of these studies,
thinking skills can help learners master language skills such as writing, reading, and
debate skills. Also, thinking skills can help learners reflect on their learning progress
since it raises their awareness of their learning experiences (Lin & Mackay, 2004).
The majority of available studies, mentioned above, on implementing thinking
skills pedagogies for teaching foreign language skills measure the effects of these
pedagogies on learning via pre- and post-measures. Some of these studies have
incorporated interviews and/or reflective journals which lead to valid findings.
However, the issue of EFL teacher training for implementing thinking skills needs
more investigation. There are studies which conclude that EFL teachers find it
difficult to relate thinking skills to EFL teaching (Beder & Petek, 2018; Li, 2016).
The insufficiency in the number of published detailed descriptions of the design,
application procedures, and evaluations of thinking skills pedagogies will leave
EFL instructors with little research-based guidance. Such detailed descriptions
and evaluations can be better understood from qualitative perspectives. There are
some studies that examine how thinking skills tasks might increase the quality of
discussions in teacher-fronted classrooms, with a particular focus on teacher talk
(e.g. Al-Nofaie, 2013; Li, 2011; Pinkevičienė, 2011). More of these studies that
rely on the qualitative analyses of teacher talk and strategies for infusing thinking
skills are needed to draw a clear picture of how thinking skills pedagogies can be
implemented successfully. It is very important for teachers to know the following:

• How thinking skills tasks are designed

• How thinking skills tasks can be assessed
• Other essential conditions for the successful implementation of thinking
skills pedagogies

Designing tasks that trigger higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) might be

time-consuming. Task designers need to think of tasks of various complexity
levels. This assumption underpins the Cognition Hypothesis, which suggests
that complex tasks promote greater accuracy and complexity of interaction
(Robinson, 2001). It should be noted here that tasks should be within the
learners’ Zone of Proximal Development (i.e. slightly higher than the learners’
current level) in order to facilitate learning through interaction (Vygotsky, 1978).
For more information on language learning and interaction, see Lantolf (2000).
Also, task designs should emerge from learners’ needs (Long, 2016). Speaking of
task assessment, two main types of assessment are recognized in literature: sum-
mative and formative. Data obtained from students’ performance are considered
60  Haifa Al-Nofaie

formative if they provide feedback on performance and are considered summa-

tive if a mark is awarded (Brown & Knight, 1994). Developments in the field
of assessment in HE place more emphasis on formative assessment (Boud &
Falchikov, 2007). It has been claimed that using various HOTS tasks can facil-
itate implementation of the formative assessment of learning (Bonwell, 1996).
Since the ultimate goal of thinking skills pedagogies is to take learners to the
highest level of thinking, which is metacognition or reflection (Leat, 2001), learn-
ers’ reflections can be used as a valid assessment method. Teachers’ reflections on
their classroom practices for their professional development form another assessment
method (Warin, Maddock, Pell, & Hargreaves, 2006). Creating a comfortable and
friendly learning environment should be taken into consideration. In the case of
a large classroom, dividing the class into small groups can provide learners with a
cosy atmosphere where learners talk and share their opinions (Pollock, Hamann, &
Wilson, 2011). Also, the friendly relationship between the teacher and learners is very
important because it can provide a space for active participation (Al-Nofaie, 2017).
By examining studies that have investigated the benefits of applying thinking
skills pedagogy in EFL classrooms, and by experiencing this pedagogy during my
PhD project, I have recognized the importance of implementing thinking skills
within my teaching practice. Since there is a plethora of studies on teaching lan-
guage skills via thinking skills pedagogies, I have been wondering how such ped-
agogies might facilitate learning theoretical linguistics. The linguistic systems of
Arabic and English are different; therefore, it seems that teaching English theoret-
ical linguistics to Arab learners majoring in English is challenging. Some English
linguistics terminology and features could be difficult to grasp as Arabic has its
own linguistics terminology and features. My purpose in implementing thinking
skills pedagogies for teaching theoretical linguistics was to answer this question:
To what extent could thinking skills pedagogies engage Arab students in
learning the concepts of English theoretical linguistics?
The following section introduces the methodology used in this study and
explains my design and delivery of extracurricular thinking skills activities in
one of the modules I taught.

Methodology
Study design and context
This study was an action research study where I was the researcher and the module
instructor. The context of this study was Taif University, located in the city of Taif,
Saudi Arabia. The university offers a wide range of undergraduate and postgrad-
uate degrees, and it aims to become a well-recognized university in the region in
terms of teaching excellence. For this purpose, Taif University has established a
teaching and learning centre and had signed a contract with the Higher Education
Academy, UK, for training its academic staff. The sample that participated in this
study consisted of 50 undergraduate female students majoring in English Language,
 Teaching through thinking skills pedagogies 61

and the module chosen for this study was An Introduction to Linguistics, a module
that familiarizes students with all branches of linguistics (i.e. phonology, syntax,
semantics, … etc.). The module consisted of three hours per a week, and the total
period allotted for conducting this study was three months. The next section intro-
duces the planning and implementation processes of thinking skills pedagogies.

Planning and implementing extracurricular activities

This section presents an overview of how thinking skills lessons were designed
and implemented for teaching theoretical linguistics. This module was theoreti-
cal in nature and, because students often find it challenging, I had to be creative
in my design to help them engage more fully. I had to follow the book assigned
by the department and cover all specified materials, but there were difficulties
in understanding abstract concepts due to linguistic differences between Arabic
and English. I designed extracurricular activities based on the notion of thinking
skills, with the aim of engaging my students in deeper learning about linguistic
differences, as will be seen in the following sections. In order to do this, I have
ensured that my curriculum design is outcome-based and that activities are related
to the desired learning outcomes in keeping with the concept of “constructive
alignment” (Biggs, 2003; see Table 4.1). In order to enhance the students’ think-
ing skills, my design was intended to help them move through lower thinking
skills, namely, knowing, memorization, and application, into higher levels of
thinking, namely, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom, 1956). In addition,
I emphasized metacognitive skill, which has been identified as the highest level of

TABLE 4.1  Outcomes for the module Introduction to Linguistics

Module outcomes

1. Knowledge
1.1  Memorizing basic concepts and methodologies of linguistic science
1.2 Describing language issues in an informed way in both linguistics and
non-linguistics terms
1.3 Recalling the different general and specific basic features of human language in
terms of phonetics, morphology, syntax, semantics, and traditional linguistic
2.  Cognitive skills
2.1 Interpreting critically and analytically linguistic subfields such as phonetics,
morphology, syntax, and semantics
2.2  Developing intelligent curiosity about the linguistic science
3.  Interpersonal skills and responsibility
3.1 Demonstrating cooperation with the teacher when performing classroom tasks
3.2  Illustrating proper compliance with ethics when performing tasks given
4.  Communication, information technology, numerical
4.1  Showing an ability to collaborate with classmates on classroom assignments
4.2  Showing an ability to engage in online communication
4.3  Showing an ability to use online academic resources
5. Psychomotor
Demonstrating an ability to produce task outcomes
62  Haifa Al-Nofaie

thinking, taking learners to broader and deeper levels (Leat, 2001). I was keen to
ensure that my learning activities help students to apply their HOTS in order to
achieve their potential and the ultimate goal of my teaching philosophy: creating
autonomous learners through enhancing learners’ HOTS and reflective skills.
For this purpose, I found it useful to adapt some activities that match the out-
comes of the module that are specified by the Department of Foreign Languages
at Taif University (Table 4.1). Activities were from David Leat’s book Thinking
through Geography (2001), and Lin and Mackay’s book Thinking through Foreign
Modern Languages (2004). These key guides include various classroom tech-
niques and activities for enhancing learners’ HOTS, such as Venn diagrams,
mind-mapping, and argumentative questions that could be adapted for teaching
any field of study. The following paragraphs provide details on the planning,
implementation procedures, and assessment used in this module.
In order to understand the students’ needs, and before starting the first session
on thinking skills, I gave my 50 students a paper survey that investigated their
knowledge and application of thinking skills. Based on the results, I found that
the knowledge of a majority of my students (48 students) did not go beyond
analysis and making inferences. They related thinking skills to skills used for
analysing literary texts, while 2 students helped me to identify the sorts of think-
ing skills students need to develop and thus adapt activities that targeted HOTS.
I started my first session by introducing the different levels of thinking skills and
reflection and how these skills could be applied. I was explicit about the benefits
of thinking skills for their academic progress and future career in general and
understanding linguistic aspects in particular (Leat, 2001).
In order to facilitate the teaching of HOTS tasks, I incorporated the task-
based teaching approach (TBT) for delivering these HOTS tasks, an approach
that requires learners to interact collaboratively based on task instructions and
produce expected task outcomes (Ellis, 2003). As in any TB lesson, the task is
introduced in three phases:
• Pre-task phase, in which students are given warm-up activities to introduce
the new topic.
• While-task phase, in which students work collaboratively on the task fol-
lowing given instructions.
• Post-task phase, in which students share the task outcomes.
In a thinking skill lesson, the last phase, the post-task phase, is not limited to
the sharing of task outcomes. It goes beyond that to include reflection or what is
called debriefing (Leat, 2001). In this phase, students reflect on their learning and
relate what they have learned to their lives.
I used at least one thinking-skill-based activity for each chapter to ensure that
students practiced thinking skills. Some of the activities were comparison sheets in
which students compare two linguistic items or features. To clarify things for my
students and to enhance their deeper learning, I asked them to compare Arabic and
English linguistic features because this could help them relate learning of the new
 Teaching through thinking skills pedagogies 63

language to their mother tongue. For instance, one of the activities asked the stu-
dents to compare the use of prefixes and suffixes in the Arabic and English languages,
using Venn diagrams, aimed at activating students’ analysis skills (Leat, 2001; Lin &
Mackay, 2004; see Appendix A for an example). In the debriefing phase of the post-
task phase, the discussion also asked students to comment on possible similarities
that could be found in languages that were derived from different language families.

Methods of data collection and analysis

This study is qualitative. Classroom discussions were audio-recorded to iden-
tify how the tasks introduced could engage students in learning linguistic con-
cepts. Digital recorders were set up in different places in the class to ensure
high-quality recording. A focus group session took place in week 6 with six stu-
dents, and interviews were held at the end of the semester with eight students in
order to evaluate their experiences with the thinking skills pedagogy implemented.
Also, I kept a record of my observations in field notes. The analysis of classroom
talk was informed by Conversation Analysis (CA) methodology, which allows for
in-depth understanding of turn-taking that reflect engagement in learning (Waring,
2011). Data from focus group and interviews were transcribed and analyzed qualita-
tively by coding data (see Appendix C for transcription convention). The following
section presents the main findings of this study.

Findings
Learners’ engagement into learning
The influence of visual tools versus non-visual tools. The results discussed
here come from tasks that used visual tools, such as using Venn diagrams and
mind-mapping, and those tasks that did not use visual tools, such as argumen-
tative questions. To begin with, the Venn diagram was a helpful learning tool
for some students in terms of understanding linguistics features. The following
extract shows how Venn diagrams helped some students to compare some lin-
guistic concepts in Arabic and English.

Extract 1
31 T: ↑ What did you write for the differences? (0.6)
32 S1: We said uh … both Arabic and English have affixes and-
33 T: So you are talking about the similarities=
34 S1: = Yes (.) similarities
35 T: ↑ Okay go on
36 S1: Also similar to English affixes in Arabic come at the beginning and the
37 end=
38 S2: =Yah like the Prefix [YA] at the beginning of verb to make present tense
39 S3: But in English the present tense -s come last I mean after the verb
40 (.) this should be difference
64  Haifa Al-Nofaie

In these lines, the students demonstrate their understanding of the meaning

and types of affixes and their ability to compare affixes in Arabic and English.
S1 (lines 32, 36, and 37) explains her understanding of the concept affixes
“Come at the beginning and the end”. Also, she compares affixes in Arabic
and English. S2 expands on her classmate’s answer by giving an example of
how an affix could be used in Arabic (line 38). S3 elaborates on her classmate’s
example by explaining that this example shows the points of similarities and
differences between Arabic and English in using affixes (lines 39 and 40). This
point shows that S3 is aware of the function of the present tense affix and where
it should be inserted in English verbs. Without understanding the meaning and
appropriate uses of affixes, these students would not have been able to build on
each other’s turns.
In response to the question about the students’ views on using Venn diagrams,
one student said,
“Venn diagram helps me to organize my points and avoid confusion”. (Focus
group)
Another student said,
“I like to learn via visual tools. I liked Venn diagram because it makes the
classification of information easy”. (Focus group)
These students agreed on the role of Venn diagrams in organizing infor-
mation and thus facilitating learning. However, it should be noted that some
students did not like Venn diagrams. As appeared in the focus group with six
students, one of the students said, “I did not enjoy using Venn diagram because it
limits my responses. I have to think about limiting my words in the overlapped
part of the diagram instead of focusing on the idea itself. I like to add details
when I explain something”.
Knowing that many of my students enjoyed visual tools, I subsequently intro-
duced mind-mapping for more engagement (see Appendix B for an example).
One of the sessions was about word-formation processes. The students were
introduced to new concepts, such as word clipping, blending, and conversion.
The students were asked to jot down some examples of these word-formation
processes from both Arabic and English, using mind maps. The class was divided
into smaller groups, and each group was required to produce a mind map. The
class was full of fun. Some groups drew their maps using different colours, while
others drew faces under the words to reflect their meaning. Here is an extract
from a session where students used mind maps.

Extract 2
13 T: ↑o::kay/show me your map looks very nice
14 ((students laughs))
15 T: OK tell me how did you find mind-mapping
16 S1: I like it because I love (•drawing•)
17 T: ↑ Okay what about you
18 S2: It is easy to draw but it is not easy to find related examples
 Teaching through thinking skills pedagogies 65

19 from Arabic and English

20 T: =so do you prefer to do a different type of tasks
21 S2: No: I enjoy mind-mapping but (.) it requires us to think deeply
22 (0.4) Once you know the examples you can come up with an unlimited
23 list of words

In Extract 2, the students enjoy drawing the maps, but S2 refers to an impor-
tant point, which is the cognitive load that thinking tasks might bear (lines 18,
21, and 22). According to Robinson (2001), complex tasks can contribute to
successful learning. During my observation of this group, I found that the stu-
dents were engaged in discussions and drawing the map and that they managed
to come up with interesting examples. The above conversation was in Arabic as
this could help students to express their views more confidently.
To enhance evaluation skills, debate questions were designed to engage stu-
dents in interactive discussions where there is no right or wrong answer. As a
teacher, I believe that learning through interaction is essential for mastering lan-
guage skills. This belief is underpinned by the sociocultural theory that empha-
sizes the need for learners’ interaction with teachers, peers, and society (Lantolf,
2000). For instance, when teaching phonology, I introduced the question: Is there
a particular age during which a language learner can pick up a foreign accent easily? Explain.

Extract 3
18 S1: I think (.) children learn faster and they co:py the accent=
19 T: =You think so↑
20 S1: Yes
21 T: What about the others (2.3)
22 S2: Yes children uh…fast learn but still may be cannot speak like natives
23 T: why not?
24 S2: Because the influence of mother tongue=
25 S3: =You do not need to sound like natives
26 Ss ( (inaudible chats))
27 T: What do you mean you do not need to sound like natives
28 S3: Yes I me::an if people can understand me this is enough
29 S4: for me (0.2) it is different native like accent is important
30 T: Very interesting discussion going on here can you all please listen↑
31 S1: Doctor last time you said English now is used as a lingua franca
32 T: Yes this is true but maybe there are other students in this class who
33 do not agree with S3 right? (0.4)
34 S5: Yes Doctor I do not agree with S3 because I think if you don’t talk
35 like native speakers miscommunication can happen

Extract 3 is a representative example of how I helped my students to think crit-

ically. Also, the extract shows how the argumentative nature of the topic allowed
the students to use their evaluation skills. S1 states her opinion of at which age
66  Haifa Al-Nofaie

people can learn the language better (line 18). I encourage others to take part in
this conversation (line 21). S2 responds to my turn and expresses her opinion that
differs from S1’s opinion (lines 22–24). S3 initiates a turn to disagree with S1’s
opinion and support the view of S2 (line 25). My question in line 27 “What do
you mean you do not need to sound like natives” encourages S3 to expand her turn
in line 28. S4 expresses her view in line 29. These turns of disagreements indicate
that the students are engaged in the class talk. I praise the students’ contributions
to the conversation, and at the same time I try to draw the attention of others to
this conversation (line 30). S1 initiates a turn to build on the view of S3 (line 31).
In this turn (line 31), S1 not only supports the opinion of S3 but also moves the
conversation to a new direction (i.e. from the age of acquiring the language to the
issue of lingua franca). S1 takes the conversation back to a previous lecture they had
about lingua franca, which indicates her ability to link and evaluate information.
In lines (32 and 33), I try to make students aware of the importance of accepting
the views of others. This could encourage students to talk freely about argumen-
tative issues, as reflected in the turn by S5 (lines 34 and 35).
I like to create a space for discussions when students share and evaluate their
views. Sharing ideas help students to evaluate what they hear, think of alternative
answers, and decide on an appropriate answer (Leat, 2001; Lin & Mackay, 2004).
As an instructor, my role is to be a facilitator, and I do not intervene in such stu-
dent-student discussions in order to minimize my influence. I moved around the
tables, listened to students’ discussions, and reminded them that all their classmates’
opinions mattered. The students appreciated interaction based on argumentation.

I enjoyed group discussions. I liked to discover what others might think

of a particular topic and see why we differed in our thinking. I enjoyed
almost all the topics, but I found morphology very interesting because we
did lots of analyses … lots of thinking. (Final interview)

I noticed that there were some of my shy students who did not contribute much
to class participation. For the purpose of their engagement in learning, I used a
teaching technique that I call RUSH, which means Read-Understand-Share. In
order to enhance understanding and analysis skills, I prefer to give students time to
do a text analysis where they have to read a text, understand its message, and then
share their understanding with the class. This kind of activity might suit students
who prefer to work alone instead of joining pairs or groups. I interviewed one of the
shy students and asked her to evaluate the RUSH technique. She explained that this
technique provides her with some time to think and share her thoughts with others.
Varying classroom activities can help teachers to meet different types of learners.

I always feel shy in the class. During my school years, I was not encouraged
by my teachers to talk in the class. We were asked to answer simple drills
that required writing a word or a simple sentence. I used to watch TV to
improve my English, but to be honest I did not spend much time on that.
 Teaching through thinking skills pedagogies 67

Things are different at the Department. I must speak English all the time
with the instructors and classmates. I am not quite confident with my speak-
ing. I cannot speak without preparation. The RUSH technique provides me
with some time to organize my ideas and think about what I am going to
say. (Final interview)
Key issues in learning assessment
This section discusses the implementation of summative and formative assessment
in my module and considers their effectiveness in module objective achievement.
Saudi HE institutions place high emphasis on summative assessment, especially
through examinations. A constraint of this approach is that students often feel
anxious about their marks, and they put their efforts into achieving high marks
rather than taking their learning deeper and beyond their institution’s walls. The
distribution of marks for this module was as follows: 10% for presentations, 10%
for the open book quiz, 20% for the midterm examination, and 60% for the final
examination. For the validity of examination marks, I checked the marking crite-
ria, especially those for marking open-ended questions, with two other colleagues
who used to teach linguistic courses, to see if the marks were distributed logically.
Also, the validity of the examination questions was assessed by colleagues against
the module learning outcomes. In these examinations, I included lower thinking
questions, such as memorization questions, as well as HOTS questions, such as
analysis, evaluation, and reflection questions.
I recognize the importance of trying to balance the effects of examinations as an
assessment strategy that often prioritizes surface learning with the need to support
deeper learning. Since one aim of higher education is to equip learners with lifelong
learning skills, higher education institutions value the concept of assessment for
learning that prioritizes formative assessment (Boud & Falchikov, 2007). Effective
formative assessment is believed to be productive if students participate in setting
assessment goals and criteria. For this purpose, I made the formative assessment aim
and criteria explicit to my students from the first day. Also, I made sure that they
were satisfied with the assessment tools used for this module, and I offered choice by
allowing them to suggest alternative tools. One mutually agreed formative assess-
ment tool was giving immediate feedback on the performance of students in small
groups based on their activity sheets, while another was giving feedback on the
quality of class discussions as a whole. I felt that this would prompt students to think
together about things that needed to be improved for the next time. Regarding
individual feedback, I encouraged the students to attend individual drop-in sessions
in order to talk to them about their progress in more detail. I found the students
responsive to this step, as I managed to meet nearly all of them frequently. Also,
even though examinations were based on marks, I used to write my comments on
the margins of the examination papers, so students could understand the points of
improvement. Based on my observations, I have noticed that my students feel less
anxious when using the non-credit formative assessment tools explained above, a
point that confirms the benefits of formative assessment (Boud & Falchikov, 2007).
68  Haifa Al-Nofaie

The success of the thinking skills pedagogy for teaching linguistics became
more obvious at the end of the module. I have noticed that the students in their
final examinations became conscious of applying their evaluative skills and used
phrases such as “I think … because”, “based on my observations, I can say that …”,
“Unlike what many people might think, I believe that … because …”. Such
answers demonstrated that the students do not take things for granted and that
they are more aware of revealing their voices while learning. The students felt
excited about learning through this new approach. At the end of this module, the
students were required to complete online feedback, which included evaluating
the module design and extracurricular activities. I received between 4/5 and 4.5/5
for these items, which was higher than previous years’ ratings for the same mod-
ule (between 3/5 and 3.5/5). In her email, one student wrote: “I would like to
thank you for your teaching efforts … I have carried thinking skills and reflection
to other courses as well which helped me to improve my marks”. The following
section highlights the point of how the learning environment could support the
implementation of thinking skills pedagogies.

Supporting learning environment

Learning environment and learning engagement. The teacher’s role in sup-
porting learning extends beyond the task delivery. Appropriate learning environ-
ment and approaches can support and guide students in their learning journey.
As I explained above, the tasks I used with my learners required them to discuss
their ideas in small groups. For creating a more comfortable and relaxed space in
the classroom which would be more conducive to learning, I asked the students to
work collaboratively in small groups and arrange their seats into circles, so as to feel
comfortable while talking (Pollock et al., 2011). The influence of this comfortable
environment was reflected in the quality of student answers during their group
discussions. For example, in discussing word-formation processes in the English
language, the students were able to link the linguistic concepts that they studied in
this module to their mother tongue (Arabic). They also came up with more exam-
ples from Arabic about some processes, such as borrowing, blending, and coinage
(see Appendix B). Some of the groups even played with Arabic words in order to
invent new ones. The class was humorous, which would never happen if they were
feeling tense or anxious, and their peers admired their efforts. These examples are
evidence of the students’ growing mastery of some linguistic concepts.
Also, building rapport with my students is essential for their success. According
to my observations of classroom practices, and based on my own teaching expe-
rience, I find that empathy and humour are effective rapport-building strategies
(Al-Nofaie, 2017). I can tell if my students feel relaxed in the class by the jokes
and daily experiences they share. I often take the initiative in telling jokes and
sharing some of my stories with them to create a friendly atmosphere. The ref-
erences (Al-Nofaie, 2017) include detailed explanations on how teachers, via
conversations, can build rapport in order to engage learners in learning. To
strengthen bonds with my students, I make myself available during daily office
 Teaching through thinking skills pedagogies 69

hours and through email. I encourage them to discuss with me any concerns that
they might have about this course. The number of the students who visit me
during my office hours or send me emails shows that students never waste any
opportunity to gain support if I show willingness to help.
Also, I sought to do my best to extend the students’ independent learning
opportunities beyond the class by utilizing BlackBoard. In order to meet my
pedagogic aim (enhancing HOTS for better learning opportunities), I posted
discussion questions that required students to search and add their own perspec-
tives. Some of the questions included their views on using English as a lingua
franca. Such BlackBoard activities help them feel more confident about express-
ing their own views. During some of my discussions with these students, I asked
them about their views of BlackBoard activities. They said that they liked the
kind of opinion questions that do not carry true or false answers. A student said,
“I hate memorization. I like BlackBoard opinion questions because they are all
about my own views, whether people agree with my views or not. This makes
me feel confident”. Another student said, “Opinion questions encourage me to
search for facts and information and think about what I read. I can see that my
searching and evaluation skills have been improved”.

Criteria for a successful implementation

of thinking skills pedagogies
I can summarize the essential criteria for the successful implementation of think-
ing skills for teaching linguistics in the following practical points, as based on my
teaching experience:

• Teachers need to prepare their students for using their thinking skills through
explicit teaching and training.
• Material design should take into consideration the module outcomes and
students’ needs.
• Teachers need to encourage students to interact actively and use their reflective
skills in thinking lessons.
• In order to assess the effectiveness of thinking skills pedagogies, teachers need
to use different assessment methods.
• Teachers should provide students with a learning environment that encourages
and facilitates their learning (class arrangement, utilizing technology, regular
informal meetings, etc.).
• Teachers need to reflect on their teaching practices in order to enhance their
teaching quality.

Since reflection on teaching is an important issue for teacher professional

development, I will expand on this point. Assessing and developing my own
implementation of thinking skills pedagogy was mainly based on the notion of
reflection, and this is proving to be a continuous learning journey for me as well
70  Haifa Al-Nofaie

as my learners (Warin et al., 2006). Here are some hints for teachers on how to
reflect on their teaching practices.

• Ask students to reflect on their learning from time to time by participating in

whole class discussions. Their reflections should include evaluation of the teach-
ing strategies, materials used, and suggested alternative methods and activities.
• Teachers are advised to record their classes and check later if they have man-
aged to achieve their pedagogic aims. For me, recording my own teaching
helps my reflection and enables me to think of doing the lessons in another
way if I feel that something could be enhanced.
• Feedback from colleagues and experts is something that teachers should
always seek in developing teaching practices. Asking peers for classroom
observations can help teachers to identify gaps and improve their practices
and thus facilitate learning.
• Teachers are encouraged to present snapshots of their teaching experiences
at international conferences to share their knowledge with like-minded
people and receive appropriate feedback on their practices.
• Teachers should be aware that fostering thinking skills is not a straightfor-
ward process and that it requires time and effort.

Conclusion
In this chapter, I share my experience of implementing the thinking skills pedagogy
for teaching English theoretical linguistics to Saudi university students. Teaching
theoretical linguistics could be challenging for Arab learners of English. This small-
scale action research reports how I experienced this pedagogy throughout different
phases: the task design, application, and learning assessment methods. The findings
of this study reveal that many learners prefer learning through visual methods, such
as Venn diagrams and mind-mapping, while shy learners prefer to avoid group
work and engage more with the RUSH technique. Also, the study highlights the
importance of varying learning assessment techniques, particularly when applying
a novice teaching pedagogy. The study suggests some criteria that should be fol-
lowed by instructors interested in applying thinking skills pedagogies. This chapter
could serve as a research-based practical guide for linguistics instructors who might
find the teaching of the theoretical linguistics of English to non-natives a hard task.

References
Al-Nofaie, H. (2013). The implementation of critical thinking as EFL pedagogy (PhD Thesis).
Newcastle University, Newcastle, Tyne and Wear, UK.
Al-Nofaie, H. (2017). Rapport-building strategies: Snapshots from Saudi EFL classrooms.
International Journal of Language Academy, 21, 304–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.18033/ijla.3826
Alwehaibi, H. (2012). Novel program to promote critical thinking among higher education
students: Empirical study from Saudi Arabia. Asian Social Science, 8 (11), 193–204. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n11p193
 Teaching through thinking skills pedagogies 71

Beder, H., & Petek, E. (2018). An adaptable teacher education framework for critical thinking
in language teaching. Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal, 28, 56–72. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.008
Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open
University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational aims, handbook
1, cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Bonwell, C. (1996). Enhancing the lecture: Revitalizing a traditional format. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 67, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966706
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the
longer term. Oxon: Routledge.
Brown, S., & Knight, S. (1994). Assessing students in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fairley, M. J. (2009). De-silencing female voices:The use of controversial debate topics in the
EFL classroom. In P. E. Wachob (Ed.), Power in the EFL classroom: Critical pedagogy in the
Middle East (pp. 55–73). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leat, D. (2001). Thinking through geography (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Chris Kington.
Li, L. (2011). Obstacles and opportunities for developing thinking through interaction in
language classrooms. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tsc.2011.05.001
Li, L. (2016). Integrating thinking skills in foreign language learning: What can we learn
from teachers’ perspectives? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 273–288. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.09.008
Lin, M., & Mackay, S. (2004). Thinking through modern foreign languages. Cambridge: Chris
Kingston.
Long, M. H. (2016). In defence of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000057
Park, Y. (2011). Using news articles to build a critical literacy classroom in an EFL setting.
TESOL Journal, 2(1), 24–51. https://doi.org/10.5054/tj.2011.244134
Pinkevičienė, D. (2011). Triadic dialogue in EFL classroom: Embedded extensions. Studies
about Languages, 18, 97–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.18.416
Pollock, P. H., Hamann, K., & Wilson, B. M. (2011). Learning through discussions: Comparing
the benefits of small-group and large-class settings. Journal of Political Science Education,
7(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2011.539913
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training
influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17(1),
67–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812459151
Rahimi, M. (2018). Effects of increasing the degree of reasoning and the number of ele-
ments on L2 argumentative writing. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1362168818761465
Robinson, P. (2001).Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interaction
in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/
applin/22.1.27
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warin, J., Maddock, M., Pell, A., & Hargreaves, L. (2006). Resolving identity dissonance
through reflective and reflexive practice in teaching. Reflective Practice, 7(2), 233–245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940600688670
Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom.
Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201–218. http://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.614053

BK-TandF-LI_TEXT_9781138297937-190406-Chp04.indd 71 21/06/19 5:36 PM

72  Haifa Al-Nofaie

Appendix A

Appendix B
 Teaching through thinking skills pedagogies 73

Appendix C: CA Conventions
The transcription conventions used for transcribing data in this study are
adapted from the Jeffersonian Transcription Notation described in G. Jefferson,
“Transcription Notation,” in J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social
Interaction, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984, p. xi

Symbol Use
[[ ]] Simultaneous utterances – (beginning [[ ) and ( end]])
= Contiguous utterances
(0.4) the tenths of a second between utterances
(.) A brief pause, usually less than 0.2 seconds.
. or ↓ falling pitch.
? or ↑ rising pitch.
, a temporary rise or fall in intonation.
- an abrupt halt or interruption in utterance.
>text< The enclosed speech was delivered more rapidly than
usual for the speaker.
<text> The enclosed speech was delivered more slowly than
usual for the speaker.
° whisper or reduced volume speech.
ALL CAPS shouted or increased volume speech.
Underline the speaker is emphasizing or stressing the speech.
: Sound extension of a word (more colons demonstrate
longer stretches)
$ $ Smile voice
[BOLD] Arabic words are written in BOLD capitals between
brackets
(?) Intelligible speech
((text )) Analyst’s notes
5
FOSTERING CRITICAL THINKING
THROUGH QUESTIONING IN EFL
An Indonesian study

Maya Defianty and Kate Wilson

Introduction
Critical thinking has not often been explored in the literature on second and
foreign language learning, although it has been a widely debated topic in peda-
gogy more generally and in the teaching of disciplines such as science and social
studies. This lack of attention may derive from teachers’ uncertainty about how
critical thinking applies in the field of language learning. As Li (2016) found in
a study of 473 teachers in China, English language teachers may have positive
attitudes towards integrating critical thinking in their classes, but lack awareness
of how to link language learning and thinking skills. In fact, thinking skills play
a key role in learning a second language, both because acquiring language pro-
ficiency requires considerable higher-order thinking (e.g. learners need to make
choices about how to use appropriate expressions in particular contexts), and also
because, as learners gain increasing proficiency in the language, they can use it as
a medium for critical thinking about wider topics.
This chapter argues that critical thinking applies in two ways to language
learning. First, it can be understood as critical thinking ABOUT language. In
particular, language learning is promoted and enhanced when students engage
in thinking skills such as comparing and contrasting, analysing, and evaluating
— skills that are featured in Bloom’s (1984) taxonomy of learning objectives— in
order to better understand the target language, its vocabulary, its grammatical
forms and functions, and how to apply them in social contexts for particular pur-
poses. Second, students can engage in critical thinking THROUGH the target
language. Students may be expected, for instance, to interact critically with writ-
ten or spoken texts in the target language. A good example of such an approach
is presented by Wallace (2003), who describes an English class for migrants in
London, which focused on analysing controversial newspaper articles. Similarly,
 Fostering critical thinking by questioning 75

Wilson (2016) presents an analysis of critical thinking pedagogy in three English

for academic purposes (EAP) classes. The teachers in these classes introduced
their students to thought-provoking texts and encouraged them to respond to
the issues that were raised in classroom discussions, pair work, and debates, as
well as in writing.
One way of encouraging critical thinking, both thinking ABOUT and
thinking THROUGH the second language, is by the use of teacher questioning.
This chapter aims to explore how critical thinking in EFL (English as a foreign
language) classrooms can be stimulated through the use of effective questioning,
one of the most fundamental discourse strategies in any teacher’s toolkit. First,
we present our view of critical thinking based on Davies and Barnett’s three
perspectives: The skills perspective, the criticality perspective, and the critical
pedagogy perspective (Davies & Barnett, 2015). We then discuss the literature on
pedagogical questions, focusing particularly on the interplay between instruc-
tional and regulative questions (Christie, 2002) and on the application of Bloom’s
Taxonomy in EFL classroom questions. Next, we present data drawn from a
multiple case study of senior high school EFL classrooms in Indonesia to inves-
tigate whether and how these teachers used questions for critical thinking. Our
findings show that these teachers asked questions that promote critical thinking
both ABOUT and THROUGH the language. However, many opportunities to
ask critical thinking questions were lost.

Literature review
Definitions of critical thinking are notoriously controversial. However, Davies
and Barnett (2015) were able to summarize three key perspectives drawn from
the many competing definitions found in the literature. At the most fundamental
level they identified a “thinking skills” perspective characteristic of the cognitive
approach to pedagogy. The most influential theoretical framework underpinning
this approach remains Bloom’s (1984) taxonomy of learning objectives. Bloom
identified a hierarchy of different levels of thinking, among which knowing and
understanding are the most fundamental. He argued that students should go
beyond this to engage in higher-order thinking: Applying knowledge, analysing
information, synthesizing, and evaluating ideas. Bloom’s taxonomy also had a
strong influence on researchers in the EFL field and was reflected in the learning
strategies approach to language learning developed by Oxford (1990), Chamot
and O’Malley (1994), Rubin and Thompson (1994), and others. The strategy
inventories developed by these researchers are extremely detailed and compre-
hensive, so for the sake of this chapter, we will follow the succinct version of
Bloom’s taxonomy shown in Table 5.1, derived from the work of Ozuem and
Lancaster (2015) and Wong (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy can be applied effectively
to thinking ABOUT the language. Language learning, like any other kind of
content learning, can be enhanced by not simply recalling but by applying knowl-
edge (e.g. applying grammar rules), analysing (e.g. comparing grammatical forms
76  Maya Defianty and Kate Wilson

TABLE 5.1  The questioning continuum

Level Focus Example

Low Knowledge Recognition and recall of facts What is the meaning of

“shopping mall”?
What is the name of the book?
Comprehension Interpretation and translation, Can you paraphrase this term?
summarizing or paraphrasing What is the gist of the story?
information; requires
knowledge in order to
demonstrate comprehension
High Application Uses information in a situation What questions would you ask
different from the original if you were the main
learning context; requires character of the story?
comprehension of knowledge
in order to apply
Analysis Separates the whole into parts What are the start, build-up,
until the relationships among climax, resolution and ending
elements is clear; requires the of the story?
ability to apply information
in order to analyse
Synthesis Combines elements to form a Compose new lyrics to a
new entity from the original known song
one; requires analysis in order
to synthesize
Evaluation Involves acts of decision Can you come up with a set of
making, judging, or selecting criteria for assessing an oral
based on criteria and presentation?
rationale; requires synthesis
in order to evaluate

Based on: Ozuem and Lancaster (2015, p. 478) and Wong (2010, p. 38).

or identifying errors), synthesizing (e.g. summarizing a text), and evaluating

(e.g. judging which language form conveys meaning most effectively). These
thinking skills can also be applied at a more abstract level to thinking about
learning — metacognition. For example, students can be encouraged to self-assess
or to think about how they learn best.
A second perspective on critical thinking skills identified by Davies and
Barnett (2015) is “the criticality perspective”. Proponents of this perspective
argue that, although thinking skills such as retaining and recalling, comparing,
applying, and evaluating information are fundamental in education, students
also need to be encouraged to develop a critical disposition, in other words
to ask questions, to keep an open mind, and to make well-reasoned judge-
ments about the world in which they live. This perspective tends more towards
thinking THROUGH the language. Even at an early stage of language learn-
ing, students, arguably, can be reading about important issues in the world
around them and be called upon to form and express opinions — for exam-
ple, about the environment, or relations between generations, or cruelty to
 Fostering critical thinking by questioning 77

animals. Some standard EFL textbooks, such as New Headway (Soars & Soars,
2017) and Interchange (Richards, 2017), provide plenty of opportunities for stu-
dents to engage with such topics and provide prompt questions to initiate crit-
ical exchanges in the classroom.
The third perspective is what Davies and Barnett (2015) call, “the criti-
cal pedagogy perspective”. Some proponents of critical thinking believe that
students should develop a social conscience, becoming acutely aware of pow-
erful, hegemonic forces at play in our world and of the ways in which these
forces promote or disenfranchise participants in society. For theorists such
as Pennycook (1997), Fairclough (1989), and Luke (2002), teachers have a
responsibility to stimulate students’ engagement with issues of colonialism,
racism, and gender inequality, for example. Several practitioners have written
up their attempts to integrate the critical pedagogy approach into language
pedagogy. For example, Pohl (2005) described an innovative EAP course in
an Australian university, which attempted to raise students’ critical awareness
of the sociopolitical power relations embedded in a range of texts, particularly
in relation to international education. Students reflected on their language
learning experiences, their current identities as English language learners,
and their motivations for seeking a Western education. They then read and
discussed texts on linguistic and cultural imperialism. The course achieved
its aim of raising awareness of the sociohistorical context of English language
learning, but Pohl was disappointed by the students’ reluctance to challenge
power relationships.
Teachers can bring these perspectives on critical thinking into their classes
in many different ways, for example by their choice of texts, by the activi-
ties and tasks that they introduce (see Yang & Gamble, 2013, for e.g.), and
in particular by the questions that they pose. Questioning is one of the most
fundamental of all teaching tools and can play an important role in promoting
critical thinking. Socrates famously used questions to push his students to struggle
with ideas. As confirmed by Li (2011), the teacher holds a key role in construct-
ing space for thinking. For example, teachers who ask more referential questions
(questions to which the teacher does not already know the answer — genuine
questions) provide more space for thinking skills than teachers who pose dis-
play questions (questions that simply ask students to display what they have
learned). Teachers use questions for many different purposes, both instruc-
tional and regulative (Christie, 2002): Some questions merely serve to reg-
ulate students’ behaviour (for example “Are we ready now?”), while others
serve to move learning forward. Often, Christie (2002, p. 173) argues, “the
regulative register appropriates or speaks through the instructional register”,
so the teacher’s questions may control the pace of the lesson, manage class-
room routines, and demand students’ attention, as well as having an overt
instructional purpose. The most ubiquitous questioning technique is the IRE
sequence (initiate-respond-evaluate), in which the teacher asks a question, to
which students respond, and the response is evaluated by the teacher before
78  Maya Defianty and Kate Wilson

commencing the next cycle of IRE. The IRE pattern is also seen in the
“chorus” style of classroom discourse, in which the teacher asks a question by
making an unfinished statement ending in a strong upward intonation to which
the students respond in chorus by finishing the statement. For example:

TEACHER:  So every paragraph should begin with a …?

STUDENTS:  (in chorus): “Topic sentence!”
TEACHER: Good!

Although the IRE sequence is typical of a transmissive style of teaching and

has been criticized for restricting student learning (Clifton 2006; Alexander,
2008), authors such as Wells (2002) and Hammond and Gibbons (2005) assert
that the IRE pattern of teacher questioning can afford opportunities to move
learning forward and enhance students’ engagement. In addition, provided they
are used effectively, such questions can also contribute to formative feedback,
because they can give insights into how well students are progressing. As Ozuem
and Lancaster (2015) demonstrated, questioning provides information for teach-
ers, which enables them to make teaching adjustments in response to the needs
of learners.
Teachers’ questions are often framed in ways which reflect different think-
ing skills identified in Bloom’s taxonomy. At lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy,
language teachers frequently ask questions at the level of knowing — for example,
knowing or recalling vocabulary and grammatical structures. Wong (2010) and
Shen and Yodkhumlue (2012), in classroom observations of individual EFL
teachers in Hong Kong and China, respectively, found that lower-order ques-
tions constituted the vast majority of teachers’ questions. Similarly, a socio-
cultural study conducted by Li (2011) in China revealed that foreign language
teachers were mostly focused on display questions rather than referential ques-
tions. In other words, teachers strongly relied on the IRE pattern, and thus
tended to stifle the development of thinking skills. However, EFL teachers
also frequently ask students to apply their knowledge (e.g. “Can you give me
an example of a countable noun?”), and to analyse language and to evaluate
(e.g. “Why did the author use the past continuous tense here?” “What are the
strengths of this text?”). Table 5.1, based on the work of Ozuem and Lancaster
(2015) and Wong (2010), gives examples of the kinds of questions that elicit
different levels of critical thinking.
Just as teachers’ questions are a valuable means of pushing students to think
about language, they also have a role in modelling critical thinking; these are
the sorts of questions that students should be asking themselves. Provocative
questions, such as those demanded by Socrates of his pupils, not only push stu-
dents into adopting a critical perspective but, in doing so, also encourage stu-
dents themselves to ask probing, reflective questions — deep questions that both
deal with the content of the subject (the language and how it works) and range
more widely into questions of ethical and moral responsibility in the world.
 Fostering critical thinking by questioning 79

Encouraging students to adopt a critical perspective is not easy, especially if stu-

dents are not accustomed to thinking critically. However, this is arguably the
most important aspect of the work that teachers do. Questions that model a
reflective stance and challenge students to respond can effectively serve to posi-
tion students as critical thinkers and gradually develop their habits of thinking
critically.
In this chapter, we use data drawn from Indonesian senior high school class-
rooms in order to investigate the role that questioning can play in fostering crit-
ical thinking in EFL classrooms. We asked,

To what extent do senior high school EFL teachers’ questions foster critical
thinking?

Method
The data used here were gathered as part of a multiple case study conducted in
EFL classes in senior high schools in West Java, Indonesia: Three schools under
the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) and four schools under the man-
agement of the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MoRA). The teachers who agreed
to participate were selected based on two main criteria: They had participated
in recent teacher development programmes, and they were recommended by
the relevant teachers’ association and the school principal. These teachers were
teaching in various grades in senior secondary schools from grade 10 to grade 12.
Each participant was observed for a series of 3 to 7 classes, each class lasting for
90 minutes. Class sizes varied from 13 to 42 (Table 5.2).
The data were gathered from classroom observations of English classes during
which teacher-student interactions were audio-recorded, and field notes were
made. Classroom artefacts were also collected to support the data from the obser-
vation. Permission for the study was granted through the University of Canberra
Human Research Ethics Committee. Pseudonyms are used in this chapter to
protect the participants’ identities and those of their students.

TABLE 5.2  Participants

Duration of observation
Participant Ministry Teaching grade (minutes) Class size

Adam MoRA 11 450 40

Wendy MoEC 10 450 13
Alfred MoRA 10 630 32
Anne MoEC 12 360 35
Brenda MoEC 12 270 42
Evelyn MoRA 10 450 20
Daisy MoRA 11 270 40
80  Maya Defianty and Kate Wilson

The audio recordings of each classroom were transcribed, and question-an-

swer sequences were identified. Each sequence comprised a coherent extract
of discourse and might include a number of question-answer turns, all of
which fell into the same coding category. Through multiple rounds of coding
and re-coding as we immersed ourselves in the data, a framework gradually
emerged as the most productive way of analyzing the data (Creswell, 2005;
Stake, 2006).
The analytical framework (Figure 5.1) drew primarily on Davies and Barnett’s
three perspectives on critical thinking: Thinking skills (based on Bloom’s tax-
onomy), criticality (developing a critical disposition), and critical pedagogy
(examining hegemonic discourse). In addition, the topic of the question was
analysed to determine whether the question called for thinking ABOUT or
thinking THROUGH the target language. Also, the teacher’s purpose in asking
the question was noted: Whether to move learning forward, to elicit a “refrain”
response, or to encourage the students to self-assess. Finally, a note was made of
the addressee: Whether this was an individual student or the class as a whole.
Questions that were solely regulative (e.g. “Did you do your homework?”) were
excluded from the analysis.

Knowledge

Thinking skill
Comprehension
Perspective on
critical thinking Critically
Application

Critical pedagogy
Analysis
Thinking about
the L2 Evaluation
Topic
Thinking through
the L2
Questioning
Moving learning
forward
Pedagogical
Refrain
purpose

Self-assessment

Whole Class
Addressee
Individual student

FIGURE 5.1  Analytical framework.

 Fostering critical thinking by questioning 81

The data yielded 110 questioning sequences. A sequence was defined as a

set of turns between teacher and student(s) beginning with a teacher-initiated
question and followed by a response from the student(s). Often, but not always,
this was followed by an evaluative response from the teacher. Sequences which
continued to use the same question type were coded as a single sequence, even
though there could be multiple turns. Some participants produced more ques-
tioning sequences than others, even though the length of the observation was
shorter, because they followed the same question type for sustained turns. For
example, in Evelyn’s class, her questioning continued an extended IRE pattern
on the same topic (checking vocabulary), so the number of discrete sequences
was low. In comparison, other participants, such as Adam, Alfred, and Daisy,
generated more questioning sequences because they varied their questions; for
example, they started by eliciting prior knowledge and went on to moving
learning forward.

Findings
Critical thinking perspective
The sequences were analysed first to identify the critical thinking perspec-
tives embodied in the sequence: Thinking skills, criticality, and critical ped-
agogy. To some extent, thinking skills and criticality overlapped, especially
where the teacher used higher-order questioning. These sequences were
double-coded.
Overwhelmingly, the classroom sequences focused on thinking skills (78% of
the 110 sequences), with smaller numbers focusing on criticality (15%) and criti-
cal pedagogy (6%). However, the teachers varied in their use of critical thinking
questions. Two of the seven teachers, Evelyn and Daisy, did not use any questions
which could be categorized under “criticality” or “critical pedagogy”, while one
teacher in particular (Wendy) engaged her students somewhat more actively in
critical thinking even though she asked relatively few questions. For example,
we coded the following question by Wendy under “criticality” (see Appendix A
for transcription conventions):

WENDY:  Ok, my question: In your opinion, which is more important – fame or

study?
STUDENT:  the same (laughs) … because if we study, study is many things, study
to write a song
WENDY:  I think even Justin Bieber needs to study.

Questions which could be categorized as “critical pedagogy” were rare,

and they were even more rarely followed through. For example, Brenda, in a
class on the genre of newspaper reports, began an exchange which could have
82  Maya Defianty and Kate Wilson

developed into a deeper exploration of global warming and how the picture
positions viewers:

BRENDA:  What do you think of the picture? (a picture of air pollution)

STUDENTS:  It is air pollution.
BRENDA:  What are the effects of air pollution?
STUDENTS:  (various answers) Global warming. Respiratory problems.

However, this exchange did not progress further, and Brenda’s questions did
not move beyond this basic exchange of information, so the opportunity for
critical pedagogy was missed (Table 5.3).
The sequences which focused on thinking skills were further categorized
to investigate what type of skills were addressed (see Table 5.4). As has been
documented by several previous studies (e.g. Inan & Finda, 2013; Shen &
Yodkhumlue, 2012; Wong, 2010), the vast majority of teachers’ questions dealt
with surface-level “knowing”; that is, they mostly focused on recall of informa-
tion or checking comprehension. In the following example, Evelyn’s class was
learning about personality traits. Students were divided into several groups, and
each group was given a list of vocabulary related to personality traits and was
asked to find the meaning in the dictionary. Afterwards, Evelyn assigned each
group to inform other groups about the meaning of the given vocabulary items.
Although the students introduced the examples, Evelyn kept tight control of the

TABLE 5.3  Critical thinking perspectives embodied In The Participants’ Questions

Critical thinking perspective

Criticality Critical pedagogy

Thinking (developing a critical (examining
Participant skills disposition) hegemonic discourse) Total

Adam 81% 19% -

n = 13 n=3 n = 16
Wendy 25% 50% 25%
n=2 n=4 n=2 n=8
Alfred 82% 18% -
n = 18 n=4 n=0 n = 22
Anne 68% 18% 14%
n = 15 n=4 n=3 n = 22
Brenda 70% 9% 9%
n=9 n=2 n=2 n = 13
Evelyn 100% - -
n=8 n=0 n=0 n=8
Daisy 100% - -
n = 21 n=0 n=0 n = 21
Total 78% 15% 6%
n = 86 n = 17 n=7 n = 110
 Fostering critical thinking by questioning 83

TABLE 5.4  “Thinking skills” questions applied by the participants

Types of thinking skills questions

Participant Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Total

Adam 31% 19% 31% 13% - 6%

n=5 n=3 n=5 n=2 n=0 n=1 n = 16
Wendy 13% 13% - 38% - 38%
n=1 n=1 n=0 n=3 n=0 n=3 n=8
Alfred 18% 9% 50% 5% 5% 14%
n=4 n=2 n = 11 n=1 n=1 n=3 n = 22
Anne 73% - 9% 14% - 5%
n = 16 n=0 n=2 n=3 n=0 n=1 n = 22
Brenda 77% - - 23% - -
n = 10 n=0 n=0 n=3 n=0 n=0 n = 13
Evelyn 100% - - - - -
n=8 n=0 n=0 n=0 n=0 n=0 n=8
Daisy 62% - 14% 19% - 5%
n = 13 n=0 n=3 n=4 n=0 n=1 n = 21
Total 52% 6% 19% 15% 0.01% 8%
n = 57 n=6 n = 21 n = 16 n=1 n=9 n = 110

exchange through the IRE pattern of discourse, asking for a definition and then
confirming and/or informing students about the meaning of each word:

STUDENTS:  Modest is someone who …

EVELYN:  What is in Bahasa?
STUDENTS:  Rendah hati [modest]
EVELYN:  Rendah hati, iya [modest, yes]
STUDENTS: Compassion
EVELYN:  Iya [yes] compassion, what is in Bahasa?
STUDENTS:  Simpati [sympathy]
EVELYN:  Iya feel sympathy, can feel somebody’s suffering

Although the majority of thinking skills questions were lower-order recall

questions, or mundane communicative questions such as “Are you sleepy?”, some
teachers also asked higher-order questions. An interesting example, which we
double-coded as “Criticality” as well as “Thinking skills – analysis” came from
Alfred, who was teaching his students how to identify the main idea in a text.
He drew a picture of Monas, the national monument in Indonesia, which is a
tall column with an entrance door at the base, as a metaphor. Then he asked his
students what he had drawn. The students answered “Monas”. He continued,

ALFRED:  It is Monas. … Why you didn’t answer that it is a door?

STUDENT 1:  Karena itu kecil
[Because that’s small]
ALFRED:  Kenapa tidak jawab kalau itu wall? [Why didn’t you answer that it was
a wall?]
84  Maya Defianty and Kate Wilson

STUDENT 2:  Karena ada doornya [Because there’s a door]

STUDENT 3:  Karena pokoknya [Because that’s what’s important]
ALFRED:  It is not a door. So you have just answered ide utama [main idea]. Inilah
yang dimaksud dengan ide utama. [This is what is meant by main idea].

Participants also implemented questioning that required students to apply

their knowledge. For example, Daisy asked her students to construct sentences
in the simple past tense. First, she asked about the verb form that is used for sim-
ple past construction and asked questions such as “What did you do last night?”
Afterwards, students constructed several sentences in the simple past tense.

DAISY: So simple present tense means we use it for habitual action, for daily
activity. How about for simple past?
STUDENTS: Verb2
DAISY:  Ok, I want you to create a sentence. For example, “What did you do last
night?”
STUDENT 1:  I watched a movie.
STUDENT 2:  I slept.
STUDENT 3:  I ate dinner.
STUDENT 4:  I played basketball yesterday.

Further analysis of the data revealed that when questions focused on identify-
ing students’ knowledge, teachers tended to use the IRE cycle. In comparison, if
the participants’ questions were categorized as higher order, as in the example of
application above, it tended to free up the IRE cycle. In the following sequence, in
which Wendy asks her students to compare two posters, Wendy does not evaluate
the students’ answers herself as in the IRE pattern, but asks the students to analyse
the differences between the two posters, and to evaluate which one is better:

WENDY:  Now I show you another one, what is it?

STUDENT:  It is one of the competition to design …
WENDY:  How about you Santi? Is it the same thing?
Or are they different? What
is the similarities and differences?
STUDENT:  The same thing is about competition
WENDY:  What do you think Rita, which one is better? Why?

The topic of teachers’ questions

We also analysed the content of the sequences, in terms of whether the focus
was on the language itself (metalinguistic) or general, to explore the differences
between thinking ABOUT and thinking THROUGH the language. As shown
in Table 5.5, although thinking ABOUT the language was the main focus in the
majority of exchanges (64%), general content (thinking THROUGH the L2) was
also well used (36%). The finding demonstrates that the participants attempted
to use questioning as a means of communication, having students apply their
 Fostering critical thinking by questioning 85

TABLE 5.5  Topic of the participants’ questions

Topic

Language General
Thinking ABOUT Thinking THROUGH
Participant the L2 the L2 Total

Adam 56% 44%

n=9 n=7 n = 16
Wendy 25% 75%
n=2 n=6 n=8
Alfred 91% 9%
n = 20 n=2 n = 22
Anne 45% 55%
n = 10 n = 12 n = 22
Brenda 54%% 46%
n=7 n=6 n = 13
Evelyn 75% 25%
n=6 n=2 n=8
Daisy 76% 24%
n = 16 n=5 n = 21
Total 64% 36%
n = 70 n = 40 n = 110

knowledge of the language, as can be seen from the following exchange while
Adam is checking the attendance list. However, as can be seen, this “general”
content was often very mundane and strongly permeated by code-switching:

ADAM:  Ari, are you sick today?

STUDENT1:  No, I’m not
ADAM:  Reza … are you sick too?
STUDENT2:  Itu lagi …itu … (hesitating trying to find the words)
ADAM: Oh lagi not good ya [Oh you’re not feeling good]? Sonny? Are you sleepy
Sonny?
STUDENT3:  Enggak Pak [No, sir]
ADAM:  Or as usual? Biasanya seperti itu? [Or are the same as usual?}
STUDENTS:  Yes … Yes he is usual

The pedagogical purpose of teachers’ questions

Table 5.6 shows our analysis of the teachers’ purpose in questioning. They pre-
dominantly implemented “refrain” questions addressed to the class as a whole
(66% of sequences). In these sequences, the class was called on to respond to
easy questions to which they already knew the answers as a way of reinforcing
and checking knowledge (instructive), as well as keeping the students together
(regulative). In many instances, these questions used a “chorus” response: The
teacher makes a statement with a rising question intonation, leaving off the final
86  Maya Defianty and Kate Wilson

TABLE 5.6  Pedagogical purpose of the participants’ questions

Pedagogical purpose

Moving learning
Participant forward Refrain Self-assessment Total

Adam 25% 62.5% 12.5%

n=4 n = 10 n=2 n = 16
Wendy - 75% 25%
n=0 n=6 n=2 n=8
Alfred 36% 55% 9%
n=8 n = 12 n=2 n = 22
Anne 27% 54% 18%
n=6 n = 12 n=4 n = 22
Brenda - 92% 8%
n=0 n = 12 n=1 n = 13
Evelyn 25% 75% -
n=2 n=6 n=0 n=8
Daisy 29% 71% -
n=6 n = 15 n=0 n = 21
Total 24% 66% 10%
n = 26 n = 73 n = 11 n = 110

word, which is supplied by the students in unison. In the following sequence,

Alfred has already taught the materials and is now asking the students to recall
what has been taught:

ALFRED:  Okay here, “The sun was shining and the sky was blue”. Um, what is
the subject here?
STUDENTS:  The sun
ALFRED:  How many subject can you find in this?
STUDENTS: Two
ALFRED:  The sun and then the? (rising intonation)
STUDENTS:  The sky
ALFRED:  The sky. (falling intonation)

Questions which aimed at “moving learning forward” made up only 26% of the
participants’ questioning. In some cases, questioning activities began with refrain
questioning and were then followed by attempts at moving learning forward. This
can be seen in the sequence below, in which Adam was discussing questions based
on a reading passage. First, he asked the students about the reading passage, fol-
lowing the questions in the textbook; then, abruptly, Adam tried to move learning
forward by asking individual students an authentic question about themselves:

ADAM:  How old is Rudi?

STUDENTS:  15 … (answered in unison)
ADAM:  Ok, good. Number 2, what is Rudi’s hobby?
 Fostering critical thinking by questioning 87

STUDENTS:  Playing drum …. (unison)

ADAM:  Playing drum or playing guitar?
STUDENTS:  Playing drum … (unison)
ADAM:  Good. What is Rudi’s favorite food?
STUDENTS:  Fried rice … (unison)
ADAM:  How about you? (points to one of the students)
STUDENT: (Silent)
ADAM:  Fried noodle?
STUDENT:  Yes, fried noodle.
ADAM:  What does he (Rudi) want to be?
STUDENTS:  Doctor …
ADAM:  Do you want to be a doctor? (asked to one of the students)
STUDENT:  (I want to be an) Ustadz [preacher]

Both Anne and Wendy were able to move learning forward without relying
on the IRE pattern. For example, in the following sequence, Anne engaged
in a one-to-one discussion with an individual student, opening up space for
the student to interact thoughtfully and ask questions of her own. Rather than
maintaining a strong position as “knower”, she engages the student in discussion
and makes suggestions rather than insisting on a correct answer. In this way, she
encourages the student to take more responsibility and to develop a more critical
disposition:

ANNE:  What is the title? “Dancer everyone wants to be the king” Ini ya?
[This is it, isn’t it?] (pointing to the student’s short story, and continuing
to read),
ANNE:  No capital letter. Comma.
STUDENT:  In the novel I read, it’s capital.
ANNE:  Masa’ sih? Hurufnya kecil, terus ini koma, bukan titik. [Really? (it’s in) lower
case, then it should be a comma, not a full stop]
STUDENT:  Kan it’s end of sentence masa’ koma [It’s end of a sentence, so it cannot
be a comma]
ANNE:  Tapi yang ngomong siapa? [but, who is talking?]
STUDENT: Robyn
ANNE:  Iya kan? Iya [That’s right, isn’t it? Yes] Coba deh dicek lagi [Why don’t
you check again]. Kalau percakapan begitu, kasih koma juga [If it’s in a
conversation like this, you should put a comma]. Ini koma nih [This is a
comma here]
STUDENT:  Gitu ya? saya gak pernah gitu kalau baca2 [Really…? I’ve never seen it
when I’m reading]
ANNE:  Masa’ sih? Coba nanti kita cek lagi, tapi yang betul koma terus huruf kecil.
Di bahasa Indonesia gak diajarin? Kalau kayak gini, ini huruf besar [Really?
Let’s check again, but the correct one is lower case. Haven’t you been
taught this in Bahasa Indonesia classes? If it is like this, it should be
capital]
88  Maya Defianty and Kate Wilson

Teachers also used the opportunity of questioning to encourage students to

self-assess. For example, in one of her classes, Anne was conducting individual
consultations in order to give feedback on a short story that she had assigned
her students to write. For each student, she asked the same question about their
difficulties in doing the assignment, in effect asking them to reflect analytically
on their writing process. As can be seen in the extract below, the sequence was
conducted entirely in English:

ANNE:  Okay, “There was once a man so lonely, so isolated ….” (cited from
the student’s story). So do you have problem or difficulties in doing this
kind of task?
STUDENT:  I think … I tried to write well, not using repeated words. I think the
hardest is finding its diction and find the suitable words for my short story.

Similarly, teachers sometimes missed the opportunity to move learning for-

ward by asking a question which would stimulate critical thinking. For example,
in the extract below, Wendy is demonstrating some model posters. She tries hard
to get the students to discuss the “Pecinta alam” [Nature Lovers] event shown on
the poster, but when a student answers “I like the event, but I think my parents
will not let me”, Wendy misses the opportunity to explore why they like the
event, or, even more provocatively, why their parents might not let them attend
it. Instead, she blocks further critical thinking by simply reinforcing that the
students should obey their parents:

WENDY:  What’s this? What kind of information you can get from the picture?
What was the event?
STUDENTS: “Pecinta alam” (Several students answer at the same time) [“Nature
lovers”]
WENDY:  Is there anyone interested in this?
STUDENTS:  Not really
WENDY: So, have you heard about this event? How do you think about this
event actually?
STUDENT:  Maybe …
WENDY:  Why you say maybe?
(The student who said “may be” remains silent),
WENDY:  They love adventure and going one forest to another … What do you
think about this event actually? It is personal interest. Ok, Sarah, what do
you think about this event?
SARAH:  I like the event, but I think my parents will not let me.
WENDY:  You have to obey your parents yes … this picture tell you about an
event, who is the addressee? For whom is it?
STUDENTS:  All students who are interested.

Two more issues in relation to questioning became apparent during the anal-
ysis. First, teachers sometimes asked several questions in a row, making it is
 Fostering critical thinking by questioning 89

difficult for students to think, let alone answer the teachers’ questions, as shown
in the sequence below:

DAISY:  You can do it, look at the structure of the tense. For example, “We were
so happy”. How to say it in Bahasa Indonesia?
STUDENTS:  (no answer)
DAISY: “Kami sangat bahagia.” “We are happy” and “We were happy” are the
same, sama enggak [aren’t they?]
STUDENTS:  (no answer)
DAISY:  In language (Bahasa Indonesia) if we did something in the past is there
any difference? What’s the difference? So in our language it’s the same, but
in English because of the time is different, the linking verb is different. The
difference is the time.

Second, an interesting finding from the study is that questioning did not
always start from teachers; occasionally, students initiated the questioning
sequences. However, unlike Anne in the sequence above, teachers sometimes cut
off students’ attempts at asking questions, by giving a minimal answer and fail-
ing to elaborate or explain, effectively blocking the student’s attempt at critical
thinking and missing the opportunity to move learning forward. For example, in
the extract below, the students ask “Can we use either: ‘has’ or ‘have’?” and the
teacher dismisses the question with “Of course not” and moves on to the next
item offering no explanation.

ADAM:  Nah sekarang kita belajar [Now we are going to learn] “Be or Have”. Itu
bisa menjadi [They can become] “is, am, are”. Tika [Girl’s name] …? (rising
intonation)
STUDENTS:  IS …. (in chorus)
ADAM:  Oke betul [Ok that’s right], Tika IS … Terus [Then] “have” atau [or] “has”
kan memiliki dua arti ya [has two meanings, right?] Memiliki [have]. Jadi [So]
Tika “have” atau [or] “has”?
STUDENTS:  have … has …
ADAM:  Ada yang menjawab “have?” ada? [Did anyone answer “have”?]
STUDENTS:  Bapak, boleh dua-duanya? [Sir, can we use either “have” or “has”?]
ADAM:  Enggak dong, salah satu [Of course not, only one]. Number three. “Mother
and her friends … an idea to celebrate the birthday.” “Has” atau [or] “have”?
STUDENTS:  have (in unison)

Discussion
The findings show that teachers in Indonesian secondary schools find multi-
ple occasions to ask their students to think critically ABOUT language. Some
teachers in the study asked questions which called for higher-order thinking
about language: Questions which required students to apply, analyse, synthesize,
and/or evaluate. In some cases, such questions provided an excellent model of
90  Maya Defianty and Kate Wilson

critical thinking which could be said to foster students’ own abilities and disposi-
tions as critical thinkers, as seen in Anne’s questions in one-to-one consultations,
prompting her students to self-assess.
However, the majority of teachers’ questions called for lower-order thinking:
Recalling information or checking comprehension. The “refrain” response is
particularly common in the data explored for this study, and it was nearly always
associated with lower-order questions. In fact, one of the teachers, Evelyn,
asked lower-order questions exclusively, 75% of which were refrain questions.
Intriguingly, other studies have found a similar proportion of lower-order ques-
tions in EFL classroom discourse: Shen and Yodkhumlue (2012) in a classroom in
China identified 79.2% lower order questions, and Wong (2010) identified 88.4%
of questions in the Hongkong classroom that she observed as either knowledge or
comprehension questions. Lower-order refrain questions serve a useful instruc-
tional purpose in recalling, reinforcing, and monitoring what students already
know; they also serve a regulative function holding the class together, providing
a familiar rhythm and routine to classroom discourse, bringing the students up
to a shared level of knowledge, and ensuring that the class are all paying atten-
tion (Christie, 2002). Such questions, as Ozuem and Lancaster (2015) point out,
can also provide an valuable opportunity for formative feedback, allowing the
teacher to monitor students’ progress and reassuring students that they are keep-
ing up. However, the effectiveness of both the instructional and regulative func-
tions of such questions can be called into question. All too often, the students in
this study who were chorusing responses to such questions were observed to be
barely focusing on the question: Present in body but perhaps not in mind. Most
importantly, these refrain questions were nearly all lower order questions which
did not stimulate critical thinking and which did not move learning forward.
Such questions are very familiar to students who have experienced the transmis-
sive style of teaching in which the teacher holds all the power and is the “primary
knower” (Wells, 2002).
In terms of thinking critically THROUGH the language, although questions
concerning general topics made up 36% of the corpus, many of these questions
were of a mundane communicative nature, like Adam’s “Are you sleepy?” At a
higher level, questions like Wendy’s “Which is better – fame or study?” could
have provoked some deeper critical reflection if they had been further pursued.
In addition, students were rarely given the encouragement or opportunity to fol-
low up with their own questions, and when they did occasionally ask questions,
these questions were sometimes ignored or blocked. In fact, the teachers in the
study missed multiple opportunities to foster critical thinking. In some instances,
teachers asked good questions but then failed to give sufficient wait time before
answering the question themselves, a problem highlighted by Wiliam and Leahy
(2015). Moreover, when students occasionally asked their own questions, these
questions were sometimes ignored or blocked.
Two classrooms were characterized by more active critical thinking. Wendy,
in particular, asked a greater proportion of higher-order questions than most
 Fostering critical thinking by questioning 91

teachers, although, interestingly, she also asked fewer questions overall. The
data show that Wendy had established a different relationship with her students.
While Brenda and Adam, for example, kept tight control over their classes and
their students’ learning by using multiple IRE exchanges, Wendy was able to
interact with her students on a much more democratic basis. To some extent, this
can be explained by the high level of competence of her students, most of whom
attended private English classes outside school. In addition, she was teaching in a
class for high achievers, with a class size of only 13 students, as opposed to some
of the other teachers with classes of over 30. Like Anne, who had a class size of
35, she positioned herself more as a facilitator than as an authority, which gave
space for the students to contribute more, and more critically, both ABOUT and
THROUGH language. While the lesson content for other teachers focused on
the language presented in the textbook almost exclusively, Wendy’s class talked
about public events and even had the opportunity to interact with students
around the world via blogging and a videoconference on the internet.
It appeared that, unlike other teachers, Anne and Wendy were able to cre-
ate a culture of critical thinking in their classes and that this culture seemed to
breed further critical thinking. Both teachers had the advantage that most of
their students came from privileged families. The students’ exposure to English
was abundant: They had internet access, they had the opportunity to enrol in
out-of-school language courses, and some of them had participated in student
exchanges or been to English-speaking countries for holidays. It could be argued
that critical thinking THROUGH the language is possible only when students
have reached a certain level of competence in the language. DeWaelsche (2015),
for example, argues that Korean students can overcome cultural unfamiliarity
with critical thinking if their level of English is adequate. In addition, students
who have been exposed to wider life experiences are better placed to engage in
critical thinking.
Overall, the data show that teachers in the Indonesian classrooms that we
studied were able to use questioning to promote critical thinking both ABOUT
and THROUGH English to some extent; however, their practice could have
been much richer and more extensive had they used more questions about gen-
eral topics and had they followed through on these questions with a more critical
perspective. By asking fewer refrain questions and interacting with their students
more as facilitators than as instructors, teachers could open up space for their
students to develop into better critical thinkers.

Conclusion
In general, although this study of classroom discourse in senior schools in
Indonesia has provided some excellent examples of how questioning can lead to
critical thinking both ABOUT and THROUGH the language, it was clear that
many opportunities to foster critical thinking were lost. To some extent this may
be because of the lack of attention given to critical thinking in many teacher
92  Maya Defianty and Kate Wilson

education programmes, particularly in teaching English as a foreign language

(Li, 2016). As Li (2016) points out, teacher knowledge about thinking skills and
pedagogy is perhaps the most important factor influencing the development of
thinking skills in EFL classrooms.
In particular, teacher development programmes (both in-service and
pre-service) could help teachers to better understand the role of question-
ing in fostering critical thinking (CT). First, teachers need to be aware that
even though the recall and refrain types of questions illustrated in this chapter
may have a role in terms of classroom regulation, they do little to encourage
CT. Instead, teachers should be asking questions which prompt students to
apply, analyse, synthesize, and evaluate — questions using “Why?”, “What
if ?”, “How?”, “What’s the difference?”, and so on. By asking the class as a
whole, giving appropriate wait time, and then nominating individual students,
teachers can engage all students in thinking critically about the question. In
addition, teachers need to encourage and listen to students’ own questions and
attempt to answer them respectfully and reflectively. This may entail reimagin-
ing their role more democratically as an interlocutor, or even a fellow-learner,
rather than as the primary knower. Moreover, teachers themselves need to be
open and alert to wider questions about the world, and the world of their stu-
dents, and they should provide stimulating content, so that the target language
can be used as a vehicle for thinking critically — that is, thinking THROUGH
the language. In this way, teachers can effectively foster a critical disposition
in their students and help them to think critically not only ABOUT the
language but THROUGH the language. Like Wendy and Anne, they will find
that CT questions will gradually develop a culture of critical thinking in their
classrooms.
It was notable, in the study, that very few questions were asked which could
be categorized as critical pedagogy. We must remember that in some societies,
questions that challenge hegemonic values may be beyond the bounds of what is
socially acceptable in senior high schools. For example, it would not have been
culturally appropriate for Wendy to call into question students’ obedience to
their parents. Nevertheless, in an era of post-truth, it is incumbent on teachers to
push their questions into areas of critical pedagogy when possible.
The findings from this study are of an exploratory nature: The number of
classrooms observed was small, although a good cross-section of schools was
involved. It could be interesting in further research to compare language class-
rooms in different cultural contexts; it may be that EFL teachers in Europe or
South America, for example are also limited in the range of critical thinking
questions that they ask. It would also be interesting to do a more extensive com-
parison of the use of critical thinking questions at different levels: Does the level
of student competence determine the extent to which students can be engaged
in critical thinking as DeWaelsche (2015) infers, or can teachers who position
themselves as facilitators, rather than as knowers, foster critical thinking even in
classes with beginners?
 Fostering critical thinking by questioning 93

In conclusion, the data from this study show that questions that stimulate
critical thinking ABOUT language are common in Indonesian classrooms,
although there is still a strong reliance on lower-order refrain questions as a
way of regulating the class, and teachers still miss many opportunities to foster
a critical disposition. Sadly, the Indonesian teachers in this study rarely took the
opportunity to use the language as a vehicle for critical thinking — thinking
THROUGH the language. Nevertheless, teachers who have the confidence to
reposition themselves as learners alongside their students — to step down from
the role of “sage on the stage” and become the “guide by the side” — may be
more effective in making space for their students to practice critical thinking
more actively and thus to develop what Davies and Barnett (2015) would see as a
critical disposition. Learning to ask, and to be open to, questions which stimulate
critical thinking both ABOUT and THROUGH the language is an important
step towards realizing a pedagogy for critical thinking in EFL classrooms.

References
Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. London: Routledge.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Chamot, A., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive
Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. London: Continuum.
Clifton, J. (2006). Facilitator talk. ELT Journal, 60(2), 142–150.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (2015). Introduction. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave
handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 1–26). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
DeWaelsche, S. A. (2015). Critical thinking, questioning and student engagement in Korean
university English courses. Linguistics and Education, 32, 131–147.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of
scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6–30.
Li, L. (2011). Obstacles and opportunities for developing thinking through interaction in
language classrooms. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 146–158.
Li, L. (2016). Integrating thinking skills in foreign language learning:What can we learn from
teachers’ perspectives? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 273–288.
Luke, A. (2002). Two takes on the critical. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogy
and language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA:
Heinle and Heinle.
Ozuem, W., & Lancaster, G. (2015). Questioning: A path to student learning experience.
Education and Training, 57(5), 474–491. doi: 10.1108/ET-04-2014-0039
Pennycook, A. (1997). Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism and EAP. English for Specific
Purposes, 16, 253–269.
Pohl, A. (2005). Language learning histories: An introduction to critical thinking. Paper presented at
the 18th Annual EA Education Conference.
Richards, J. (2017). Interchange (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
94  Maya Defianty and Kate Wilson

Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1994). How to be a more successful language learner (2nd ed.). Boston,
MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Shen, P., & Yodkhumlue, B. (2012). A case study of teacher’s questioning and students’ critical
thinking in college EFL reading classroom. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1),
199–206. doi: 10.5539/ijel.v2n1p199.
Soars, J., & Soars, L. (2017). New headway (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Wallace, C. (2003). Critical reading in language education. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wells, G. (2002). The role of dialogue in activity theory. Mind, Culture and Activity, 9(1),
43–66.
Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding formative assessment: Practical techniques for K–12
classrooms. West Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences International.
Wilson, K. (2016). Critical reading, critical thinking: Delicate scaffolding in English for
academic purposes (EAP). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 256–265.
Wong, R. (2010). Classifying teacher questions in EFL classrooms: Question types and their
proper use. TESOL in Context 20(1), 37–57.
Yang, Y-T.C., & Gamble, J. (2013). Effective and practical critical thinking-enhanced EFL
instruction. ELT Journal 67(4), 398–412.

Appendix A: Transcription conventions

() Explains context
[] Shows translation into English where necessary
Italicized words Bahasa Indonesia
6
INTEGRATING CRITICAL
THINKING INTO AN EFL
WRITING CURRICULUM
A mediated model

Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

Introduction
Recent discussions on students’ ability to think critically (Atkinson, 1997)
argue that students from Asian countries have the ability to think critically,
although this can manifest itself differently from their Western counterparts
(Li & Wegerif, 2014; Matsuda & Tardy, 2007; Stapleton, 2002; Tian & Low,
2011). Some researchers argue that it is not so much lack of ability as “lack of
questing attitude … or inclinations in thinking critically” (Zin & Eng, 2014,
p. 61), or lack of opportunity in the curriculum to develop critical thinking
(CT) and make it explicit (Alagözlü, 2007). Several comparative studies about
Chinese college students conclude that they have the ability to think critically
and can perform as well as their Western counterparts (Wen & Liu, 2006; Wen
et al., 2010). Yet, after four years of university study, Chinese English majors
were left behind, in terms of critical thinking, by their counterparts in other lib-
eral arts majors. Wen and colleagues argue that this lack of further development
in thinking skills occurs because language skills are the main focus of training in
the first and second years of university study. Consequently, the high proportion
of the time spent on memorization, imitation, and translation results in a lack of
training in analytical, evaluating skills both in teaching content and pedagogy
(Ren, 2013).
Wen and Liu’s (2006) analysis of English majors’ argumentative writing
identifies weaknesses in understanding the task, in stating and structuring an
argument, and in supporting it. They propose that, to improve students’ writ-
ing ability, teachers should combine the teaching of basic thinking steps in the
process of writing with systematic training in analytical, evaluative, and logical
thinking. In China, training students’ ability to analyse, synthesize, and solve
problems from multiple perspectives was stated in the college English syllabus
96  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

in 2000 (College Foreign Language Teaching Committee, 2000). This syllabus

urges teachers to balance the weight given to teaching language skills and with
that given to teaching thinking skills.
The last decade has seen a flurry of publications on developing CT in foreign
language education in China and beyond. Many stop short at the conceptual and
theoretical level, assessments, or suggestions, and only a few studies outline indi-
vidual approaches to translating these concepts into everyday classroom practice
(Djiwandono, 2013). The main difficulty in teaching CT in foreign language
education is a lack of synthesized understanding about what it is meant by CT
and what an integrated CT programme should involve. These issues imply new
roles for English language teachers. Some empirical studies reveal that develop-
ing students’ CT has never been a goal of English language teachers, and English
as a foreign language (EFL) teachers’ understanding of CT is fragmented and
insufficient (Li, 2016; Mok, 2010).

Further research in this area, particularly focusing on understanding what

thinking skills are and how they are reflected in classroom practice, is
much desired to fully support the integration of thinking skills in the
curriculum. (Li, 2016, p. 287)

The aim of this chapter is therefore to evaluate an innovative integration of the

teaching of CT into the reading and writing curriculum of a Chinese university
in China. The impetus for this research is the belief that CT should be a central
part of second language education for all college students and that a media-
tion-oriented teaching approach is the key to a successful implementation of the
new syllabus.

CT in L2 writing as a complex process

Teaching CT as nurturing a CT disposition
CT is widely accepted to be higher-order thinking that involves analysis, evalu-
ation, and reasoning. To Paul and Elder (2006),

Critical thinking is a process by which the thinker improves the quality of

his or her thinking by skilfully taking charge of the structures inherent in
thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. (p. 1)

Teaching CT, therefore, can be interpreted as training students to be less biased

and more rational so that they can make fair and well-informed judgements
or decisions. Teaching CT is, however, more than teaching a set of cognitive
skills; it is also developing a thinking disposition (Ennis, 2011) and metacognitive
awareness — in other words, raising students’ awareness of their own thinking
habits so that they can self-regulate those habits and become better thinkers. CT
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 97

is therefore described as cognitive and metacognitive development (Kuhn, 1999)

and is characterized as effortful thinking (Halpern, 2014). Paul and Elder (2012)
remind us of the importance of willingness in thinking critically, saying that
students must be willing to examine their own thinking, analyse it to identify
weaknesses in their thinking, and reconstruct their thinking in order to improve
it. They further subdivide critical thinkers into weak and strong ones. The for-
mer tend to be self-centred and are likely to recognize mistakes in others, but
they fail to consider others’ point of view or viewpoints that contradict their
own. The latter, on the other hand, are always willing to pursue the truth and
fairness, listen to others, and prepared to change their views when faced with
better reasoning. Davies (2015), based on his extensive and in-depth review of
major positions on the nature of CT, proposes a model of CT in higher educa-
tion. It has “six distinct, yet integrated and permeable dimensions, [and these are]
skills, judgement, dispositions, actions, social relations and critical being” (p. 43).
A very useful message from his discussion of the model is that “skills without dis-
position to use them are not much use, and CT is mainly about the development
of the individual” (p. 44).

Explicit instruction, engagement, and nurturing

a reflective disposition
For effective teaching and learning of CT, it is crucial for both teachers and
learners to be able to recognize and distinguish CT from other kinds of thinking.
Adequate instruction was recommended to help students to be critical think-
ers (Dwyer, Hogan, & Stewart, 2014). Empirical research (Higgins, 2015) on
teaching thinking has confirmed that, in general, students taught by an explicit
approach outperformed those taught by an implicit approach. A curriculum
which integrates teaching thinking with subject matter is favoured by both
students and teachers. Different views are expressed regarding the benefits of a
stand-alone approach. Some researchers point out that tasks that require students
to be critical would force students to engage in CT or “they can remain hesitant”
(Alagözlü & Süzer, 2010, p. 786). The authors of this chapter believe that an
integrated approach could enhance the transfer of thinking skills.
The importance of reflecting is often stressed in the literature on effective
teaching and learning, although inadequate emphasis is given to the role of atten-
tion in reflection. Teaching CT involves developing a particular kind of mindset.
When students come to the classroom, they bring with them certain established
perceptions and habits of doing things. Raising students’ awareness of their estab-
lished perceptions and habits is a precursor to comparing and contrasting the new
ideas so that they can accept, expand, modify, or reconstruct their conceptual-
ization of CT. Dwyer et al. (2014) reviewed existing theoretical frameworks of
thinking skills and cognitive models and concluded that reflective judgement
is one of the components of CT and that the amount of active engagement
with topics that require CT would develop reflective judgement. As Dwyer and
98  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

colleagues rightly acknowledged, however, “while reflective judgement models

are traditionally developmental, models of CT do not provide a detailed account
of how specific CT sub-skills of analysis, evaluation and inference develop”
(p. 49). Reflective thinking is not automatic but a learned skill and disposition.
Not all of us think reflectively out of habit and it requires effort and motivation
(Kuhn, 1999). Some require a “more conscious or deliberate act of reflecting
and bringing to attention particular aspects of our experience” (Mosley et al.,
2005, p. 17). Thus, teaching CT implies helping students to develop a reflective
disposition. To this end, teachers need to consider the extent to which their
activities are conducive to mediating students’ understanding, application, and
internalization of CT skills.

Mediation and teaching CT

Mediation is an essential concept in Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory. To
Vygotsky, mediating is a higher form of human behaviour when “the individual
actively modifies the stimulus situation as part of responding to it” (1978, p. 4).
In the education context, teachers, peers, and various artefacts are identified as
mediating tools that serve as means of regulating human activity. Increasing
research studies and discussion are being devoted to social mediation, and to its
value in second language learning or acquisition via dialoguing with teachers,
peers, or oneself (e.g. Johnson, 2009; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014) or through tech-
nology (Nieto, 2007; Ravenscroft, Wegerif, & Hartley, 2007). In comparison,
how to mediate learners’ CT in second language classrooms seems to have been
explored less often. To be good critical thinkers, students need to know what CT
entails. Bloom and Krathwohl (1956) stress that understanding is a prerequisite to
the application, analysis, and evaluation of CT. Understanding itself, neverthe-
less, does not guarantee the ability to apply these skills successfully in operation.
Nor does practice always lead to perfection or success. Vygotsky believes that
human cognitive behaviours can be mediated through auxiliary tools and signs
(e.g. language, writing, speech). These stimuli help humans organize and reg-
ulate their cognitive and metacognitive behaviours towards internalization. He
defines internalization as “the internal reconstruction of an external operation”
(1978, p. 56). This implies that students would initially rely on external tools
or signs that represent CT to construct or reanalyse their understanding and
conceptualizations. Emerging empirical studies reported positive results of using
artefacts and technology as mediation tools to develop CT in second language
learners, for instance, use of questions (DeWaelsche, 2015), completing prob-
lem-solving tasks on a table top (Lin, Preston, Kharrufa, & Kong, 2016), and a
combination of art work and Halpern’s CT model (Ku, Lee, & Ellis, 2017). These
studies confirm that CT is teachable, and teaching CT should focus on enhanc-
ing the content and quality of CT, engaging students’ attention, and mediat-
ing their conceptualizations by providing opportunities for them to respond to
external mediating tools or other minds.
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 99

CT in writing as a complex process

Integrating CT with writing imposes a further cognitive and metacognitive
demand on students for whom English is a second or foreign language. Thinking
critically while writing involves two parallel and intertwined thinking processes.
Oatley and Djikic (2008) from a cognitive psychology perspective describe writ-
ing as a way to externalize our thoughts. “[A] person who is writing can move
back and forward between the internal language layer and externalised text”,
and the final version of such thoughts can only be reached “via a series of inter-
mediate externalised thoughts” (p. 12). They believe that the language-based
thinking that occurs in composition can be enhanced by writing but needs
“continual effortful use and social validation” (p. 12). Their views about the mul-
tiple constraints that writers work against could predict challenges that students
encounter when learning to write critically, and these include knowledge of the
topic, conventions of writing, vocabulary, and understanding of CT standards.
For L2 learners, ultimately, an important issue is how to transfer and present
their thoughts in an acceptable manner in terms of linguistic conventions and
expectations for the genre.
From an applied linguistics perspective, Arapoff (1967) describes writing as
a thinking process. She argues that writing is much more than an orthographic
symbolization of speech and, most important, is a purposeful selection and
organization of experience.

When writing, the students must keep in mind their purpose, think about
the facts they will need to select which are relevant to that purpose, and
think about how to organise those facts in a coherent fashion. The process
of learning to write is largely a process of learning to think more clearly
(p. 33).

Hence, to teach CT is to teach students to “think their way through … what they
write” (Paul, 2005, p. 32).
Teaching students to read critically has been recommended as a helpful peda-
gogy to develop CT in writing (Kuek, 2010). Some empirical studies on teach-
ing critical reading at colleges, however, draw our attention to the inadequacy
of teaching mere critical reading. Mehta and Al-Mahrooqi’s (2015) findings on
the effect of critical reading on Indonesian college students’ writing performance
suggest limited transfer, and these investigators emphasize the need to view CT
as a set of teachable skills, reinforced by reflection, discussion, and drafting, and
the need to evaluate the extent to which students have been able to express them-
selves. In the same vein, Wilson (2016) argued that critical reading could be useful
if the observed Austrian teachers of critical reading in EAP courses could nurture
and scaffold students’ critical dispositions, because “such scaffolding pushes stu-
dents to develop deeper skills and criticality, yet enables them to feel secure in the
transcultural contact zones in which they are participating” (p. 264).
100  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

Methodology
A mediation-based curriculum was designed to address the following questions:

1. In what way can teaching CT be integrated into a college English reading

and writing curriculum?
2. Can Paul and Elder’s (2006) framework be used as the main mediation tool
in teaching CT?
3. Will there be any positive changes in Chinese college students’ performance
in CT in writing in EFL after they attend a mediation-based reading and
writing course?

Ninety-three students from two first-year undergraduate classes in Chongqing

University of Education participated in this research. One of the classes consisted
of students specialising in teacher training (a TT class). Students from both classes
took the Reading and Writing course two hours per week. A reading course
published by Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, a standard textbook
for university students in China, was used. This textbook covers a range of topics
drawn from life, nature, science, psychology, education, culture, etc. By the time
of the research, these students had studied English for more than six years. In
line with the education they had received at high school, they tended to expect
standard answers and knowledge transmission from teachers. The course was run
from 28 February to 23 June 2017.

Paul and Elder’s CT frameworks

Paul (1993) advocated thinking about one’s thinking in order to improve
thinking. He insisted on defining CT as learning how to ask and answer
questions of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Paul, 1985). He stressed not
only learning the terminology and concepts, but also engaging in practice
to better analyse and evaluate daily issues. With Elder, they proposed Eight
Elements of Thought (EOT) and Intellectual Standards (IS) (Figure 6.1).
They believe that critical thinkers routinely apply these standards to the ele-
ments of reasoning in order to develop intellectual traits (Paul & Elder, 2006;
Figure 6.1).
This model has been adopted variably from elementary schools to universities
in different disciplines (Paul, Elder, & Bartell, 1997). Many studies supported
the conclusion that the incorporation of CT into ESL class may simultaneously
develop students’ language proficiency and CT skills (Liaw, 2007; Yang, Gamble,
& Tang, 2012). For example, instruction in evaluating and explaining ideas can
facilitate the writing process in the pre-writing, while-writing, and post-writing
stages (Dong, 2017).
However, students are in need of scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1962) to deepen
and individualize their understanding of CT, as well as practice in L2 writing,
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 101

T S
Clarity Precision
Accuracy Signiicance
Relevance Completeness
Must be
Logicalness Fairness applied to
Breadth Depth

T Eƒ„
Purposes Inferences
Questions Concepts
As we learn Points of view Implications
to develop Information Assumptions

Iƒƒ‰Šƒ T‹
Intellectual Humility Intellectual Perseverance
Intellectual Autonomy Conidence in Reason
Intellectual Integrity Intellectual Empathy
Intellectual Courage Fairmindedness

FIGURE 6.1  Paul and Elder’s framework of EOT and IS (2006, p. 21 with
permission).

especially for fully comprehending Paul-Elder’s framework and internalizing

EOT and IS, which requires lots of intensive training.

An integrated curriculum
An integrated curriculum (Figure 6.2) was designed adopting the following
principles:

• Explicit instruction of the concepts and criteria in EOT and IS

• Use of life-related and meaningful tasks to model and enhance students’
understanding of these criteria and standards
• Matching relevant aspects from EOT and/or IS to the teaching objectives
of writing
• Practising moves from writing paragraphs to creating essays.

To deepen students’ understanding of CT criteria and standards and their

application to writing, a four-phase model was developed, and engagement
activities and tools were designed to mediate students’ conceptualization of CT
(Figure 6.3).
102  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

Week 2- Week 9-10

Generation Gap Week 4 Week 5-6 Week 7-8
Attitude towards
Work Climate Travel
Week 3-Music Life

Presentation- to
Deinition Explanation Poster-making Writing an essay
design a one-day
paragraph paragraph about climate based on a
trip as a travel
writing (why) change debating TV show
agency

Point of view, Question at issue, Purpose, inference,

All the elements All the elements
concept & assumption & implication &
of thought of thought
information inference consequence

Fairness, Logic, fairness,

Signiicance,
Relevance, breadth Signiicance, Signiicance,
Clarity, relevance, breadth
and depth, clarity, relevance, breadth relevance, breadth
accuracy and and depth, clarity,
accuracy and and depth, clarity, and depth, clarity,
precision accuracy and
precision accuracy and accuracy and
precision
precision precision

FIGURE 6.2  An integrated curriculum.

Vygotsky believes that “people make sense out of what they are doing not
in advance of their activity but in their very engagement in, and reflection
on, practical-critical activity itself ” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 89). Visual
auxiliary tools and activities were designed to engage students in learning to
thinking critically. A smiling face (see Figure 6.4) was adopted as a visual aid
for the teacher to model and explain how EOT would work in text analysis and

FIGURE 6.3  A four-phase model of teaching CT with writing.

Phase 1: raising metacognitive awareness of CT (Step 1)
Phase 2: explicit input and modelling of CT concepts and guided practice (Steps 2 and 3)
Phase 3: integrating EOT and IS practice with pre-(planning), while-(drafting), and post
(peer-feedback and revising) writing (Steps 4 to 7)
Phase 4: further students’ understanding and practice of CT by teacher feedback and student
reflection (Steps 8 and 9)
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 103

Purpose Question at
issue

Point of
view

Assumptions Concepts Information Inferences

Implications

FIGURE 6.4  A smiling face – a planning and drafting tool.

writing, and as an engagement tool to guide students to identify the purposes

or issues a writer tried to address, and to find out how the writer presented his/
her argument and relevant supporting evidence in the reading text. Students
were to ask the same questions while writing. In both contexts, students were
required to explain their use of concepts and standards to regulate their think-
ing and applications.
A mind map (Figure 6.5) was adopted to illustrate what breadth and depth
mean and how the standards worked in writing.

Logic Clarity
Secon
d laye
Breadth
r
Secon aye
r Signi icance
d laye dl
r on Third layer
Sec r
yer d laye
Second la Fir Secon
Se
co
nd
st
lay er
Third layer relevance
lay er ay
Third layer er tl
rs Second layer
First Fi r
layer d laye
Secon
layer Topic accuracy
Second First layer
Third layer
Third layer
Se
Fi co
layer er rs nd
Second
tl
ay tl
ay
lay
er precision
irs er
er F
Second lay
er Se
lay co
nd
nd lay
co Se
Se co er
nd
lay
er

Depth

FIGURE 6.5  A mind map of IS in writing.

104  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

Writing tasks were designed on Pigai.com, one of the most popular online
English writing platforms with more than twenty million users in China.
Students could modify their grammar mistakes and expression problems after
class, so that class time could be spent on the structure and content of their
writing. Pigai automatically recorded the frequency and the content of students’
revisions.
Students would give feedback in class after completion of each required
writing task. A peer feedback form based on Paul and Elder’s IS framework
was designed (Appendix 1) to guide students’ evaluation of each other’s writ-
ing, focusing on selected standards at a time. The teacher’s feedback was mainly
offered in class, commenting on students’ evaluation of peers writing with IS,
drawing attention to issues, clarifying misunderstanding of IS, and further mod-
elling of how to use IS to evaluate peers’ work. In the unit “Travel”, the teacher
noticed that in the group presentation, most groups only listed all the informa-
tion without further analysis, and that comments from other groups touched
on the standards rather superficially. The teacher used a popular debating TV
show in China to model and exemplify how to evaluate with the standards. The
chosen episode also served as a lead-in to the new writing topic “negative and
positive attitude towards life”.
Students were to complete self-reflection reports on revision (Appendix 2),
reflecting on how they evaluated peers’ and their own writing, anything they
learned in the evaluation, any improvement in understanding CT, and the iden-
tification of their next learning targets. Students could choose to writing in
English or Chinese. The teacher would read these reports to check students’
understanding and use of the concepts.

Data collections
1. A ll the students were asked to complete an evaluation questionnaire
(Appendix 3) at the end of the course, rating on a 4- or 5-point scale their
perceptions of the possible impact of the course on their CT and writing
behaviour, and offering their feedback on the teaching pedagogy. Eighty-
five percent (79 out of 93) of the students completed this questionnaire.
2. One piece of written work by students from the TT class was collected
before the course, and one piece after it, to identify any impact on their
writing. The writing topics were selected from the British Council IELTS
(International English Language Testing System) task website for writing,
and students’ writing was automatically scored by Pigai. Details of sample
writing are not presented in this chapter due to constraints on the size of
the chapter.
3. The two pieces of written work were also marked to assess students’ perfor-
mance of CT before and after the course with the use of a rubric based on
Elder and Paul’s (2008) IS with some modifications (Appendix 4).
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 105

TABLE 6.1  Overall views of improvement of writing and thinking skills

No improvement Not much Some A lot %

Q3. I think my English writing 0 11.4 81 7.6 100

ability has
Q4 I think my interest in English 6.3 22.3 68.4 2.5 99.5
writing has
Q5 I thinking my critical 2.5 16.5 72.3 8.9 100.1
thinking ability has

4. To explore further the changes in students’ personalized understanding of CT

and their awareness about CT and writing, four students (10%) from the TT
class were selected for a semi-structured interview (Appendix 5). They were
selected on the basis of their willingness to be interviewed, their improvement
in writing, and the time spent on revision of their writing. The interviews
were conducted individually, in Chinese, by the same interviewer to ensure
the consistency of the data.

Findings
Overall, students were very positive about the integration of teaching CT
with the writing. All 79 students said that cultivating CT was important or
very important. Sixty percent of the students replied that integrating CT skills
with English writing lessons was very important, and another 40% rated it quite
important. The majority of the students said that they had made some improve-
ment in their CT ability and writing skills, and as a result, they were more inter-
ested in learning English (Table 6.1 and Figure 6.6).

FIGURE 6.6  Improvement in CT, writing, and motivation.

106  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

Students’ evaluation of the integrated curriculum

Table 6.2 shows that responses were largely positive about the teaching approach
in terms of helping students understand CT criteria, effective guidance in prac-
tising their writing, and the benefits of various components for mediating appli-
cation of CT to writing.
Extracts from interviews in Table 6.3 gave us insights into how students’
learning to think critically in writing was mediated.
From student’s reflections above, we can see that visualized thinking tools,
such as mind map and six thinking hats, are comprehensible and operable and
can mediate students’ thinking and writing. This indicates encouragingly that
abstract thinking can be made visible and can be explicitly exercised by adopt-
ing these tools in writing. The application of Paul and Elder’s framework of
IS to writing has made students conscious of the quality of their writing. As
evidenced clearly in the extracts, these novices began to use the standards and
different thinking modes systematically to guide and regulate their thoughts and
writing behaviours (Paul & Elder, 2012). Furthermore, it is clear that standards
and modes of thinking provide a base and the common language to diagnose
problems and set up targets for improvement.

TABLE 6.2  Students’ evaluation of the teaching approach (N = 79)

Strongly Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly Total

agree (%) (%) (%) (%) disagree (%) (%)

Gradual introduction of 38 57 3.8 1.3 0 100

EOT and IS
From single paragraphs to 29.1 64.6 3.8 2.5 0 100
the whole composition
Constant emphasis to the 32.9 55.7 7.6 2.5 1.3 100
importance of the
structure and content
Activities provided in 34.2 59.5 2.5 2.5 1.3 100
class
Visual aids, e.g. mind map, 41.8 53.2 3.8 0 1.3 100
writing map
Encouraging us to revise 45.6 51.9 1.3 1.3 0 100
over and over
Teacher feedback to 36.7 59.5 2.5 1.3 0 100
improve my writing
Teacher feedback to 35.4 54.4 6.3 3.8 0 100
improve my critical
thinking
Peer feedback to improve 19 49.4 12.7 17.7 1.3 100
my writing
Peer feedback to improve 12.7 51.9 16.5 17.7 1.3 100
my critical thinking
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 107

TABLE 6.3  Examples of mediated learning

Reflections

Mind map I used to write an outline before I finished writing. Now I think
what I want to write, my purpose of writing, and I would draw
mind maps before every writing. This becomes a habit. Drawing a
mind map will make your logical thinking clearer. I will know after
I have done this what I need to do next. How can I connect the
two? In the past, there was no connection between the two
paragraphs, or very weak. (Qing)
Six thinking hats What is particularly impressive now is the hat. I feel that I can remind
myself while writing when to use which kind of thinking mode to
write. (Chen)
Standards There are many standards, and we write according to the standards. I
think it is good and it feels like it is still controlled.
Teacher and peer Sometimes when you are thinking too much you can get stuck. Peers
feedback could help you think, and can also find bigger problems in your
essay so as to make your essay more logical. Teacher can spot
problems in the use of language and logical organization of your
essay. Together they make the weaknesses of your essay explicit. Even
if you have a point of view and reasoning evidence, their feedback
gives you ideas how you can structure the essay to make it a better
piece of work.

Changes in writing behaviour after attending the course

Questionnaire data suggest that students were less impulsive and engaged more
in planning their writing after attending the course. Before attending the course,
about a third of the respondents only occasionally read the writing task carefully
(Q7), and about 60% of the respondents did not spend or only occasionally spent
time on planning what to write. Understanding the task is a prerequisite for cre-
ating a successful piece of work, and planning is recommended as good practice
in writing. After attending the course, 80% of the students said their pre-writing
habits had changed. Table 6.4 suggests that almost all the students (93.7%) agreed
or strongly agreed that they would read the instructions for the written tasks
carefully before writing. They would use EOT to help them analyse the writing
task and to plan and revise the content of their writing (Q10). They paid more
attention to the structure and the content when they were writing. Seventy-five
percent of the students used EOT as a guide to reflecting on the scope and depth
of their writing (Q18). The majority of the respondents were also using IS to
evaluate their own (Q14) as well as their peers’ work (Q15). All this indicates
that most students paid more attention to the structure and the content of their
writing after attending the course.
Paying more attention to the structure and content in their writing was also
evidenced in the change of foci in revising their work. Observations of students’
peer feedback in the first lesson revealed an overconcentration on grammar with
little reference to the structure or content of the writing. As one student put it,
108  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

TABLE 6.4  Use of EOT and IS in the process of writing (N = 79)

Strongly Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly Total

disagree (%) (%) (%) (%) agree (%) (%)

Q10 P
 ay more attention than 1.3 0 5.1 68.4 25.3 100
before to reading the
requirement of a written
task before writing
Q11. Consciously use EOT 1.3 3.8 10.1 65.8 19 100
to analyse the written
task or topic at
pre-writing stage
Q12. Consciously use EOT 1.3 3.8 13.9 65.8 15.2 100
to construct the
content of my writing
at pre-writing stage
Q13. While writing, 1.3 2.5 13.9 65.8 16.5 100
consciously use EOT
to adjust or revise the
content
Q14. While writing, 2.5 5.1 20.3 62 10.1 100
consciously use IS to
evaluate my writing
Q18. At revision stage, 2.5 7.6 15.2 68.4 6.3 100
consciously use EOT
to reflect on my
writing and extend
with additional
content
Q17. At revision stage, 1.3 5.1 13.9 73.4 6.3 100
consciously use IS to
evaluate my writing

“revising is to correct grammatical mistakes”. In the end-of-course question-

naire, students were asked to choose up to three foci in revision and put them
in order. Analysis of the first aspect they put down in the sequence (Table 6.5)
shows that more students (60% of the respondents) would pay attention to the
structure and content after attending the course. “Mainly tinkered with words
and sentences would be a restriction of thought imposed by what has already
been externalized onto paper” (Oatley and Djikic, 2008, p. 12).

Students’ understanding of CT before and after

Findings presented in this section were drawn from the responses by students
from the TT class. They were asked to respond to the question “What is CT?”
three times during the course — at the beginning (February 2017), in the middle
(May 2017), and the end of the course ( July 2017). The results show that all but
2 of the 46 students could articulate what CT meant to them at the end of the
course, in comparison with half of the class not providing any responses at the
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 109

TABLE 6.5  Aspects focused on revision

Sequences

A. Structure of the writing 29 (36.7%)

A1 Structure → B. Content → E. Connectors (10)
A2 Structure → B. Content → C. Grammar (8)
A3 Structure → B. Content (3)
A4 Structure → C. Grammar → D.Vocabulary (3)
A5 Structure → B. Content → D.Vocabulary (1)
A6 Others (4)
B. Content of the writing 18 (22.8%)
B1 Content →A. Structure → C. Grammar (7)
B3 Content → A. Structure → D.Vocabulary (3)
B2 Content → C. Grammar → D.Vocabulary (3)
B4 Others (5)
C. Use of grammar 15 (19%)
C1 Grammar → D. Vocabulary → B. Content (4)
C2 Grammar → B. Content → A. Structure (3)
C3 Grammar → D. Vocabulary → E. Connectors (3)
C4 Grammar → B. Content → D. Vocabulary (2)
C5 Grammar → D. Vocabulary → A. Structure (1)
Others (2)
D. Use of vocabulary 13 (16.5%)
D1 Vocabulary → C. Grammar → E. Connectors (3)
D2 Vocabulary → E. Connectors → C. Grammar (3)
D3 Vocabulary → A. Structure → C. Grammar (2)
D4 Vocabulary → C. Grammar → A. Structure (2)
D5 Vocabulary → C. Grammar → B. Content (2)
D6 Vocabulary → E. Connectors → B. Content (1)
E. Connectors 3 (4%)
F. Others None

beginning of the course. A content analysis of students’ responses reveals inter-

esting insights into their understanding of CT and its development.
Some students interpreted CT as fault finding in others or in oneself.
This misunderstanding could derive from a direct Chinese translation “批
判性思维”. The word “批判” (pipan) in Chinese has a negative connotation
of criticizing somebody for doing something wrong. Some simplified CT as
one against another, as in “contrary to the majority”. “Before I started this
class, I thought that CT was to refute, to say that somebody is wrong, and
then try to argue for my own point of view”. Post-course responses suggest
that students thought more about forming a judgement than about finding
evidence to support their own views against others. They talked more about
evaluating others’ points of view. “You should make sure if something that
you get is acceptable”. “It [CT] is a way of thinking differently, not just [to]
follow the writers’ thoughts. To judge an article with your own ideas”. “You
can’t just agree [to] all opinions; you should have your own different opin-
ion. Sometimes, you should stand against the opinion” (S20). One student
reported the use of standards as an evaluation tool. “CT means that we should
110  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

have standards for things. The standards are to check the things whether
they are good or not” (S19)’. “To think with purpose, to question the issues,
point of view, concepts of objective, assumptions, implications, inference, and
information” (S41).
Some students described CT as considering things from “two sides”.
“Every coin has two sides” (S47) echoes findings in other studies on Chinese col-
lege students’ understanding of CT (Chen, 2017). A comparison of the responses
to “What is CT?” reveals that the “two sides” interpretation was presented in
a more or less black-and-white way (i.e. good or bad, advantages or disadvan-
tages, positive or negative), and at the end of the course, half of them (22 out of
46) emphasized that CT considers issues from different or many perspectives, as
shown in the word cloud (Figure 6.7).
Students began to use “angles”, “aspects”, and “perspectives” rather than
“side” in describing CT.
“a way of thinking which needs or requires you to see the problem or the
things from different aspects” (S44).
“a way of thinking, including different ideas from different angles” (S11).
“think from different angles; think deeply” (S30).
“Thinking something in an objective, all round way, not only considering it
as positive or negative” (S53)
“a logical thinking which views an issue from different angles. It is to
think about an issue in various aspects and show our own thinking critically”
(S29).

FIGURE 6.7  A word cloud of students’ interpretations of CT at the end of the course.
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 111

Other students interpreted CT as “a new way to think, when we share our

ideas about one thing, it is important for us to think about it in a wise and clear
way. And we shouldn’t use our emotion to explain it” (S54). A couple of students
see CT as a kind of attitude rather than as in terms of cognitive skills. To them
CT is “having courage to say NO!” or an environment in which “people are
encouraged to say whatever they think of ”.
It could be argued that use of those terms might simply be regurgitated
from memory, but some more elaborate and sophisticated articulations of
CT were found in students’ mid-course self-reflection reports. Students were
asked to reflect on any development in their understanding of CT. The fol-
lowing four quotations illustrate individual students’ understanding of CT
and the relationship between thinking and CT (1), integrating own and oth-
ers’ viewpoints (2), subjectivity and objectivity (3), and going beyond the
existing viewpoints (4).

1. I think CT is based on conventional thinking and to improve it through

finding different but related perspectives rather than blindly agreeing with
the established views. It is to have a critical eye to look at own articles, and
analyse it from multiple perspectives.
2. CT is to evaluate from different perspectives, and you can integrate your
own viewpoints with the authors’.
3. I believe that CT is to prove and present own views rather than using
subjective views to support one’s argument.
4. I believe that CT is the courage to break the conventions and challenge
authoritarian views and at the same time find strong as well as rational
examples and data to support own views.

Compared with fragmented explanations of CT at the beginning of the

course, students’ descriptions given at the end of the course are much richer and
elaborated.

Conceptualization of CT in writing
All 79 students said, in the final course evaluation questionnaire, that it was
important or very important to cultivate CT ability and integrate it into the
English writing course. Four students from the TT class were interviewed indi-
vidually, and their comments gave insights into their conceptualizing of CT in
writing. Pseudonyms were used.
All the four students who were interviewed talked about a shift in focus from
the use of flowery language to the argument in a piece of work. “In the past, we
were taught to use advanced vocabulary when expressing ideas. You are, like a
porter, simply stacking your essay with beautiful words or expressions. It looks
flowery, but when you sum up what was actually discussed in it, it is in fact very
shallow”. (Yu)
112  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

Echoing Yu’s focus on the use of beautiful language, Qing described in detail
changes in approaching a piece of reading. “In the past, when I looked at a piece of
work, I used to look at details. Now, I would start from looking at the purpose of
this writing; whether the writer has given his/her point of view at the beginning of
the essay; how or in what way does he/she present his/her point of view, e.g. by giv-
ing examples, through telling a story, or some data. Then I would see how the
writer reasons for his point of view, and check for the logicalness and convincing-
ness of the supporting evidence. Finally I would read the conclusion”. (Qing)
Presenting one’s point of view is not unknown to students. They learned at
high school to include three or four points of views in their writing. Most of
the time, as they recalled, their essays were full of personal opinions, and once
they presented them, the essay was considered completed and the job was done.
Attending this course made them understand the need to make their points of
view convincing.
“You need to check both positive and negative aspects of your point of view.
If the examples you give are refuted by others, what would you do? … When
presenting our views, we should understand how to argue and how to convince
others as well as ourselves. If what is written cannot convince ourselves, the essay
is useless”. (Zhu).
However, searching for convincing evidence not only requires great effort but
also can lead to mental exhaustion. As Chen recalls, when looking for support-
ing points, one has to think about the purpose of doing so, the relevance of the
points found, and possible opposite points of view. “It is very demanding and my
brain cells are almost dead”. These quotations support our argument that CT is
a reflective process and involves constant decision making.

Impact on performance of writing and CT

Two topics from British Council IELTS websites were chosen for the pre- and
post-course writing tasks: “Some students take one year off between finishing
school and going to university in order to travel or to work. Do you think advan-
tages outweigh disadvantages?”; “Machines have replaced physical work in many
industries. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?” Forty-five
students from the TT class completed both writing tasks, and the scores on the
first draft of the two pieces of writing were marked by an independent researcher
for students’ performance in CT. A modified rubric (Appendix 4) based on Elder
and Paul’s (2008) IS framework was used, and each work was marked twice to
ensure consistency and reliability. Table 6.6 shows a significant improvement in
all nine aspects of IS, although the teaching focused on the first seven aspects.
This perhaps could be explained by Vygotsky’s claim that “Development of con-
sciousness is the development of a set of particular, independent capabilities or of
a set of particular habits. Improvement of one function of consciousness or one
aspect of its activity can affect the development of another only to the extent that
there are elements common to both functions and activities” (1978, p. 83).
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 113

TABLE 6.6  CT performance in pre- and post-course EFL writing (N = 45)

Pretest (generation gap) Post-test (machines)

CT standards Mean SD Mean SD Sig. (two-tailed)

Clarity 3.22 0.60 4.27 0.69 0

Accuracy 2.40 0.75 3.60 0.54 0
Precision 1.89 0.65 3.84 0.85 0
Relevance 3.02 0.50 3.62 0.72 0
Depth 1.80 0.59 3.33 0.77 0
Breadth 2.31 0.60 3.51 0.59 0
Logic 2.29 0.51 3.24 0.68 0
Significance 1.93 0.54 3.02 0.69 0
Fairness 2.36 0.61 3.16 0.60 0

In addition to the positive effects on students’ writing and CT performance,

60% of 76 students said that they began to use EOT and IS to help them think
about matters in their daily life. For instance, they become more analytical when
reading information online than before.

Discussion
The positive outcomes of this study suggest that it is feasible to integrate CT
into a college English reading and writing curriculum and that Paul and Elder’s
frameworks can promote students’ CT in reading and writing. The findings
indicate that more students (60% of the respondents) shifted their foci away from
grammar and expressions to the structure and content of their writing. By the
end of this course, more students could also articulate their understanding about
CT and consciously use EOT and SI to plan and evaluate their writing. Our
findings are especially encouraging in terms of ways for teachers to implement
the new curriculum requirements and, at the same time, fulfil their teaching
objectives. Drawing from these findings, we would argue that (1) it is crucial
to match elements of CT with language teaching objectives; (2) teaching CT
involves developing students’ cognitive and metacognitive skills, and, above all,
helping them construct individualized interpretations of CT; (3) this construct is
initially mediated externally, co-constructed, and gradually internalized towards
the ideal conceptualization of CT in writing; and the development of this con-
struct is also voluntary, requires constant reflection and effort, and is nourished
through mediated learning.

Matching CT elements with language teaching objective

It is important for teachers to match CT elements with language learning
objectives. Thinking is interweaved with language, and the combination
of EOT and SI with EFL writing offers teachers clear purposes in teach-
ing CT and providing students with learning goals that they can practice
114  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

achieving. EOT’s key elements correspond to those in argumentative writing,

and IS has been used by other scholars as assessment criteria for EFL writing
(Dong, 2017). Without specific connections, it would be hard for teachers
to integrate CT frameworks into language teaching. The stronger the con-
nections are, the more efficient the instruction is. With proper mediation
and repeated practice, students’ self-regulation of learning may gradually be
formed and their comprehension deepened.

Constructing individualized interpretations of CT

Our findings provide empirical support for Davies’s (2015) proposal of
“critical being” in the sense that learning to think critically is a process
of constructing an individualized interpretation of CT aligned with CT
standards. Students’ responses to what CT means, collected at three times
over the research period, generated a variety of descriptions. These diverse
interpretations of CT illustrate that learning to think critically means not
just to regurgitate criteria, but also to build up personally relevant and
domain-appropriate interpretations and representations. Regarding writing
critically, what perhaps is less widely acknowledged is that above all, it is
a creative process involving decision making, critical judgement, and con-
struction of a coherent piece of work. The students interviewed demonstrated
well (see Table 6.3) that writing critically is also a complex process requiring
multifaceted considerations related to writing itself (e.g. examining the writ-
ing task, establishing a main point, structure, and presentation) and to the
quality of the argumentation (e.g. using criteria to analyse, select, and evaluate
information and logic). This process does not only require critical creativity,
but also hard work. As one student commented, learning to write critically is
intellectually intensive and sometimes painful.

An environment to mediate: pedagogical recommendations

Despite substantial research to support explicit instruction and an integrated
approach to teaching thinking, “the thorniest problem facing all teaching think-
ing programmes and approaches was that of transfer … and one way to help
the transfer is self-regulation which includes motivation, thinking disposition,
and habits of minds” (Higgins, 2015, p. 24). Transfer, in socio-cultural theory,
refers to the process whereby externally mediated learning becomes internal-
ized. In this integrated curriculum, the two frameworks offer concrete examples
and strategies to both teachers and students regarding development of a critical
mind. A variety of practical and analytical tasks were designed to allow stu-
dents to experience, engage in, and practise CT. The components presented in
the four-phase model in Figure 6.3 establish a mediated learning environment.
These components are not merely resources for students to draw upon but, more
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 115

important, as demonstrated in this study, they help to raise conscious awareness

and focus on specific aspects of writing or CT so as to regulate students’ think-
ing and writing behaviours. In the foreign language teaching context, interac-
tion between teachers and students has been recognized as a good pedagogical
practice, while less attention seems to have been given to teachers as mediators,
which the authors of this chapter see as the key to ensuring the success of the
integration. The mediation in this study focuses on guiding students’ attention
and engagement in learning with various methods.
The two frameworks provide a theoretical base, and the mind map and smil-
ing face serve as auxiliary aids to help students apply individual criteria for the
analysis of reading texts and for evaluating their own and peers’ writing. These
tasks help students interpret these criteria, and these application activities simul-
taneously enhance their understanding of these concepts and standards. Their
initial or earlier interpretations could be very fragmented or misunderstood.
Oral or written articulation of these interpretations provides authentic person-
ally related learning materials for students to work on and respond to for the
improvement of CT performance in writing.
Some metacognitive strategies were used in this research to alter students’ aware-
ness, attitude, and perceptions of CT in writing. Metacognition operates progres-
sively under people’s conscious control. “These early metacognitive achievements
serve as foundations for much of the higher-order thinking that appears later”
(Kuhn, 1999). Teachers may adopt certain metacognitive strategies in teaching:

• Making explicit the interrelationships between the significance of devel-

oping CT and the achievement of language learning goals to encourage
motivation.
• Setting specific learning goals with matched conceptual knowledge of EOT
and SI to make the learning purposeful and manageable.
• Providing varied tasks or learning opportunities to encourage articulation of
the concepts and understanding to foster improvement.
• Reflecting at intervals on teaching and learning methods.
• Preparing to adjust tasks based on student feedback to meet learners’ needs
academically and emotionally. The teacher should be aware that students’
learning difficulties and emotional changes could be more challenging than
the operation of tasks. Other types of tasks (e.g. designing and problem
solving) can be used for the application of EOT and SI to avoid the boredom
resulting from repeated analysis and evaluation tasks about writing.

Conclusions
The aim of this research is to investigate the feasibility of integrating CT into
an EFL reading and writing course and its impact on college students’ CT and
writing performance. The findings confirm that an integrated curriculum has
the potential to develop students’ CT and writing competence hand in hand. An
116  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

integrated curriculum could help students understand the purpose of learning CT

and see its interrelationship with writing. The two frameworks provide tangible
measures, and their applications have raised students’ awareness of good practice
in writing and quality in CT. Each attempt at their interpretation, application,
and response to the results of these tasks would, in turn, improve students’ under-
standing and performance of writing critically. One strength of this research lies
in its valuable insights into students’ conceptualization of CT in writing, which
is less often reported in the literature. Some pedagogical suggestions are derived
from the findings about teaching thinking in foreign language classrooms.
Relevant elements or criteria in the EOT and IS framework should be selected to
align with the written tasks. Dedicated attention can reduce cognitive demand on
L2 learners, maximize the learning gains, and promote the transfer, or internali-
zation, of externally mediated learning. Repeated exercises that provide practice
in applying standards to analyze reading and evaluate writing help students to
reflect, control, and develop their thinking behaviours towards a CT-based writ-
ing disposition. The findings of this research suggest that telling is not enough
in teaching CT. Instructional guidance should provide multiple and successful
encounters with targeted thinking skills. These encounters should involve succes-
sively more complex input, in order to ensure the elaboration of different kinds of
lexical knowledge and the gradual evolution of habits that reflect this knowledge.
We argue, therefore, that teaching CT is far more complicated than the analogy of
giving people a fish versus teaching them how to fish. Rather, it requires carefully
designed and mediated activities and environments.

Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to Min Zhou for carrying out interviews and mark-
ing essays as an independent researcher and her useful suggestions for the
curriculum.

References
Alagözlü, N. (2007). Critical thinking and voice in EFL writing. The Asian EFL Journal,
9, 118–136.
Alagözlü, N., & Süzer, S. S. (2010). Language and cognition: Is critical thinking a myth in
Turkish educational system? Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2(2), 782–786.
Arapoff, N. (1967). Writing: A thinking process. TESOL Quarterly, 1(2), 33–39.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
31(1), 71–94.
Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals. New York: Longmans Green.
British Council. IELTS TASK 2 writing band descriptors (public version). Retrieved from
https://takeielts.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/IELTS_task_2_Writing_band_
descriptors.pdf on 10 December 2016.
Chen, L. (2017). Understanding critical thinking in Chinese sociocultural contexts: A case
study in a Chinese college. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 140–151.
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 117

College Foreign Language Teaching Committee. (2000). College English syllabus. Shanghai:
Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Cottrell, S. (2011). Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument (2nd ed.).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Davies, M. (2015). A model of critical thinking in higher education. In M. B. Paulsen
(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 41–92). Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing.
DeWaelsche, S. A. (2015). Critical thinking, questioning and student engagement in Korean
university English courses. Linguistics and Education, 32, 131–147.
Djiwandono, P. I. (2013). Critical thinking skills for language students. TEFLIN Journal,
24(1), 32–47.
Dong,Y. (2015). Critical thinking in second language writing: Concept, theory and pedagogy (Doctoral
thesis).Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia.
Dong,Y. (2017). A rating scale for assessing critical thinking in L2 writing: Exploration and
practice. Foreign Language Education in China, 10(10), 23–29.
Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for
the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 43–52.
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2008). The thinker’s guide to intellectual standards:The words that name them
and the criteria that define them. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Ennis, R. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and
abilities. Retrieved from http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/documents/
TheNatureofCriticalThinking_51711_000.pdf
Halpern, D. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Milton Park,
Didcot: Taylor and Francis.
Higgins, S. (2015). A recent history of teaching thinking. In R.Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman
(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 19–28). .
Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective (1st ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Ku, K.Y. L., Lee, V. S. L., & Ellis, J. W. (2017). Using artwork as problem context in generic
critical thinking instruction: A strategy for thoughts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25,
53–59.
Kuek, M. C. T. (2010). Developing critical thinking skills through integrating teaching of reading and
writing in the L2 writing classroom (PhD thesis). Newcastle University, Newcastle upon
Tyne, U.K.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2),
16–25.
Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2
education :Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. London: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language devel-
opment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li., L. (2016). Integrating thinking skills in foreign language learning: What can we learn
from teachers’ perspectives? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 273–288.
Li, L., & Wegerif, R. (2014).What does it mean to teach thinking in China? Challenging and
developing notions of “Confucian education”. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 11, 22–32.
Liaw, M. (2007). Content-based reading and writing for critical thinking skills in an EFL
context. English Teaching and Learning, 31(2), 45-87.
Lin, M., Preston, A., Kharrufa, A., & Kong, Z. (2016). Making L2 learners’ reasoning skills
visible: The potential of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environments.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 303–322.
118  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. M. (2007).Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construc-
tion of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2),
235–249.
Mehta, S. R., & Al-Mahrooqi, R. (2015). Can thinking be taught? Linking critical thinking
and writing in an EFL context. RELC Journal, 46(1), 23–36.
Mok, J. (2010). The new role of English language teachers: Developing students’ critical
thinking in Hong Kong secondary school classrooms. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly,
12(2), 262–287.
Mosley, D., Baumfield,V., Elliot, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Miller, J., & Newton, D. (2005).
Frameworks for thinking. Cambridge: CUP.
Nieto, C. H. G. (2007). Applications of Vygotskyan concept of mediation in SLA. Colombian
Applied Linguistics Journal, 9, 213–228.
Oatley, K., & Djikic, M. (2008).Writing as thinking. Review of General Psychology, 12(1), 9–27.
Paul, R. (1993). Why students and teachers don’t reason well. Retrieved from http://www.
criticalthinking.org/resources/articles/why-studentsteachers-dont-reason.shtml
Paul, R. (2005). The state of critical thinking today. New Directions for Community Colleges,
130, 27–38.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). A miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and tools. Billon
Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2012). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life
(3rd ed.). London: Pearson.
Paul, R., Elder, L., & Bartell,T. (1997). California teacher preparation for instruction in critical think-
ing: Research findings and policy recommendations. Sacramento, CA: California Commission
on Teacher Credentialing.
Paul, R. W. (1985). Bloom’s taxonomy and critical thinking intervention. Educational
Leadership, 42(8), 36–39.
Ravenscroft, A., Wegerif, R., & Hartley, R. (2007). Reclaiming thinking: Dialectic, dialogic
and learning in the digital age. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Monograph Series,
Series II, 5, 39–57.
Ren, W. (2013). Revisiting foreign language majors’ critical thinking skills – A case study of
English public speaking course. Foreign Language China, 10(1), 10–17.
Stapleton, P. (2002). Critical thinking in Japanese L2 writing: Rethinking tired constructs.
ELT Journal, 56(3), 250–257.
Tian, J., & Low, G. D. (2011). Critical thinking and Chinese university students: A review of
the evidence. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 24(1), 61–76.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wen, Q. & Liu, R. (2006). An exploratory study on features in English majors’ abstract think-
ing in English argumentative compositions. Journal of Foreign Languages, 162(2), 49–58.
Wen, Q., Wang, H., Wang, J., Zhao, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2010). A comparative study of critical
thinking skills between Chinese English and other liberal arts majors. Foreign Language
Teaching & Research, 42 (5), 350–355.
Wilson, K. (2016). Critical reading, critical thinking: Delicate scaffolding in English for
academic purposes (EAP). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 256–265.
Yang, Y. C., Gamble, J., & Tang, S. S. (2012). “Voice over instant messaging as a tool for
enhancing the oral proficiency and motivation of English-as-a-foreign-language
learners”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 448–464.
Zin, Z. M., & Eng, W. B. (2014). Relationship between critical thinking disposition and
critical reading skills of Malaysian ESL learners. Asian EFL Journal, 16(3), 41–68.
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 119

Appendix 1: Peer feedback form (adapted from Min Zhou)

Peer Feedback Form

Reviewer’s name:____________ Writer’s name:__________________

1. You did well on …? (Name at least two things you liked or that the writer
did well in the essay.)
2. These parts have to be changed because …. (Name at least two specific
things that the writer might work on in the revision.)
3. You can improve by …. (Name at least two specific suggestions that would
help the writer revise her/his writing.)

Scale
List sentences
Standards Specific aspects 5 4 3 2 1 to improve
Clarity Demonstrate a clear
Understandable, understanding of the
free from confusion, purpose of writing
and ambiguity Clearly define the key
issues of the writing task
Clearly show the writer’s
own position on the issue
Clearly give further details or
explanations to each point
Clearly provide examples to
support
Clearly show writers’
conclusion on the issue
Accuracy Accurately explain/use the
True, free from key concepts
errors, and Accurately identify
distortions assumptions in the writing
tasks and other people’s
viewpoints
Gather credible information
Provide references in the
text when introducing
other people’s ideas
Relevance The problems imply a close
Relating to the relationship with the task
matter at hand Address all important points
of view relevant to the
writing task
Use concepts and ideas in
ways relevant to their
functions
Focus on relevant
information and present no
irrelevant information
(Continued)
120  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

Scale
List sentences
Standards Specific aspects 5 4 3 2 1 to improve
Precision The information or data
Relating to data or used to support the point of
information to be view should be as follows:
exact, not vague detailed with exact number
specific instead of broad and
abstract description
Depth Present a full understanding
Containing of the complexities
complexities inherent in the questions
and multiple Make deep rather than
interrelationships; superficial inferences
implies Imply thoroughness in
thoroughness thinking
in thinking
Breadth View the issue from
Comprehensive multiple perspectives
and broad minded Approach problems and issues
in perspective, with a richness of vision
encompassing Reason from points of view
multiple viewpoints that are significantly
different from their own
Note:
5. Consistently does all or almost all of the above.
4. Consistently does most of the above.
3. Consistently does many of the above.
2. Consistently does a few of the above.
1. Consistently does few or almost none of the above.

Writer’s response
The writer’s response
Do you agree or disagree with what your partner said? Do you think the feed-
back she/he gave will be helpful in writing your revision?

Appendix 2: Self-reflection with revision report

Self-reflection with revision report

Writer’s name: __________________ Reviewer’s name: __________

Writing topic: ___________________ Date: ________________

Part 1: Peer review: evaluating and improving peer’s writing

Original score on Pigai: ____ ____ Current score on Pigai: _____ ____
How did I evaluate peer’s writing?
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 121

How did I give feedback to improve peer’s writing?

What have I learnt from the peer-review activity?

Part 2: My revision report: Evaluating and improving my own writing

Original score on Pigai: ____ ____ Current score on Pigai: _________

What comments/suggestions have I received from my peer that I decided to use

in the revision (and explain what was revised)? Why was it revised? How was it
revised?
On the basis of peer feedback, how did I evaluate and improve my own
writing in the revision?

Part 3: Overall reflection

My improvements:
Two things I have learned most about critical thinking in this writing
assignment.
My confusions/problems:
Two most important questions I would like to share with Cora and
classmates.
My goals for next writing:
What do I want to achieve in the next writing assignment?

Appendix 3: Questionnaire
Background information
1. Gender
A. Male B. Female
2. Have you received any training related to critical thinking before?
A. No B. Yes

Self-evaluation of learning effects

1. After taking the writing module in this semester, I think my English writing
skills have been improved.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree
122  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

2. After taking the writing module in this semester, I think my interests on

English writing _______.
A. have not been improved
B. remained the same
C. have been improved to some extent
D. have been improved a lot
3. After taking the writing module in this semester, I think my ability of crit-
ical thinking _______.
A. has not been improved
B. remained the same
C. has been improved to some extent
D. has been improved a lot
4. I started to use Elements of Thought and Intellectual Standards of critical
thinking to help me think about matters in daily life.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree

The cognitive changes in the writing process

1. Before this semester, I ______ read the task requirement before writing.
A. never
B. seldom
C. sometimes
D. often
E. always
2. Before this semester, I ______ spent time thinking how to structure my
writing.
A. never
B. seldom
C. sometimes
D. often
E. always
3. After one semester’s training on critical thinking, I have changed my habits
at pre-writing stage.
A. No
B. Yes
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 123

4. After receiving one semester’s training on critical thinking, I have now paid more
attention than before to reading the requirement of a written task before writing.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree
5. Before writing, I can now consciously use Elements of Thought to help me
analyse the writing task.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree
6. Before writing, I can now consciously use Elements of Thought to help me
construct writing contents.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree
7. During the writing process, I can now consciously use Elements of Thought
to help me adjust writing contents.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree
8. During the writing process, I can now consciously use Elements of Thought
to evaluate the content of my writing.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree
9. When giving feedback to peers’ writing, I mainly focus on language prob-
lems (grammar, vocabulary, etc.).
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
124  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree
10. When giving feedback to peers’ writing, I can use Elements of Thought as a
guide to make suggestions for revisions.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree

11. When revising, I can use Intellectual Standards to evaluate my writing

now.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree

12. When revising, I can now consciously use Elements of Thought to reflect on
and extend the content of my writing.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree

13. When revising my writing, I mainly revise ______ (sequence the answers
in the order of focus)
A. Content of writing
B. Structure of writing
C. Use of grammar
D. Use of vocabulary
E. Conjunction
F. Others

14. Overall, I think cultivating the ability of critical thinking is _________.

A. not important at all
B. not that important
C. average
D. quite important
E. very important
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 125

15. I think integrating critical thinking practices in English writing lessons

is ________.
A. not important at all
B. not that important
C. average
D. quite important
E. very important

Teaching evaluation
1. Gradual introduction of single to multiple Elements of Thought and critical
thinking standards is helpful for me to understand these concepts.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree
2. Teaching from writing single paragraphs to the whole composition is helpful
for me to understand the structure of a composition.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree
3. Teacher’s constant emphasis on the importance of the structure and content
in writing has led me to pay more attention to them.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree
4. Different activities provided by the teacher in class (e.g. making posters by
groups, designing traveling routes, brainstorming, writing spontaneously
in class, etc.) are helpful for me to apply Elements of Thought and critical
thinking standards to my writing.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree
126  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

5. Graphical demonstrations (e.g. mind map, writing map, etc.) used by the
teacher are helpful for me to apply Elements of Thought and critical think-
ing standards to my writing.
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Not sure
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree

6. During this semester, I received feedback by _______ (multiple options).

A. teacher’s oral guidance of writing problems to the whole class
B. teacher’s feedback to groups
C. teacher’s oral feedback to individual students
D. teacher’s written feedback to individual students
E. peers’ feedback
F. have not received any feedback at all
G. others

7. Sequence your answers in Q6 in the order of usefulness.

8. To improve my writing skills, I think teacher’s feedback _______.

A. is not helpful at all
B. is not that helpful
C. not sure
D. helps to some extent
E. helps a lot

9. To improve my critical thinking skills, I think teacher’s feedback ______.

A. is not helpful at all
B. is not that helpful
C. not sure
D. helps to some extent
E. helps a lot

10. Please list at least three things you have gained from teacher’s feedback (it
can be in oral or written form).

11. To improve my critical thinking skills, I think peers’ feedback ______.

A. is not helpful at all
B. is not that helpful
C. not sure
D. helps to some extent
E. helps a lot
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 127

12. To improve my writing skills, I think peers’ feedback _______.

A. is not helpful at all
B. is not that helpful
C. not sure
D. helps to some extent
E. helps a lot

13. Please list at least three things you have gained from peer’s feedback (it can
be in oral or written form).

14. I think teacher’s encouragement of revising over and over again ______ to
improve my writing skills ________.
A. is not helpful at all
B. is not that helpful
C. not sure
D. helps to some extent
E. helps a lot

Appendix 4: Rubric for assessing critical thinking in

EFL writing (from Min Zhou, a PhD in CUHK)

5 – Exemplary 4 – Good 3 – Satisfactory 2 – Below 1 – Unsatisfactory

satisfactory
Consistently Consistently Consistently does Consistently Consistently does
does all or does most or most or many does most or most or many of
almost all of many of the of the following many of the the following
the following following following

Clarity – Completely – Fairly – Understandable – A number of – Barely

understandable understandable though certain words or understandable,
– Completely though a few words or points points are full of confusion
not misleading words are not are slightly rather unclear – Most
– Completely completely unclear and not easy information is
free from clear – Basically not to understand misleading
ambiguity – No misleading misleading – Some – Very general,
information – Exact to the information is lacking many
– Exact to the basic level of quite necessary
necessary level detail, but not misleading examples or
of details (i.e. very specific – Not exact to explanations
fairly specific the basic level
examples and of detail, or
explanations) lacking
necessary
examples or
explanations

(Continued)
128  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

5 – Exemplary 4 – Good 3 – Satisfactory 2 – Below 1 – Unsatisfactory

satisfactory
Consistently Consistently Consistently does Consistently Consistently does
does all or does most or most or many does most or most or many of
almost all of many of the of the following many of the the following
the following following following

Relevance – Implying a – Implying a – Implying some – Implying – Implying only

completely fairly close relationship some weak or no
close relationship with the task relationship relationship with
relationship with the task – Addressing with the task the task
with the task – Addressing most (not all) – Missing – Missing most key
– Addressing all almost all the of the key some key concepts and
key concepts key concepts concepts and concepts and points
and points and points points points
– Including no – Including no – Including some – Including
non-essential non-essential non-essential some
information information information non-essential
and writing and writing and writing information
and writing
Logic – Completely – Fairly making – Generally – Showing some – Having many
making sense sense together making sense obvious logical obvious logical
– Showing no – Showing together errors or errors or
logical errors no logical – Showing inconsistencies inconsistencies
and errors and occasional – Lacking – Lacking
inconsistencies inconsistencies logical errors or convincing convincing and
– Presenting – Presenting inconsistencies and credible credible evidence
strongly fairly – Not presenting evidence to to support most
convincing convincing enough support some key viewpoints
and credible and credit convincing and key and the
evidence to evidence able credible viewpoints conclusion
fully support fully support evidence to and the
all the key all the key support all the conclusion
viewpoints and viewpoints and key viewpoints
conclusion conclusion and conclusion
Breadth – Encompassing – Encompassing – Encompassing – Narrow- – Very narrow-
multiple multiple multiple minded in minded in
viewpoints viewpoints viewpoints to perspective perspective
– Very – Broad-minded some extent – Failing to – Failing to
broad-minded in perspective – Not broad- considering considering
in perspective – Extensively minded enough enough different points
– Fully considering – Not fully different of view
considering different points considering points of
different points of view different view
of view points of view
Depth – Presenting – Presenting – Presenting a – Failing to – Failing to
a full a fair basic appreciate the appreciate
understanding understanding understanding complexities complexities
of the of the of the – Being – Being rather
complexities complexities complexities superficial in superficial in
– Implying – Implying – Not implying writing writing
thoroughness depth in enough
in thinking thinking depth in
writing
 Integrating critical thinking into EFL 129

5 – Exemplary 4 – Good 3 – Satisfactory 2 – Below 1 – Unsatisfactory

satisfactory
Consistently Consistently Consistently does Consistently Consistently does
does all or does most or most or many does most or most or many of
almost all of many of the of the following many of the the following
the following following following

Fairness – Consistently – Demonstrating – Demonstrating – Not – Not

demonstrating necessary basic demonstrating demonstrating
fair-mindedness, fair- fair-mindedness, necessary fair-mindedness,
not showing mindedness, not showing fair- showing much
any bias not showing any obvious bias mindedness, obvious bias
– Being any bias – Being showing some – Most viewpoints,
completely – Being fairly empathetic and obvious bias evidence,
empathetic empathetic fair in – Not being arguments, and
and fair in and fair in examining empathetic conclusion are
examining examining viewpoints, and fair not
viewpoints, viewpoints, evidence, enough in empathetically
evidence, evidence, arguments, and examining and fairly
arguments, and arguments, and conclusion viewpoints, examined
conclusion conclusion – The writing is evidence, – Most of the
– The writing is – The writing is largely based on arguments, and writing is not
based on based on accurate and conclusion based on
accurate and accurate and verifiable – Part of the accurate and
verifiable verifiable evidence, but writing is verifiable
evidence evidence some based on evidence
information accurate and
needs further verifiable
verification evidence

Sources:  Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2008); British Council, IELTS TASK 2 Writing band descriptors; Cottrell,
S. (2011); and Dong,Y. (2015).

Appendix 5: Interview protocol

Interview Protocol
The interview will be semi-structured and mainly focus on students’ under-
standing of CT, how they use Elder-Paul’s framework to guide their writing,
their evaluation of the teacher’s instruction, and any changes in their view of CT
and its integration into the writing process.
1. Background information
1.1  Class, name
2. Understanding of CT
2.1  How do you understand CT now?
2.2  How did you understand it before?
3. Understanding of CT and writing
3.1  How do you understand the relationship between CT and writing now?
 130  Mei Lin and Xiaoting Xiang

4. Evaluation of teacher’s instruction about CT and writing

4.1  Do you think the teacher has taught something about CT? If “Yes”, how
does she teach it?
4.2  Which part of the instruction do you think is useful for you? And how?
4.3  Do you think the arrangement of the teaching is reasonable? Is it helpful
for your learning? And how?
4.4  Do you think the direct instruction in Elements of Thought and Intellectual
Standards was helpful for your writing and critical thinking development?
4.5  Any suggestions for the integration of CT into writing instruction?
5. Consciousness changes about CT and writing process
5.1  Do you think CT is important to you now? In what way?
5.2  What do you now think makes good writing? And any differences
compared to what you thought before this semester?
5.3  Have any behaviour changes in your pre-writing phase taken place? In
what way?
5.4  What are you focusing on now when you revise your writing? Any
differences compared to what you did before this semester?

BK-TandF-LI_TEXT_9781138297937-190406-Chp06.indd 130 21/06/19 4:02 PM

7
EFFECTS OF MULTIMEDIA
PRESENTATIONS ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF FOREIGN
LANGUAGE LISTENING
COMPREHENSION
A comparative study of cognitive and
metacognitive listening instructions

Mehrak Rahimi, Niloofar Nezad Kashani,

and Elham Soleymani

Introduction
Listening is primarily considered to be a complex cognitive process. The con-
struct listening has been explained through bottom-up and top-down informa-
tion processing and the way meaning is understood through mental activities.
The reason behind this assumption is that listening is often considered to be
synonymous with listening comprehension, and its main function in second
language learning is helping language learners to understand spoken discourse
(Richards, 2008).
Cognition, however, is not the only dimension of listening comprehension,
which involves at least two other dimensions, affective (listeners’ attitudes, moti-
vation, self-efficacy, etc.) and behavioural (verbal and nonverbal responses) com-
ponents (Worthington & Bodie, 2018). Therefore, cognitive models of teaching
listening comprehension that concentrate solely on mental aspects of listening
processes cannot guarantee listening skillfulness, and many foreign language
learners who have experienced these types of listening instruction still find lis-
tening the most difficult language skill to master. In trying to portray a successful
language learner in general and an effective listener in particular, the focus of
attention of language educationists, practitioners, and pedagogues shifted from
cognitive models of listening comprehension to metacognitive instruction in the
second half of the 20th century.
132  M. Rahimi, N. N. Kashani, and E. Soleymani

Metacognition is simply defined as thinking about thinking and involves

“any conscious cognitive or affective experiences that accompany and pertain
to any intellectual enterprise” (Flavell, 1979, p. 906). Metacognition monitoring
is integrated with self-regulation and key measures of motivation (Zimmerman
& Moylan, 2009) and guarantees a considerable degree of success in task perfor-
mance and learning. The aim of metacognitive models of teaching listening is
promoting awareness and the use of metacognitive listening strategies whereby
metacognitive processes such as verification and evaluation are integrated with
listening at specific stages (Vandergrift, 2004). Empirical studies show that
metacognitive awareness and strategy use are interrelated (e.g. Katal, 2012) and
metacognitive knowledge is teachable (e.g. Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010)
and can improve language learners’ listening comprehension (e.g. Rahimi &
Katal, 2013).
With the advent of state-of-the-art technologies, many traditional models
of teaching are now being integrated into computer-based learning environ-
ments to amplify their effectiveness. Multimedia technologies have attracted the
attention of educationists as well as cognitive psychologists. Multimedia learn-
ing has been extensively studied within a cognitive framework, and its struc-
ture, design principles, and educational values have been discussed (e.g. Clark
& Mayer, 2016). Multimedia learning is based on the premise that “people learn
better from words and pictures than from words alone” (Mayer, 2009, p. 1) while
the full capacity of working memory is used by managing the limited cogni-
tive resources available during learning and making the learning more active
and meaningful. Multimedia lends itself to any model of teaching as far as its
practice-based principles of designing multimedia presentations, proposed on
the basis of human cognitive architecture, are taken into account (Mayer, 2009).
As for listening comprehension, during multimedia learning not only do the
cognitive resources become fully available for the learners, but also the degree
of emotional intensity is more controlled as listening anxiety declines (Rahimi
& Soleymani, 2015).
It is assumed that integrating the teaching of listening within a metacognitive
framework and multimedia learning may amplify the effect of both multimedia
and metacognitive instructions, compared to just integrating multimedia into
the cognitive cycle of teaching. This type of instruction raises listeners’ metacog-
nitive awareness and strategy use, expands the capacity of working memory,
motivates listeners to pursue difficult and challenging tasks, and, at the same
time, gives them scaffolding while working with listening texts (Goh, 2008)
and develops the ability to regulate the process of L2 listening comprehension
(Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal, & Tafaghodtari, 2006). This ultimately would
lead to the development of listening comprehension and would make language
learners more successful listeners.
Research supports the effectiveness of integrating metacognitive strate-
gies into technology-based environments in promoting learning achievement
(e.g. Azevedo, 2005). However, what is open to further question in listening
 Effect of multimedia on listening comprehension 133

research is studying the effects of integrating multimedia into cognitive and

metacognitive listening instructions and examining language learners’ bene-
fit from either model, while the integration of multimedia into each model of
teaching separately is debated both theoretically and empirically. Therefore, the
current study aims to answer the following research question:

Does incorporating multimedia presentations into the cycle of cognitive and metacog-
nitive listening instructions have any effect on foreign language learners’ development
of listening comprehension?

Listening instruction
The evolution of teaching listening has coincided with the historical devel-
opment of language-teaching methodology. As a part of oral proficiency,
listening has been neglected in traditional methods of language teaching,
such as the grammar translation method. With the Reform Movement,
and as scientific attention was paid to the robust study of the sound system
of language, along with highlights from the psychology of child language
acquisition, listening entered language classes in the context of teaching con-
versation in the Direct Method and later Situational Language Teaching in
the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Through the emergence of scientific
views towards learning and teaching, theoretical bases of English Language
Teaching (ELT) were formed, and teaching language skills began to be han-
dled more systematically. From the 1940s to the 1980s more than 15 teaching
methods emerged, and listening was taught by different types of techniques
and class activities.
More careful scrutiny shows that, based on the psychological and psycho-
linguistic underpinnings, listening instruction can be modeled in at least three
different eras: 50s to 60s, 70s to 80s, and 90s to present (Goh, 2008). Vandergrift
and Goh (2012) name these three phases text-oriented listening instruction,
communication-oriented listening instruction, and learner-oriented listening
instruction, respectively.
In the first phase, text-oriented listening instruction was developed under
the influence of behaviourism and its application in language classes. Therefore,
much attention was given to language forms and written texts with the aim of
training students to listen, imitate, and memorize the stream of language, includ-
ing sounds, voices, and grammatical structures. With the decline of behaviour-
ism and its pedagogical models, most teaching activities of this phase are not used
in language classes any more. Bottom-up activities that are the central techniques
of this phase, however, are adapted into the cycle of teaching listening in the
coming phases.
Later in the 80s, communication-oriented listening instruction came into
the picture. One major improvement of listening instruction in this phase was
including pre-listening activities in the cycle of teaching listening, to help
134  M. Rahimi, N. N. Kashani, and E. Soleymani

learners comprehend the text better by linking the new information to what is
already known or experienced. The aim of the pre-listening stage is to “prepare
learners to listen by using activities that focus on the content of the text and/or
the language in the text” (Goh, 2014, p. 84), to activate listeners’ background
knowledge on the topic using different types of activities (such as brainstorm-
ing, researching, reading, viewing pictures, watching movies, and discussing),
and to present or practise linguistic forms (new vocabulary or grammatical
structures). CLT emphasizes “practicing core listening skills, such as listening for
details, listening for gist, predicting, listening selectively and making inferences”
(Goh, 2008, p. 3). The ultimate goal of teaching listening based on this model
is comprehension and interpretation of the text, and both bottom-up and top-
down processing of information are integrated into this cycle. During listening
the listener should focus on getting the gist of meaning and try to use the textual
clues in future speaking activities and other communication situations. There
might be a post-listening phase wherein listeners’ gain in comprehension would
be assessed by different types of activities.
Although this model of teaching listening has gained popularity all over the
world and in many English classes to teach listening comprehension, it is not
without problems. Vandergrift and Goh (2012) list the following challenges for
language learners (p. 9):

• Listening is often neglected in thematic lessons that integrate the four lan-
guage skills
• Listening is neglected in oral communication activities that focus more on
speaking
• Learners are indirectly assessed for comprehension

Further, this type of instruction cannot arm language learners with the long-
life listening skills required for living in an L2 society. In other words, how to
manage and self-regulate listening situations outside the classroom is not taught
very explicitly in this model. Self-regulation research shows that listeners are
required to be able to monitor their own cognitive processes while listening, to
evaluate the way they handle the listening task, to choose their own listening
tasks based on their set goals, and to keep themselves motivated to do further
listening. In this way, they become the managers of their knowledge, the masters
of their own learning, and learn how to learn.
The findings of experimental studies also supported the effectiveness of
metacognitive experiences in knowledge management and learning, and thus
cognitive psychologists and later educational psychologists became interested
in metacognition and its pedagogical implications. Following these trends, lan-
guage educationists (particularly in foreign and second language learning are-
nas) focused on integrating metacognition theory into teaching and developing
competencies in four language skills, but especially in reading and listening
comprehension.
 Effect of multimedia on listening comprehension 135

Metacognitive knowledge is defined as “the knowledge concerning one’s

own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them, e.g., the
learning-relevant properties of information or data” (Flavell, 1976, p. 232). Two
components of metacognition are knowledge of cognition and regulation of cog-
nition (Mazzoni & Kirsch, 2002). Whereas the former consists of a set of beliefs
about the way one’s cognition performs cognitive tasks, the latter deals with the
way learners control and manage their mental processes during learning.
In this framework, metacognitive listening instruction adopts a learner-
oriented approach to listening instruction, where learners are in charge of
managing their own listening task by deploying listening strategies. The
main aim of metacognitive listening instruction is promoting listeners’ aware-
ness of listening strategies. Metacognitive awareness of listening strategies is
defined as “students’ perceptions of themselves as listeners, their perceptions of
the requirements of listening tasks, and their awareness of the strategies they
deploy to achieve comprehension” (Vandergrift et al., 2006, p. 438). The five
listening strategies include problem solving (inferencing and monitoring), plan-
ning-evaluation (preparation and self-evaluation), mental translation (translating),
person knowledge (self-efficacy), and directed attention (concentrating and stay-
ing on task) (Vandergrift et al., 2006).
Considering the aforementioned underlying frameworks, a metacognitive
pedagogical sequence for teaching listening has been proposed (Vandergrift &
Tafaghodtari, 2010). It includes five stages: Pre-listening (planning/predicting
stage), first listen (first verification stage), second listen (second verification stage),
third listen (final verification stage), and reflections stage.
Note that this model of teaching listening takes into account the cognitive
components of listening comprehension, the way working memory processes
information (Baddeley, 2010), and both top-down and bottom-up processes and
their interrelationships. It is suggested that “all of these processes are directed by
the listener’s metacognition, which is the ability to think about these processes
and manage them” (Goh, 2014, p. 76).

Cognitive theory of multimedia

Digital multimedia learning is a major milestone in computer-aided instruction
(CAI) and has added immense value to classes of the 21st century. Multimedia as
an effective instructional method of content delivery (or as instructional content
itself ) has found its way into teaching many school subjects, such as history, sci-
ence, and language arts.
Multimedia learning has gained support from the multimedia principle that
“people learn more deeply from words and graphics than from words alone”
(Mayer, 2014, p. 59). Research on this postulate shows that instructional mul-
timedia has a positive effect on learners’ learning motivation, achievement, and
information processing. To take full advantage of multimedia in pedagogy, recent
research has been dedicated to consolidating the bases of designing multimedia
136  M. Rahimi, N. N. Kashani, and E. Soleymani

instruction in accordance with the formulation, development, and evolution of

its theoretical bases (Mayer, 2005, 2014). The prototypical theory of multimedia
learning, the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML), basically focuses
on understanding how learning takes place through cognitive processes such
as selecting (transferring some incoming data to working memory for further
processing), organizing (classifying images and words into pictorial and verbal
models, respectively, in the working memory), and integrating (connecting the
pictorial, verbal, and schemata activated from the long-term memory). The cog-
nitive theory of multimedia learning consists of three principles (Mayer, 2009):

Dual channels: The human information processing system includes dual

channels for visual/pictorial and auditory/verbal processing.
Limited capacity: Each channel has limited capacity for processing.
Active processing: Active learning involves performing a coordinated set
of cognitive processes during learning.

Based on these principles, when the teaching/learning material is presented

by multimodal input, the working memory distributes the load of information
in two related channels, and thus the load of learning task diminishes. This does
not mean that any type of multimedia can influence learning. Multimedia mate-
rials should be designed on the basis of certain practice-driven principles that are
taken from empirical studies done on the effectiveness of multimedia in teaching
and learning different subjects (Mayer, 2014).

Twelve principles of designing multimedia

In order to be able to design effective multimedia materials, Mayer (2014)
and Clark and Mayer (2016) suggest some guidelines based on both theoret-
ical postulates and empirical findings. The principles are clustered into three
classes: (a) reducing extraneous processing (five principles), (b) managing
essential processing (three principles), and (c) fostering generative processing
(four principles).
Reducing extraneous processing includes those principles that address the
way extra cognitive processing that exceeds the cognitive capacity of the learner
is removed. Five principles of this category follow.

1. The Coherence Principle: Any material in the multimedia that is not rel-
evant to core information and may distract the attention of the learners
should be removed from the multimedia presentation. Therefore, irrelevant
texts, pictures, and narrations should be excluded from the multimedia.
2. The Signaling Principle: The important materials should be highlighted and
should be presented in a way that they can easily and effectively attract the
attention of the learners. Effects such as underlining and highlighting can be
used in multimedia to emphasize important points.
 Effect of multimedia on listening comprehension 137

3. The Redundancy Principle: Combining graphics and narration leads to

deeper learning than combining graphics, narration, and on-screen text.
Combining all three should especially be avoided in listening activities,
where the written text may hinder accurate and efficient aural processing.
4. The Spatial Contiguity Principle: The text and the images should be pre-
sented near each other on the screen.
5. The Temporal Contiguity Principle: Graphics and narration should be pre-
sented together rather than in a sequential manner.

Managing essential processing includes three principles that address the way
the material is presented:

1. The Segmenting Principle: Learning is achieved more deeply when the pace
at which learners can absorb it is considered and the material is not presented
as a continuous unit. This involves learners in the process of language learn-
ing and escalates learner control and more active learning.
2. The Pre-training Principle: The multimedia materials are more effective
if the learners are familiar with the key concepts of the presentation prior
to the presentation. This emphasizes the pre-phases of instruction in the
cycle of teaching language macro skills (listening, speaking, reading, and
writing).
3. The Modality Principle: The learning is maximized if the words are said
rather than written. Therefore, the spoken and written words should not be
presented at the same time. Narration of the oral input should be presented
first and then the written text.

Fostering generative processing deals with the way motivation of the learners
to pursue the learning task is addressed. This includes four principles:

1. The Personalization Principle: The narration should be in informal lan-

guage and conversational style.
2. The Voice Principle: The human voice is preferable to machine or robot
voice in narrating.
3. The Embodiment Principle: If there are on-screen agents, the agents should
follow human-like behaviour and gesture.
4. The Image Principle: There is no need to include the image of the narrators
on the screen; indeed, this may disturb learning or increase the anxiety level
of learners.

Although CTML principles have been examined meticulously for designing

multimedia (Mayer, 2014), paying too much attention to designing the multime-
dia has somehow underspecified the role of pedagogical methods and practices in
the process of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2014). Recently, more interest in the
way multimedia can be integrated into the cycle of teaching has been observed.
138  M. Rahimi, N. N. Kashani, and E. Soleymani

Integrating multimedia into the instructional procedure

Complementary mechanisms have been proposed for multimedia learning
by further theories such as the Cognitive-Affective Theory of Learning with
Media (CATLM; Moreno, 2005). In this theory affective factors, motivation,
and metacognition are suggested to play mediating roles in cognitive processes,
and thus in learning outcomes, when students learn via multimedia. Emerging
research supports integrating positive emotional design (e.g. appealing colours
and shapes) into multimedia learning based on the premise that “making essen-
tial elements visually appealing initiates and guides cognitive processing during
learning” (Mayer & Estrella, 2014, p. 14). The role of metacognitive awareness
in multimedia learning is also being surveyed more recently because metacog-
nitive factors have been suggested to mediate learning “by regulating cognitive
processing and affect” (Moreno & Mayer, 2007, p. 310).
One sensitive issue, however, that seems to be still open to question in design-
ing multimedia is the way multimedia should be integrated into the procedure
of teaching any subject matter. Defining multimedia learning as “learning from
words and pictures” (Mayer, 2014, p. 171) and neglecting the pedagogical prac-
tices can oversimplify the complex phenomenon of multimedia learning. Mayer
(2009) himself emphasizes three views of multimedia learning: Multimedia
learning as response strengthening, multimedia learning as information acquisi-
tion, and multimedia learning as knowledge construction.

If you view multimedia learning as response strengthening, then multi-

media is a drill-and-practice system. If you view multimedia learning as
information acquisition, then multimedia is an information delivery sys-
tem. If you view multimedia learning as knowledge construction, then
multimedia is a cognitive aid (p. 14).

Unfortunately, what literature on multimedia learning suggests is that many

practitioners and researchers have paid so much attention to how to design mul-
timedia instruction that how multimedia should be pedagogically situated in the
cycle of teaching is ignored. The importance of this issue lies in the fact that the
aim of instruction in the 21st century is lifelong learning and promoting learn-
ers’ self-regularity skills and learning strategies. Therefore, it is quite logical to
integrate multimedia instruction into Strategy-Based Instruction (SBI) models
to amplify the effect of both models on making learners of the 21st century more
self-directed and autonomous.

The current study

The current study took place in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context
in Iran where English is taught from K-7 in junior high school to higher educa-
tion in general education. Based on the EFL curriculum change that took place
 Effect of multimedia on listening comprehension 139

in 2014, the dominant methodology of teaching English in the country is active,

dynamic communicative language teaching (CLT).
English is also taught in private language institutes all over the country with
the supervision of the Ministry of Education. Iranians learn English for differ-
ent purposes, basically with the aim of taking gatekeeping exams such as the
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) and the Test of English
as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Therefore, a variety of courses and coursebooks
are used in private institutes.
This study focuses on investigating the role of multimedia presentations
in teaching a language skill — listening — through two basic and competing
instructional models: Comprehension-based (cognitive) and metacognitive
listening instructions. The former instruction focuses on training listeners
to understand the gist of meaning by directing them through a three-phase
cycle of pre-listening, while-listening, and post-listening. The later focuses
on raising listeners’ awareness of themselves as listeners (person knowl-
edge), the strategies they use or are required to use in the process of listening
(strategy knowledge), and the type of listening tasks they like or prefer (task
knowledge).
In the first model, the multimedia presentations are situated in the second
phase of teaching listening — that is, while listening — when their background
knowledge of the topic has already been enhanced. In the second model, stu-
dents watch and listen to multimedia presentations while their metacognitive
strategies are in the process of being raised. The former class is comprehen-
sion-based and aims at helping the students understand what type of informa-
tion is given in the multimedia. The later model is metacognition-based and
aims at teaching students how to listen and comprehend actively by incorpo-
rating certain listening strategies, as well as being able to extend the skills and
strategies that they have used successfully to do one task into other (future)
tasks. Both experimental groups are paired up with two control groups in a
2 × 2 experimental design. The following hypotheses are thus formulated to
be investigated:

Hypothesis 1: Considering CTML, there is a significant effect for multi-

media presentations to develop EFL learners’ listening proficiency in a
cognitive model of teaching listening (in comparison to when technol-
ogy is absent).
Hypothesis 2: Considering CATLM, there is a significant effect for mul-
timedia presentations to develop EFL learners’ listening proficiency in
a metacognitive model of teaching listening (in comparison to when
technology is absent).
Hypothesis 3: Considering CATLM, the development of listening pro-
ficiency will be much higher when multimedia is incorporated into
the cycle of metacognitive instruction (in comparison to cognitive
instruction).
140  M. Rahimi, N. N. Kashani, and E. Soleymani

Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 64 young language learners. The partic-
ipants’ English proficiency was at the level of a basic user in the Council of
Europe’s Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, and Assessment (2001) at the time of data collection.
The students were organized into four groups: Two experimental and two
control groups, with 16 students in each group. The students’ entry level of
listening comprehension was assessed through the Key English Test (KET) to
check the homogeneity of the groups prior to the study and choose appropriate
data analysis techniques accordingly.

The design of the study

A pre- and post-test quasi-experimental method with two experimental and two
control groups was utilized. Listening was taught to the first pair of experimental
and control groups utilizing a comprehension-based model with the difference of
teaching listening to the experimental group using multimedia presentations and
teaching listening to the control group using audio files only.
In the second pair, the groups experienced metacognitive listening instruc-
tion. Whereas the experimental group had multimedia presentations as their
listening tasks, the control group just listened to the audio files. The schematic
representation of the design of the study is depicted in Figure 7.1.

The instruments
In order to assess participants’ listening abilities before and after the study, the lis-
tening section of the KET (2010) was used as the pre- and post-test. KET is part of
a group of examinations developed by Cambridge Exams in English for speakers
of other languages (ESOL), called the Cambridge Main Suite. KET is at the level
of A2 in the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, Teaching, and Assessment and is considered the first level of
Cambridge ESOL. The test is designed based on language in real-life situations,

FIGURE 7.1  The schematic design of the study.

 Effect of multimedia on listening comprehension 141

and it recognizes the ability to deal with everyday written and spoken English and
assesses participants’ ability to listen and “understand the meaning of spoken English
at the word, phrase, sentence, paragraph and whole text level” (KET, 2010, p.5).
The listening section of KET has five parts and a total of 25 questions that
should be answered in 30 minutes:

Section 1 (five questions): Students have to identify simple pieces of factual

information, such as a correct time, place, or day of the week. The test
focus is on listening to identify information.
Section 2 (five questions): Students have to understand informal conversa-
tion between friends and identify common collocates. The test focus is
on listening and matching information.
Section 3 (five questions): Students have to understand more formal con-
versation in a public place. The test focus is on listening and choosing
from three answers.
Section 4 (five questions): Students have to extract information of a prac-
tical nature from a conversation and complete a message or form. The
test focus is on listening and writing down information.
Section 5 (five questions): Students have to extract information from a
monologue and complete a message or form.

The scoring system of KET is objective, and each correct item is assigned one point
based on the KET’s guideline. Each item in sections 4 and 5 were given a maximum
of two points as they required students to listen and comprehend and write one or
two words to answer the questions. KR21 was used to estimate the reliability of KET,
and the reliability index was found to be 0.76 for the pretest and 0.77 for the post-test.

Procedure
Cognitive listening instruction
Cognitive listening instruction was taught based on the cycle of pre-listening,
while-listening, and post-listening. In the pre-listening phase the students were
familiarized with the topic and theme of the listening tasks. Different types of
activities were used in this phase to activate students’ background knowledge
and/or present linguistic data (such as words and grammatical structures).
In the listening part, students were asked to listen carefully and try to under-
stand the gist of meaning.
In the post-listening phase, students’ understanding of the text and
textual interpretation were assessed by a variety of activities such as question and
answers, fill in the blanks, role-plays, etc.

Metacognitive listening instruction

The procedure of teaching listening was done based on metacognitive listening
instruction (Vandergrift et al., 2006). The lesson plan is summarized in Table 7.1.
142  M. Rahimi, N. N. Kashani, and E. Soleymani

TABLE 7.1  The cycle of metacognitive listening instruction based on

Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010, p. 475

Pedagogical stages Metacognitive processes

Planning/predicting stage Planning and directed

attention
Students were informed about the topic and the type of
text they were going to hear. This was done by
providing students with texts, pictures, or discussions.
After students got enough information about what they
were going to hear, they were asked to predict and write
down what words and phrases they might hear and what
information might be presented to them. This step was
done through brainstorming, students’ collaborative
interaction, and teachers’ scaffolding.
First listen: First verification stage Selective attention,
monitoring, and evaluation
After completing their predictions, they listened to the
text for the first time. As they listened, they were asked
to highlight their predicted words, phrases, and
information if these were mentioned in the text and also
to add any other information they understood from the
listening task. Students discussed and compared their Monitoring, evaluation,
predictions and added information in pairs. They also planning, and selective
identified their problem to concentrate more during the attention
second listen.
Second listen: Second verification stage Selective attention,
monitoring, evaluating, and
Students listened to the text for the second time. This problem solving
time they focused on details and on what they did not
succeed understand during the first listening phase. They
were asked to write down more detailed information
and answer questions presented in the book. After they Selective attention,
finished the exercises, they discussed their answers and monitoring, and problem
their success in comprehending the text with more solving
details.
Third listen: Final verification stage Evaluation and planning
Students listened to the text for the third time to verify
their understanding of the text and also to get any
information they might have missed. After listening,
students worked on the focused listening exercises that
were provided in the book and discussed their answers.
Reflection stage Monitoring, evaluation, and
problem solving
Students reflected on their experience in the listening
activity and shared their ideas about the task and the
strategies that helped them to comprehend better. They
also discussed what other strategies they will use for the
next listening task.
 Effect of multimedia on listening comprehension 143

Teaching materials
Audio files
Twelve listening tasks were prepared for students based on the themes of their
textbooks. The difficulty level of the tasks and their familiarity were checked by
the teacher and three colleagues.

Multimedia presentations
Twelve multimedia presentations of the listening tasks were made, considering
12 principles of multimedia design. The appropriateness of the files was evalu-
ated by the teacher and three colleagues.

Results
Hypothesis 1
In order to test Hypothesis 1 and check whether there was a signif icant
effect for multimedia presentations to develop EFL learners’ listening pro-
f iciency in a cognitive model of teaching listening (in comparison to when
technology is absent), one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was run.
Participants’ scores on the KET pretest were used as the covariate in the
analysis.
As Table 7.2 shows, the result of ANCOVA revealed that there was a signifi-
cant difference between the two groups in the KET post-test [F(1, 29) = 64.362;
p = 0.000; partial eta squared = 0.689] in favour of the experimental group.
Accordingly, the conclusion can be drawn that cognitive listening instruction
with multimedia has caused a higher level of listening comprehension in com-
parison to cognitive listening instruction without multimedia presentations. The
descriptive statistics of experimental and control groups’ pretest and post-test are
summarized in Table 7.3.

TABLE 7.2  The result of ANCOVA to compare the effect of cognitive listening
instruction with and without multimedia on the development of listening
comprehension

Type III sum of Partial eta

Source squares df Mean square F Sig. squared

Corrected model 1120.123 2 560.061 42.900 0.000 0.747

Intercept 520.925 1 520.925 39.902 0.000 0.579
Pretest 3.841 1 3.841 0.294 0.592 0.010
Group 840.246 1 840.246 64.362 0.000 0.689
Error 378.596 29 13.055
Total 23287.000 32
Corrected total 1498.719 31
144  M. Rahimi, N. N. Kashani, and E. Soleymani

TABLE 7.3  Descriptive statistics of experimental and control groups 1

Groups Administrations Mean SD

Experimental group 1 (Cognitive listening Pretest 14.625 3.383

instruction with multimedia) Post-test 32.000 3.224
Control group 1 (Cognitive listening Pretest 18.312 2.301
instruction without multimedia) Post-test 20.187 3.885

Hypothesis 2
In order to test Hypothesis 2 and check whether there is a significant effect
for multimedia presentations to develop EFL learners’ listening proficiency in a
metacognitive model of teaching listening (in comparison to when technology is
absent), ANCOVA was run. Participants’ scores on the KET pretest were used as
the covariate in the analysis.
As Table 7.4 shows, the result of ANCOVA revealed that there was no sig-
nificant difference between two groups in the KET post-test [F(1, 29) = 0.395;
p = 0.535; partial eta squared = 0.013]. Accordingly, the conclusion can be
drawn that metacognitive listening instruction with and without multimedia
improved listening comprehension to almost the same extent. The descriptive
statistics of experimental and control groups’ pretest and post-test are summa-
rized in Table 7.5.

Hypothesis 3
In order to test Hypothesis 3 and check whether the development of listen-
ing prof iciency would be much higher when multimedia is incorporated
into the cycle of metacognitive instruction in comparison to the cognitive
instruction, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run to compare
four groups’ performance on the KET post-test. The result of ANOVA
revealed a signif icant difference between four groups of the participants
(Table 7.6).
The post hoc test to compare the means of the groups revealed significant
differences among the following groups: Metacognitive without multimedia-
Cognitive with multimedia, Metacognitive with multimedia-Cognitive with
multimedia, and Cognitive with multimedia-Cognitive without multimedia
(Table 7.7).
Examining the descriptive statistics revealed that experimental group 1, those
students who experienced cognitive listening instruction with multimedia, had
the best performance on KET post-test. The control group 1, the participants that
experienced cognitive listening instruction (without technology), ranked sec-
ond. Experimental and control groups 2, those who experienced metacognitive
 Effect of multimedia on listening comprehension 145

TABLE 7.4  The result of ANCOVA to compare the effect of metacognitive listening
instruction with and without multimedia on the development of listening
comprehension

Type III sum of Partial eta

Source squares df Mean square F Sig. squared

Corrected model 80.784 2 40.392 26.362 0.000 0.645

Intercept 54.996 1 54.996 35.893 0.000 0.553
Pre-test 80.003 1 80.003 52.213 0.000 0.643
Group 0.605 1 0.605 0.395 0.535 0.013
Error 44.435 29 1.532
Total 10893.000 32
Corrected total 125.219 31

TABLE 7.5  Descriptive statistics of experimental and control groups 2

Groups Administrations Mean SD

Experimental group 2 (Metacognitive listening Pretest 16.687 1.778

instruction with MM) Post-test 18.500 2.000
Control group 2 (Metacognitive listening Pretest 16.625 3.422
instruction without MM) Post-test 18.187 2.072

TABLE 7.6  The result of ANOVA

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Between groups 2078.063 3 692.688 81.995 0.000

Within groups 506.875 60 8.448
Total 2584.938 63

TABLE 7.7  Post hoc tests

Mean Difference
(I) group (J) group (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Metacognitive without Metacognitive with MM −0.31250 1.02761 0.762

multimedia Cognitive with MM −13.81250* 0.000
Cognitive −2.00000 0.056
Metacognitive with Cognitive with MM −13.50000* 0.000
multimedia Cognitive −1.68750 0.106
Cognitive with Cognitive 11.81250* 0.000
multimedia
Note:  *The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

BK-TandF-LI_TEXT_9781138297937-190406-Chp07.indd 145 19/06/19 10:32 AM

146  M. Rahimi, N. N. Kashani, and E. Soleymani

TABLE 7.8  The descriptive statistics of four groups in KET post-test

Groups Type of listening instruction Mean SD

Experimental group 1 Cognitive instruction with multimedia 32.000 3.224

Control group 1 Cognitive instruction without multimedia 20.187 3.885
Experimental group 2 Metacognitive instruction with multimedia 18.500 2.000
Control group 2 Metacognitive instruction without multimedia 18.187 2.072

listening instruction with multimedia and without it, ranked third and fourth
with almost the same performance on the KET post-test (Table 7.8).

Discussion
This study was carried out with the aim of comparing the effect of cognitive
and metacognitive listening instructions integrated with multimedia learning on
EFL learners’ improvement of listening comprehension. To attain this goal, four
groups of basic language learners in an EFL context were selected and experi-
enced four types of listening instructions: Cognitive instruction with multime-
dia, cognitive instruction without multimedia, metacognitive instruction with
multimedia, and metacognitive instruction without multimedia.
The results obtained from the data analysis revealed primarily that integrating
multimedia into the cycle of cognitive listening instruction caused an increase in
the development of listening comprehension of the participants who experienced
listening instruction with multimedia in comparison to those participants who
participated in conventional cognitive listening instruction.
The finding is in agreement with studies done in other contexts and supports
the educational value of multimedia in listening instruction (e.g. Reyes Torres,
Pich Ponce, & García Pastor, 2012). As it is suggested, applying computer tech-
nologies can promote the learning interest of students (Hwang & Chang, 2011),
improve their learning achievement, and help them to become more involved
in the learning situation (Stacey & Hardy, 2011). As for listening, experiencing
listening tasks with multimedia that combines music, audio, video, image, and
graphics helps learners employ the cognitive processes that support learning from
verbal linguistic to spatial, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist, and
kinaesthetic (Lynch & Fleming, 2007). Therefore, memory capacity is enlarged
by allowing learners to classify multimodal input in the right channel and then
bridge the gap between the coming data and what is already saved in long-term
memory.
The findings support Paivio’s dual coding theory (1986) and Mayer’s CTML
(2009), indicating that in order not to overload the limited capacity of short
memory, it is better to use two modes in teaching simultaneously. Animation
or image (visual aids) are useful in learning language skills, especially the lis-
tening skill (Verdugo & Belmonte, 2007), by helping listeners to figure out
the main points of the audio or listening part (Kashani, Sajjadi, Sohrabi, &
 Effect of multimedia on listening comprehension 147

Younespour, 2011). This multimodal input speeds up the complex information

processing that is taking place in interrelated components of listening, including
neurological, linguistic, semantic, and pragmatic. As discussed earlier in the first
half of the chapter, each of these components mounts specific types of challenges
at physiological, linguistic, social, and emotional levels for language learners,
thus giving hints and clues help listeners with each process and lighten the load
on their working memory. While the working memory has the chance of using
its full capacity with minimum pressure, extraneous cognitive load minimizes
and germane resources become available for intrinsic cognitive load (Sweller,
Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011).
A part of this load release is related to the pedagogical value of pictures and
animations in learning and teaching. Pictures can be semantically classified faster
than words (Potter & Faulconer, 1975). Further, the combination of pictorial and
auditory materials can lead to a better performance transfer than a combination
of written and pictorial (Austin, 2009; Mayer & Moreno, 2002), so it improves
listening skill.
It is also arguable that when a complex and challenging cognitive task such
as L2 listening comprehension is taking place, multimodal input can lower the
listening anxiety that is one source of cognition breakdown. Anxiety can have a
harmful effect on cognitive capacity and processing. Owing to deficient infor-
mation processing abilities in anxious learners, problem-solving ability can be
reduced significantly (Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001). Also, according to cognitive
multimedia theory, anxious individuals might use up their working memory
channels in order to manage the interfering thought produced by anxiety, and
therefore anxiety can limit their memory capacity (Mayer, 2009).
The study also revealed a surprising finding: Integrating multimedia into
metacognitive listening instruction does not necessarily improve language
learners’ listening comprehension in comparison to conventional metacognitive
listening instruction that is performed without multimodal input. This finding
can be explained by the fact that occupying different processing channels in the
brain does not necessarily result in better learning while listeners are involved
in higher-­order processes of inferencing, evaluating, and predicting. In other
words, the CTML is more valid with teaching practices that are designed based
on cognitive structure in humans, rather than metacognitive considerations. It
can thus be concluded that multimedia presentations are more suitable for use in
cognitive listening instruction than for use in metacognitive listening instruction,
at least for lower intermediate EFL learners. This opens up a new line of research,
suggesting more theory and practice investigation for integrating metacognition
and cognition into teaching different kinds of subject matter.
In spite of this, the results support the fact that metacognitive listening strat-
egies instruction has a positive effect on students’ listening comprehension
regardless of the medium of presentation; and the multimodality of the input
does not change the effectiveness of its instructional activities as much as it does
with cognitive instructions. However, the findings portrayed the superiority of
148  M. Rahimi, N. N. Kashani, and E. Soleymani

cognitive listening instruction over metacognitive listening instruction, indi-

cating that for basic EFL learners, comprehension-based listening approaches
are more appropriate.

Conclusions
The current study examined the effect of multimedia learning integrated with
two well-known L2 listening instructions — that is, comprehension-based
listening instruction and metacognitive listening instruction. The results pri-
marily supported the superiority of integrating multimedia into cognitive
instruction over a metacognitive cycle of teaching. It was also revealed that both
cognitive instructional approaches (with technology and without technology)
were more powerful practices to improve students’ listening comprehension in
comparison to metacognitive listening instruction. Further, it was found that
integrating multimedia presentations into the cycle of metacognitive instruction
cannot modify its effect, as it does significantly with a cognitive cycle, because
metacognitive listening instruction with and without technology has almost the
same effect on both experimental and control groups.

References
Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math
anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 130(2), 224–237.
Austin, K. (2009). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design
techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers &
Education, 53(4), 1339–1354.
Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learn-
ing? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.
Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20(4), R136–R140 [PMC][10.1016/
j.cub.2009.12.014] [20178752].
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction (4th ed.). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problems solving. In: Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), The
nature of intelligence (Vol 12, pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34(10),
906–911.
Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development theory,
practice and research implications. RELC J. 39(2), 188–213.
Goh, C. (2014). Second language listening comprehension: Process and pedagogy. In M.
Celce-Murcia, D. Brinton, and M. A. Snow, Teaching English as a second or foreign language
(pp. 72–89). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Hwang, G. J., & Chang, H. F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach
to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education,
56(1), 1023–1031.
Kashani, A. S., Sajjadi, S., Sohrabi, M. R., & Younespour, S. (2011). Optimizing visually-
assisted listening comprehension. Language Learning Journal, 39, 75–84.
 Effect of multimedia on listening comprehension 149

Katal, M. (2012). The impact of metacognitive listening strategies awareness raising on

Iranian EFL learners’ listening and speaking proficiency. (Unpublished master’s thesis).
SRTTU, Tehran.
Key English Test [KET]. (2010). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, G., & Fleming, D. (2007). Innovation through design: A constructivist approach to learn-
ing. Lugano, Switzerland: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE).
Macaro, E., Graham, S., Vanderplank, R. (2007). A review of listening strategies: Focus on
sources of knowledge and on success. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.) Language
learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice (pp. 165–185). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Research-based principles for designing multimedia instruction. In V.
A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, and C. M. Hakala (Eds.), Applying science of learning in education:
Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 59–70). Retrieved from the Society for
the Teaching of Psychology web site: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php
Mayer, R. E., & Estrella, G. (2014). Benefits of emotional design in multimedia instruction.
Learning and Instruction, 33, 12–18
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 14, 87–99.
Mazzoni, G., Kirsch, I. (2002). Autobiographical memories and beliefs: A preliminary
metacognitive model. In T. J. Perfect and B. L. Schwartz, B.L. (Eds.), Applied metacognition
(pp. 121–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. E. Mayer
(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 507–524). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimdodal learning environments.
Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Potter, M. C., & Faulconer, B. A. (1975). Time to understand pictures and words. Nature,
253(5491), 437–438 [PMC][1110787].
Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2013). The impact of metacognitive instruction on EFL learners’
listening comprehension and oral language proficiency. Journal of Teaching Language Skills,
5, 69–90.
Rahimi, M., & Soleymani, E. (2015). The impact of digital storytelling on language learners’
listening anxiety. Information and Communication Technology in Educational Psychology, 6(1),
87–111. [In Persian]
Reyes Torres, A., Pich Ponce, E., & García Pastor, M. D. (2012). Digital storytelling as a ped-
agogical tool within a didactic sequence in foreign language teaching. Digital Education
Review, 22, 1–18.
Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking: From theory to practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stacey, G., & Hardy, P. (2011). Challenging the shock of reality through digital storytelling.
Nurse Education in Practice, 11(2), 159–164
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load. New York: Springer.
150  M. Rahimi, N. N. Kashani, and E. Soleymani

Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring

successful strategies. ELT Journal, 53(3), 168–176.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, 3–25.
Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive aware-
ness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 70–89.
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition
in action. New York: Routledge.
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. M. C., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacog-
nitive awareness listening questionnaire (MALQ): Development and validation. Language
Learning, 56(3), 431–462.
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a
difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470–97.
Verdugo, D. R. & Belmonte, I. A., (2007). Using digital stories to improve listening compre-
hension with Spanish young learners of English. Language Learning Technology, 11, 87–101.
Worthington, D. L., & Bodie, G. D. (2018). Modeling and measuring cognitive components
of listening. In D. L.Worthington and G. D. Bodie (Eds.), The sourcebook of listening research:
Methodology and measures (pp. 70–96). NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and
motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of
metacognition in education (pp. 299–315). New York: Routledge.
8
DESIGNING A META-LEARNING
PROGRAMME
Shu-wen Lin, Julie Rattray, and Caroline Walker-Gleaves

Introduction
The present study was motivated by anecdotal observations and the Taiwan
government’s promotion of the importance of learning to learn skills. My
(principal author) personal learning and teaching experiences show that, in a
secondary school classroom setting in Taiwan, students often do not learn
about aspects of their own learning, such as goals, strategies, and strengths and
weaknesses. Reflection on the course of my own study in school revealed that
I learned primarily to obtain the highest possible score in the Joint Entrance
Examination. My time in school was often filled with various tests and exam-
inations, with excessive time allotted for mechanical practice to memorize the
subject content. Teacher-directed instruction was the norm, and prescriptive,
teacher-determined answers were considered the “standard” answers. Soon
after I started my teaching career, I began to grow increasingly dissatisfied with
my teaching, because the process appeared to be a reproduction of my own
school experience. My students became dependent on me for learning directions.
For example, they often asked me how to obtain higher scores on English tests,
expecting that I knew the single correct answer. The students asked me ques-
tions such as “Why do I constantly forget the vocabulary I have learned?” and
“How do I find the meaning of a text?” These questions prompted me to start
thinking about how I myself learn. I asked myself how my students would be
affected if they went through an experience similar to mine.
In 2009, the Taiwan Ministry of Education updated the curriculum
guidelines for senior high schools, with a new emphasis on logic and critical
thinking, creativity, reflection, and learners’ self-management (Ministry of
Education, Taiwan, 2009). Numerous researchers and practitioners in Taiwan
(e.g. Chen, 2012; Cheng, Yeh, & Su, 2011; Dai, 2011) have addressed the
152  S. Lin, J. Rattray, and C. Walker-Gleaves

implications of the new guidelines. Despite the emphasis on thinking skills and
the learning process in the guidelines, difficulties in applying them in practice
have been identified (Chen, 2012; Cheng et al., 2011). Furthermore, newspaper
reports (e.g. Chen, 2015) have stated that, years after the implementation of the
curriculum guidelines, secondary school students in Taiwan remain limited in
planning for, monitoring, and reflecting on their own learning practice — they
are not engaging in meta-learning behaviours. With the motivation of alleviat-
ing the aforementioned weaknesses, I conducted this research to contribute to
the principles and practices for encouraging students to become aware of how
they learn and to manage their own learning.
Taiwanese secondary school students, as described above, traditionally do not
take ownership of their learning (e.g. Lee, 2011; Tsai, 2017) in school. Therefore,
the process of becoming aware of and reflecting on their own learning is alien to
them. According to Lemke, Budka, and Gabrys (2013), students who are capable of
meta-learning are able to identify their assets and liabilities regarding the require-
ments of different learning tasks. Meta-learners can adapt themselves to various
tasks and select corresponding strategies. It seems likely that, faced with the chal-
lenges of the rapidly changing knowledge society, students equipped with a range
of cognitive skills and learning strategies are more resourceful in terms of choice
making and problem solving than their peers who passively accumulate content
knowledge (Ertmer & Newby, 1996; Rush, 2008). Thus, the discrepancy between
the long-held conventional view and the “counter-intuitive” contemporary view
must be resolved to engender a transformation in learning and teaching.
This study was conducted at a girls’ school with a history of holding sum-
mer camps for underprivileged children in remote areas of Taiwan. However, it
was not until the development and implementation of this present programme
that the concept of combining community service and learning was officially
incorporated into the school English curriculum as an elective course. This pro-
gramme involved term-time activities and a one-week service learning experi-
ence during summer vacation. The term-time activities included weekly lessons
and tasks, as well as field teaching practice sessions and observations, whereas
during the service learning experience, the students served as teachers, imple-
menting English learning activities planned for underprivileged children in
remote areas of Taiwan. The programme, developed as a way to introduce a new
pedagogical approach, aimed at encouraging secondary school students to think
about their own learning while they assumed the role of a teacher.

Theoretical framework
As outlined in the introduction, meta-learning was identified as an area for
development in Taiwanese secondary students as a counter to the predominant
approach to learning and teaching in Taiwan. Reflection, as a means of facilitat-
ing thinking about how to learn (Winters, 2013), offers a bridge between com-
plex problem-solving experience and meta-learning. The first part of this section
 Designing a meta-learning programme 153

reviews the theoretical connection between meta-learning and reflection. The

second part introduces the theories that informed the pedagogical strategies that
underpinned the development of the programme.

Meta-learning and reflection

The concepts of meta-learning and reflection and the links between them served as
the basis for developing and evaluating the innovative programme described in this
chapter. Meta-learning emphasizes students’ learning about learning. Biggs (1985,
p. 192) defined this concept as a “subprocess of metacognition that refers specif-
ically to learning and study processes in institutional settings”. It is a state where
students are aware of themselves as learners and take control of strategy selection
and deployment for learning (Biggs, 1985). Cultivating students’ meta-learning
capacity can aid them in adapting effectively when studying becomes more diffi-
cult and demanding, and it can facilitate their development as independent learners
(Norton, Owens, & Clark, 2004; Ward, Connolly, & Meyer, 2013).
Numerous researchers have contended that meta-learning capacity can
be taught and is modifiable (e.g. Livingston, 2003; McCormick, 2003;
Schraw, 1998; Tarricone, 2011; Wenden, 1998; Whitebread et al., 2009). Others
(e.g. Lizzio & Wilson, 2004; Tarricone, 2011) have suggested that meta-learning
can be developed through reflection in problem-solving contexts. Such con-
texts challenge and stimulate uncertainty about one’s prior knowledge, under-
standings, and experiences, thus fostering reflection. Deeper critical reflection
raises awareness of the self, tasks, and strategies, which can then be applied to
planning, monitoring, or evaluating learning (Baird, Fensham, Gunstone, and
White (1991; Ertmer & Newby, 1996; Tarricone, 2011). Additionally, reflec-
tion, including verbalization, serves as a mediational means of making formerly
unconscious, implicit, or tacit knowledge and processing explicit (Alanen, 2003;
Desautel, 2009; McCormick, 2003; Schraw & Moshman, 1995; Tarricone, 2011).
Reflection can originate from within a learner or from other people. Supported
by techniques such as journal writing and discussion, reflection involves pur-
posefully turning inward, which mediates the transition from social to indi-
vidual processing (Kuhn, 2000; McCormick, 2003; Paris & Winograd, 1990;
Tarricone, 2011). The main focus of this research was on the development of
reflection to promote meta-learning capacity. A possible analogy can be drawn
here between the meta-learning–reflection relationship and the science of sonar
technology (Figure 8.1). Learners who are more deeply and critically reflective
can attain greater awareness and control over their own learning.

Pedagogical framework for promoting conceptual change

Because the aim of the programme — that is, encouraging students to
become aware of how they learn and take control of their own learning
processes — contradicts the dominant examination-driven, teacher-controlled
154  S. Lin, J. Rattray, and C. Walker-Gleaves

FIGURE 8.1  Relationship between meta-learning and reflection (Lin, 2018).

approach to learning in the Taiwanese context, pedagogical strategies distinct

from traditional strategies, such as transmission and accumulation, were neces-
sary. A coordinated socio-cultural perspective on learning, informed by social
constructivist and emancipatory theories of learning and teaching as well as by
Dewey’s philosophy of experiential learning, was adopted as the underpinning
ethos guiding the design of the programme.
First, Dewey (1938) argued that basing education on learners’ personal expe-
riences is more sensible than the traditional scheme of education that imposed
knowledge from above and outside. In addition, he acknowledged the impor-
tance of reflection in connecting concrete practices and abstract concepts. When
people observe a situation that is ambiguous, is puzzling, or necessitates alterna-
tives, they must postpone immediate action to search for an intelligent response
to the experience (Dewey, 1933, 1938). Dewey (1933) argued that people learn
more from experience by reflecting on it.
Second, consistent with Dewey’s emphasis on the role of experience in learn-
ing, a constructivist perspective generally holds that people make sense of the
world on the basis of their unique experiences and interaction with the world
and by incorporating new ideas and experiences into their existing knowl-
edge (Piaget, 1985). In this sense, learning is a continual process of qualitative
changes in thought, instead of a separate addition to fact or experiences (Ertmer
& Newby, 1996; Schön, 1983). In particular, a social constructivist approach to
learning and teaching emphasizes the role of social and interpersonal factors in
 Designing a meta-learning programme 155

knowledge construction (Vygotsky, 1986). Language is an essential tool, in that

knowing and learning are constructed between people, through communica-
tion, before they are internalized (Daniels, 2001; Vygotsky, 1979; Woolfolk,
Hughes, & Walkup, 2008). In addition, Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of prox-
imal development emphasizes the assistance of others in individual knowledge
construction. People can achieve a greater learning capacity by co-constructing
learning with significant others, such as teachers and peers, than they can on
their own (Vygotsky, 1978; Wells, 2000).
Finally, an emancipatory approach entails establishing a democratic, mutual,
and transformative student-teacher relationship (Freire, 2000). The dem-
ocratic feature involves teachers sharing class ownership with their students
through dialogue and negotiation and emphasizes students’ self-discipline and
collaboration. Related to the democratic feature, mutuality entails refusal
to deliver one-way lectures to students. The content and materials of edu-
cation are ingrained in students’ life experiences, and teachers provide prob-
lems derived from these experiences. Through such a process, teachers become
better informed about their students’ characteristics and more effective in
guiding the students to respond to their unique problems (Shor, 1993, 1999).
According to Freire (2000, p. 96), such responses should be “not just at the
intellectual level, but at the level of action”, thus linking the democratic and
mutualistic features to the transformative feature of the emancipatory per-
spective. Students are encouraged to act according to how they perceive the
world, to avoid dichotomizing the relationship between reflection and action
(Freire, 2000; Reilly, 2013; Shor, 1993, 1999).
These theories posit that students’ unique experiences with the world serve
as a catalyst for reflection, and they suggest that relationships and interactions
among students and between students and teachers lead to deeper, critical
reflection. Figure 8.2 shows experience, reflection, and interaction as three
interlinked axes that support the principles upon which the programme was
designed.
The service learning component of this programme, which involved the
students assuming the role of a teacher and teaching English to younger chil-
dren, was a pedagogical strategy for promoting conceptual change in learning.
As a variation of experiential learning, service learning entails a commitment
to experience and reflection. Additionally, students can “experience the mutu-
ality of social life through service” (Giles & Eyler, 1994, p. 82). According to
Harrison and Clayton (2012, p. 29), service learning “positions all participants as
simultaneously teachers and learners and servers and served and thereby evokes
radically different identities, roles, and responsibilities than those into which
most of us have been socialized”. Researchers have suggested that adopting a
“counter-normative” (Harrison & Clayton, 2012, p. 31) role in service learning
could lead students to transform their “current preferred systems of meaning
making” into “more complex modes of reasoning” (Reiman, 2002, p. 8). In
short, service learning was considered to be appropriate for the programme’s
156  S. Lin, J. Rattray, and C. Walker-Gleaves

FIGURE 8.2  The study’s theoretical framework of pedagogical design (Lin, Rattray, &
Walker-Gleaves, 2017).

purpose of conceptual transformation. It stimulates the dynamics of tension, such

as that between reflection and action, as well as that between autonomy and
social contribution. In addition, service learning is co-constructed by reciprocal
members of a shared community. Learners and teachers are believed to step out
of the customary hierarchy and engage in conversations on a more even footing,
which is a key element of the emancipatory approach to learning and teaching
(Freire, 2000; Shor, 1993, 1999).
In summary, students’ knowledge and control of learning in the school set-
ting constitute the scope of this study. Reflection serves as a vehicle to pro-
mote students’ meta-learning capacity and bridges the concrete and abstract
aspects of learning. The process embraces uncertainty, potentially leading to
reframing and reconstructing students’ understanding and practice of learn-
ing. This paper argues for the application of pedagogical strategies grounded
in socio-cultural theories of learning to enhance the development of students’
reflection and meta-learning capacity. The pedagogical ground suggests that the
teacher’s role must be transformed into a supportive one, and that students must
gain more autonomy. Learning should become a process shared by students and
their teachers. It should take place in a community within which the members
are constantly influenced by the events and social processes that occur in that
community, and vice versa.
 Designing a meta-learning programme 157

The programme
The participants in the programme were tenth-grade secondary school students
(aged 15–16 years) whose meta-learning capacity was examined in the context
of the school’s EFL elective curriculum. These students exhibited a minimum
proficiency in English at the Common European Framework for Languages A2
Level. Specifically, they could understand and communicate in English in the
areas of most immediate relevance. The school personnel who participated in
this project were two administrative staff members and three English teachers.
The programme was designed to encourage Taiwanese secondary school stu-
dents to think about and control how they learn, instead of simply receiving
what their teachers offer. The programme involved term-time activities and a
one-week service learning experience during summer vacation. At an orienta-
tion at the beginning of the school year, the students were provided with a clear
explanation of the course and its requirements. One assignment requirement
of the programme was for each student to maintain a reflective journal with a
partner, who responded to the journal entries and gave feedback. In the journal,
the students responded to question prompts related to the theme of each activity,
reflecting on their in-class or field experiences. In addition, the students were
exposed to different approaches to learning English each week. A movie was
used to illustrate and compare various learning strategies. Goal-setting steps,
lesson planning, assessment, and evaluation techniques were also demonstrated,
and the students then formed groups and planned and performed learning activi-
ties for children. Subsequently, the groups took turns practising teaching skills in
local churches. The teaching practice activities involved team-building exercises
in addition to teaching English lessons for children of various ages. When one
group held a teaching practice class, the other group observed and then provided
feedback during a post-practice discussion session. A list of the question prompts
posed after the term-time activities can be found in Table 8.1. After two semes-
ters of preparation, the participating students, staff members, and I began the
one-week service learning experience. During this week, the students served
as teachers, implementing their planned English-learning activities, including
songs, stories, short plays, and games. Discussions similar to the post-practice
discussions were held every evening, with the students sharing their experiences
of the day and receiving feedback from the other participants.

Evaluating the programme

Conner and Gunstone (2004) argue that to explore meta-learning processes,
learners must be conscious of and able to identify the involved processes, and,
in turn, make the processes available to researchers. To record the changes in
my students’ meta-learning capability, I requested that every student keep a
reflective journal with a partner and provided prompts relevant to the topic
of each session. Additionally, to ensure a rich data analysis, semi-structured
158  S. Lin, J. Rattray, and C. Walker-Gleaves

TABLE 8.1  Description of each term-time activity and its corresponding post-activity
prompts

Activity Description of the activity Reflective journal question prompts

First semester

Orientation and • Teacher introduces the • Describe the ice-breaking activity

warm-up course description and that you came up with.
requirements to the • How did you come up with the
students. ice-breaking activity?
• Students, in pairs, design
an ice-breaking activity
for the whole class.
Film viewing • Students watch the film • What was Akeelah like at the
Akeelah and the Bee. beginning of the movie?
• Teacher guides the • What was Akeelah like by the end
students to think about of the movie?
the differing approaches • What caused the changes in
to learning English Akeelah?
adopted by the characters • If you were Dr. Larabee, how would
in the film. you teach Akeelah to learn
vocabulary?
In-class teaching • Teacher demonstrates • How did you approach the task this
practice (I) teaching a lesson using week?
the story The True Story of • What did you do well in the process
the Three Little Pigs. of accomplishing the task this week?
• Students practice using Why do you think so?
stories to teach English. • What could you have done better in
the process of accomplishing the
task this week? How are you going
to improve?
• What effect did the learning
experience this week have on your
learning English?
In-class teaching • Teacher demonstrates • What did you do differently from
practice (II) teaching a lesson using the first time?
the song Room on the • What did you do well in the process
Broom. of accomplishing the task this week?
• Students practice using Why do you think so?
songs to teach English. • What could you have done better in
the process of accomplishing the
task this week? How are you going
to improve?
• What effect did the learning
experience this week have on your
learning English?
Final in-class • Students design and • What did you learn about yourself
presentation present a plan for a from this week’s task?
five-day English • What is the importance of what you
programme for children. have learned from this week’s task?
• Teacher gives feedback on • How are you going to apply what
the students’ presentations. you have learned from this week’s
task?
 Designing a meta-learning programme 159

TABLE 8.1  Description of each term-time activity and its corresponding post-activity
prompts (Continued)

Activity Description of the activity Reflective journal question prompts

Second semester
Nomination of a • Students compare and • Describe your role model for
role model contrast their own learning English (e.g. your classmate,
approaches to learning your brother or sister), and talk
English with those of about his/her way of learning.
their role models. • What are some similarities/
• Teacher guides the differences between your own
students to think about learning approaches and those of
the differing approaches your role model?
to learning English. • Based on what you have mentioned,
what do you think may help the
children who attend the summer
camp learn English?
In-class teaching • Students, in groups, apply • What did you learn? What is the
practice (III) what they have learned difference/relationship between the
about planning and giving new idea and what you used to
a lesson to prepare know?
English learning activities • How specifically did you learn it?
for children at church. • Why does this learning matter?
• Teacher gives feedback on • In what ways will you use this
the students’ teaching learning?
practices.
Group 1 field • One group of students For the presentation group:
teaching practice teaching the
practice activities they have • How did you approach the task?
planned for the children • What did you do well? Why do you
at church. think so?
• What could you have done better?
How are you going to improve?
• What effect did the learning
experience this week have on your
learning English?
Group 2 field • The other group of For the observation group:
teaching students observe and
practice examine their peers’ • What did you learn? What is the
teaching practices. difference/relationship between the
• Teacher gives feedback on new idea and what you used to
the students’ teaching know?
practices. • How specifically did you learn it?
• Why does this learning matter?
• In what ways will you use this
learning?
Final evaluation • Teacher guides the • What is the most impressive part of
students to review the this course?
term-time activities. • Why is what you have mentioned
• Students evaluate the above impressive to you?
term-time activities. • How has this learning experience
affected how you learn?
160  S. Lin, J. Rattray, and C. Walker-Gleaves

in-depth interviews were conducted with the students after they had held
summer camps for children in two remote areas in Taiwan. In the inter-
views, the students were asked to describe incidents that were critical to
them during the summer service learning experience, the impacts of such
incidents on their own English-learning processes, and their attitudes and
perceptions about the reflective activities. Additional questions, contingent
on the students’ responses, were posed to encourage them to expand on their
reflections.
The data collected for this study — reflective journal entries and inter-
view transcripts — were written or verbal texts. The interviews in this study
were conducted in Mandarin to facilitate clear and accurate communication.
In addition, the students were free to write their journals in either English or
Mandarin. Initially, most students voluntarily chose to write their journals in
English in order to practice the target language. However, as the school year
progressed, the students’ workloads increased and their time for writing in their
journals decreased; the students then began using their first language for ease of
expression. The linguistic challenges affecting the development of meta-learning
capacity are discussed in Lin et al. (2017).
I searched for cues related to meta-learning components in the data and
interpreted these components by adopting the coding scheme developed by
McCormick (2003) and Tarricone (2011). Tarricone (2011) developed a com-
prehensive taxonomy of metacognition that, on the basis of previous research
(e.g. Baker & Brown, 1984; Brown, 1987; Ertmer & Newby, 1996; Jacobs &
Paris, 1987; Livingston, 2003; Paris & Winograd, 1990; Schraw, 1998; Schraw
& Moshman, 1995; Wenden, 1998), categorizes the construct of metacognition
into two components: Knowledge about cognition and control over cogni-
tion. Knowledge about cognition is further divided into three subcategories:
Declarative, procedural, and conditional aspects of knowledge. Declarative
metacognitive knowledge consists of people’s understanding of themselves
and what factors influence their cognitive processing performance ( Jacobs &
Paris, 1987; McCormick, 2003; Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006). According
to Flavell (1979, 1981), this subcategory encompasses knowledge of a person
(understanding the characteristics of oneself, the similarities and differences
between oneself and other people, and the universal properties of humans in
learning); knowledge of the task (understanding the task type and demands
as well as their implications); and knowledge of the strategy (knowing what
means, processes, or actions are likely to achieve what goals in what types
of cognitive activities). The second subcategory, procedural metacognitive
knowledge, concerns knowledge about thinking procedures and how to
sequence them. The final subcategory of metacognitive knowledge pertains
to knowledge of why and when to use a specific strategy, which enables a
person to assess the demands of a particular cognitive activity and make a
flexible decision on appropriate strategies to follow ( Jacobs & Paris, 1987;
McCormick, 2003; Schraw et al., 2006).
 Designing a meta-learning programme 161

Metalearning
capacity

Knowledge Control
about over
learning learning

Declarative Procedural Decisional

Planning Monitoring Evaluating
knowledge knowledge knowledge

Knowledge Knowledge
Knowledge
about about
about task
person strategy

FIGURE 8.3  Coding scheme of meta-learning capacity.

The taxonomy of metacognitive control comprises executive processes of

planning, monitoring, and evaluation (McCormick, 2003). Planning occurs
before a cognitive activity is started and involves metacognitive processing steps
such as selecting appropriate means of proceeding with the activity and allo-
cating necessary resources to components that affect performance. Monitoring
consists of online testing, revision, and rearranging the procedure of a person’s
approach to a cognitive task. Finally, a person evaluates the quality of any strategic
action against its effectiveness (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983;
Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Livingston, 2003; McCormick, 2003; Schraw, 1998).
Figure 8.3 illustrates the coding scheme used to interpret students’ reflective
accounts of their own learning.

Evidence of changes in students’ meta-learning capacity

during the school year
Content analysis of the students’ journal entries reveals the changes in the stu-
dents’ meta-learning capacity over the school year. Figure 8.4 shows the relative
proportions of knowledge about learning versus control over learning observed in stu-
dents’ journal entries over the school year. The percentages of reflections in the
category of knowledge about learning were highest in journal entries written after
the movie-viewing task (68%) and in entries where the students compared their
own learning approaches with those of their role models (77%; Figure 8.4; time
points 2 and 5). In addition, an increase in the occurrence rate of reflections illus-
trating the students’ control over learning was observed in the later journal entries.
The percentage remained high and stable (more than 65%) toward the end of the
second semester (Figure 8.4; time points 6 and 7). This suggests that the dynamic
teaching practice activities engaging the students in authentic decision making
can elicit executive processes for controlling their learning.
162  S. Lin, J. Rattray, and C. Walker-Gleaves

FIGURE 8.4  Frequency of knowledge about learning versus control over learning.

Figure 8.5 compares the occurrence rate of the three subcategories of

control over learning, namely planning, monitoring, and evaluating in students’
journal entries. Among the subcategories, the reflections coded as planning
occurred most frequently at the beginning of each semester, when the

FIGURE 8.5  Frequency of the three subcategories of control over learning in each
journal entry.
 Designing a meta-learning programme 163

students were explicitly asked to set a goal for themselves and to decide how
to proceed with term-time activities (Figure 8.5; time points 1 and 5). By
contrast, the occurrence of the reflections categorized as evaluating peaked
at the end of the second semester, when an appraisal of students’ progress
was required. The percentages of reflections categorized as monitoring and
evaluating reached a high point when the students reflected on their final
teaching practice in the field (Figure 8.5; time point 6). The current results
supported the finding of earlier researchers, such as Schraw and Moshman
(1995), that monitoring capacity develops relatively slowly compared with
the other controlling capacities. It was not until after the service learn-
ing experience that the occurrence rate of reflections coded as monitoring
exceeded 20%.
Regarding the three subcategories of knowledge about learning (as compared in
Figure 8.6), declarative knowledge remained the dominant one. Throughout the
term, more than 80% of reflections categorized as knowledge about learning fell
into this subcategory. By contrast, the students’ procedural and decisional knowl-
edge about learning exhibited a low occurrence during the term. Teaching prac-
tices, especially those used in the field, fostered the students’ awareness of why
and when to use a specific learning strategy (Figure 8.6; time points 4 and 6).
Specifically, when the students reflected on these experiences, they became more
aware of their lack of decisional knowledge. A student reported that she “panicked”
(second semester_S17_W2) when faced with contingencies during the teach-
ing practice sessions, and other students remarked that gaining more experience
would be helpful for developing knowledge about coping with contingencies
(e.g. first semester_S04_final).

FIGURE 8.6  Frequency of the three subcategories of knowledge about learning in

each journal entry.
164  S. Lin, J. Rattray, and C. Walker-Gleaves

Evidence of changes in students’ meta-learning capacity

after the service learning experience
The analysis of the student interviews after the summer service learning experi-
ence revealed that the students had developed an overall understanding of their
declarative knowledge about learning and its involvement in the learning process.
We infer that the students’ decisional knowledge, in addition to their declarative
knowledge, was elicited by the opportunity to make learning choices, and they
could comprehensively apply control mechanisms.
Specifically, compared with the occurrence rate of the responses representing
the students’ declarative knowledge about learning (92%), the occurrence rate of
the response segments illustrating their decisional knowledge was fairly low (7%).
However, this occurrence rate was the third highest since the inception of this
innovative programme; it was exceeded only by the peak values observed during
the term, namely 13% for the final journal entry of the first semester and 12%
for the second entry of the second semester (Figure 8.6; time points 4 and 6),
both of which occurred after a field teaching practice session. For example, one
student stated,

After practicing teaching at church, I thought maybe we could divide the

children into smaller groups and have our group members each lead a group.
Learning and competing in groups can make learning more effective …. If
the children worked in groups, they could discuss and share their learning
together, just as we did in the evening. (S18_interview)

The plan created by this student drew on the decisional knowledge she gained
during field teaching practice. In addition to the planning phase, decisional
knowledge was apparent during the monitoring of task progression. The follow-
ing is an example of the students’ decisional knowledge guiding their monitoring
practices.

[When I carried out a plan,] I sometimes found the children messing

around, unwilling to learn, or slow in learning. So it took a much longer
time than planned …. The children couldn’t learn as fast as I expected, so I had
to teach them slowly. I decided to cut some activities, and to teach vocabulary instead.
(S13_interview) (emphasis added)

This excerpt illustrates a decision-making situation in which the student had

to make a contingent choice regarding whether and how to revise her original
plan. This implies that the student applied decisional knowledge about learning to
aid her in weighing the alternatives and determining a more effective strategy. As
in the previous two occasions, where the percentage of the reflections coded as
decisional knowledge peaked, we infer that the increased autonomy of the students
in assuming a teaching role elicits a sense of responsibility for effective learning.
 Designing a meta-learning programme 165

Analysing the interview data revealed that the percentages of response seg-
ments categorized into the subcategories of control over learning — planning (44%),
monitoring (24%), and evaluating (32%) — were relatively close. This suggested that
the service learning experience provided a platform for the students to compre-
hensively apply learning control mechanisms. During the interview, the students
were asked to recall critical incidents at the summer camp, and this discussion
was followed by questions derived from the incidents.

Before we went to teach at the camp, the other team told us they were unable to
follow their plan, so I thought we probably couldn’t either. But I think at least we
were able to carry out the most essential part of our plan. Although we printed
out the lesson plans, we sometimes forgot which activity to do in a particular lesson
because we were nervous. But we couldn’t read the plans in class. We had to immedi-
ately come up with another activity …. After practicing teaching at church, I thought
maybe we could divide the children into smaller groups and have our group members
each lead a group. Learning and competing in groups can make learning more
effective …. If the children worked in groups, they could discuss and share
their leaning together, just as we did in the evening. (S18_interview)

This student demonstrates her capacity for planning through collecting infor-
mation from experienced peers and anticipating events accordingly. Furthermore,
she planned to employ a small-group learning strategy, drawing on her own
field teaching experience at church before teaching at the service learning site.
Despite the plan, the student had to consider alternatives, because her nervous-
ness interfered with the procedures and because “the class size was not as big in
the remote-area school as at church” (S18_interview). This demonstrates her
capacity for monitoring. Finally, in the excerpt, the student commented on the
extent to which she fulfilled her plan. She also explained her rationale for prefer-
ring the group learning strategy.
In summary, evidence drawn from the analysis of interview data showed
that for the students to apply their knowledge about learning, they should assume
“responsible roles that require real-time decisions with actual consequences”
(Lizzio & Wilson, 2004, p. 472). During this innovative programme, ensuring
that the students had choices regarding how to think was essential. For example,
they had the opportunity to develop their own problem-solving approaches,
which is absent in typical English classes. Such opportunities conform to what
Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, and Turner (2004) referred to as a form of
autonomy support — the provision of cognitive choices to students.

Discussion
The meta-learning programme in this study engaged the students in reflecting on
practical experiences through both inner and outer dialogues. Another principle
behind this programme was fostering a break with hierarchical student-teacher
166  S. Lin, J. Rattray, and C. Walker-Gleaves

relationships and creating a scaffolding relationship. Additionally, the mech-

anisms of comparison and contrast, as well as the counter-normative experi-
ence of assuming the role of a teacher provided in this programme affected the
students’ meta-learning capacity.
First, the programme included a real-world experience component. A real-
world experience usually entails uncertainty, which can challenge established
approaches to learning. It could be inferred from the analysis that such uncertainty
was brought about by the students’ taking up a counter-normative role in this
programme. The opportunity to take on the role of teacher encouraged the stu-
dents to make authentic decisions, which was outside their typical range of expe-
rience. The students experienced conflicting beliefs and behaviours as a result of
this experience gap. Specifically, as presented in the previous section, there was
a relatively comprehensive occurrence of different aspects of meta-learning after
the students took part in the summer service learning experience. This finding
could be supported by the argument, in line with the observation of Reiman
(see the section “Pedagogical framework for promoting conceptual change” in
this chapter), that an experience involving more complex problem solving and
greater responsibility can result in disequilibrium, and that overcoming this state
of uncertainty requires awareness of, and (if needed) change in, the current pre-
ferred method of thought and practice. However, the philosophy of experience
suggests that experience alone does not guarantee change. A reflective compo-
nent — dialogue with peers in oral discussion and internal reflective writing in
a journal — was included to connect concrete experiences and abstract concepts.
The counter-normative role-taking experience — sharing decision making
and responsibility when approaching the task of teaching English to younger chil-
dren — also contributes to the students’ sense of greater control over their own
learning process. In the Taiwanese context, students are traditionally assigned
a passive follower’s role in the classroom, whereas teachers are characterized as
leaders, exerting a high level of control over their students. The service learning
component of the programme in this study involved the students assuming the
role of a teacher and teaching English to younger children. They were expected
to make their own lesson plans and pedagogical choices. A student (S14) stated
in the interview that she felt like a grown-up during the course of the pro-
gramme, particularly in the summer service learning experience. This response
highlights the conventional role of adults, such as teachers and parents, who are
in control and make decisions (West, 2007). Having a sense of being treated as
a grown-up implies that the students gained ownership over and autonomy in
their experience in the programme. The students can be considered to maintain
a “co-role” in this programme and have a shared voice and power in the class-
room. Assuming such a role may also lead to a shift in power and authority and
a challenge to traditional, hierarchical norms and power relations (Harrison &
Clayton, 2012; Jameson, Clayton, & Jaeger, 2010). Moreover, a discrepancy was
observed between the students’ original identity and the identity suggested by
their new role, particularly in the summer service learning experience, but a
 Designing a meta-learning programme 167

similarity was noted between the identity of the students’ new teaching role and
that of a real teacher. According to the argument that a role is associated with a
set of behaviours and attitudes recognized by society, Robinson, Schofield, and
Steers-Wentzell (2005) suggested that assuming a teaching role might enable
students to empathize more with their teachers. Upon returning to the role of a
student, they tend to approach learning with the attitudes and behaviours they
expected from their own students, which fosters approaches conducive to learn-
ing. Students who have played the role of a teacher may employ more learning
strategies, pay more attention, and participate more actively in learning activities
(Robinson et al., 2005). For example, one student (S18) became aware that the
children she taught learned more effectively within a group. We infer that she
might be more likely to employ interdependent learning strategies in her own
learning.
Finally, one way for the teacher to scaffold the students’ awareness of their
learning was to draw analogical or contrastive links between various learn-
ing experiences. As indicated in the section “Evidence of changes in students’
meta-learning capacity during the school year” in this chapter, comparing and
contrasting the students’ approaches to learning with those of movie characters
or their role models elicited the students’ awareness of their own strengths or
weaknesses in learning and of effective learning strategies. Furthermore, some
journal questions were used as prompts to unpack the students’ perceptions
of their prior experiences of learning, and then to compare and contrast these
understandings with current tasks in the relevant class or field. The students
found that tasks at different levels of English learning, such as elementary, junior
high, and senior high, differ noticeably in complexity and in how they can be
effectively completed. In the present study, the activities and question prompts in
the journal imposed a structure that facilitated identifying connections between
past and personal learning experiences, between learning events in the present
and future, and between the individual’s own learning experiences and those
of other students. We argue that the mechanisms of comparison and contrast
prevented the students from perceiving their experiences as discrete, isolated
occurrences. Hence, sense-making strategies (e.g. looking within and consider-
ing others’ perspectives) and decision making in transfer contexts are improved
(Harkrider et al. 2013).

Conclusion and reflection

The study reported in this chapter suggests that drawing analogical or contrastive
links between various learning experiences can stimulate students to become
aware of perspectives on learning in addition to their own. The students who
assumed a counter-normative role transformed their perspectives and practices
from those that they were conventionally socialized to identify with, and they
became inclined to perceive greater responsibility for, and commitment to,
learning and to exercise more control over learning activities.
168  S. Lin, J. Rattray, and C. Walker-Gleaves

Reflections on my role in this programme suggest that teachers should par-

ticipate in reflective practice and adopt a more humane approach to interac-
tion. Although the aim of the meta-learning programme is to develop students’
reflection on their learning, the action research on this programme empowers
me to take a more active role in educational decision making and even chal-
lenge my established perceptions and approaches to teaching. Contingencies
occurred, for example which elicited accustomed, traditional ways of dealing
with circumstances. Action research allows me to explore below the surface of
my pseudo-acceptance of the concept of meta-learning. Such realization enables
me to move beyond my conventional role, to expand my frame of mind beyond
my own perspective, and thereby encourage my students to enlarge theirs. In
addition, the emotional ambivalence I experienced from the unconventional
student-teacher interaction in this programme challenged me to consider alter-
native possibilities for constructing student-teacher relationships. Revealing
emotions and discussing them with my students provided the disequilibrium and
group dynamics necessary in transforming learning and teaching. This vulnera-
bility, along with learning to question my thinking and practice as a teacher, led
me to adopt a more transformative and dialogic approach to teaching. I definitely
gained a sense of satisfaction as my teaching improved through action research,
initiating an innovation, and seeing the value of my implementation.
By linking socio-cultural theories of learning and practice to cultivate students’
knowledge and control of learning, the effects of the meta-learning programme
illustrate that the three theoretical axes of this study (experience, reflection, and
interaction) are constructive for the development of meta-learning capacity.
However, school personnel would not be in an optimal position to encourage
their students to think about learning if they themselves did not cultivate a par-
allel reflective discourse. This chapter also encourages teachers and school staff
members to engage in continuous self-reflection, as well as discussion and dia-
logue, to see beyond their own perspectives.

References
Alanen, R. (2003). A sociocultural approach to young language learners’ beliefs about
language learning. In P. Kalaja & A. M. Ferreira (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research
approaches (pp. 55–85). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Baird, J. R., Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1991). The importance of reflec-
tion in improving science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
28(2), 163–182.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills of reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr,
& M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.
Biggs, J. B. (1985). The role of meta-learning in study process. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 55(3), 185–212.
Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more myste-
rious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and
understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
 Designing a meta-learning programme 169

Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remem-
bering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology.Vol. 3 of cognitive development (pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.
Chen, C. (2012). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the competence indicators in
National Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English (Master’s dissertation).
National Taiwan Normal University. Retrieved from http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/
ndltd/80501338550461158108
Chen, Z. (2015, April 7). Guó gāozhōng shēng f ǎnsī bùzú jì huà nénglì ruò [Secondary
school students lack reflection and planning skills]. The United Daily News. Retrieved
from http://udn.com/news/story/6915/819728
Cheng, Y., Yeh, H., & Su, S. (2011). Planning, implementation, and expected impact of the
2010 curriculum guidelines for senior high school English:Teachers’ perspectives. English
Teaching & Learning, 35(2), 91–137.
Conner, L., & Gunstone, R. (2004). Conscious knowledge of learning: Accessing learning
strategies in a final year high school biology class. International Journal of Science Education,
26(12), 1427–1443.
Dai, M. (2011). Constructing an L2 motivational model of planned learning behavior
(PhD thesis). National Taiwan Normal University,Taipei,Taiwan. Retrieved from http://
handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/96675847384362446124
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge.
Desautel, D. (2009). Becoming a thinking thinker: Metacognition, self-reflection, and class-
room practice. The Teachers College Record, 111(8), 1997–2020.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflec-
tive. Instructional Science, 24(1), 1–24.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Flavell, J. H. (1981). Monitoring social cognitive enterprises: Something else that may
develop in the area of social cognition. In J. H. Flavell, & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cog-
nitive development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 272–287). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary). New York: Continuum.
Giles, D. E., & Eyler, J. (1994). The theoretical roots of service-learning in John Dewey:
Toward a theory of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
1(1), 77–85.
Harkrider, L. N., MacDougall, A. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Johnson, J. F., Thiel, C. E., Mumford, M.
D., … Devenport, L. D. (2013). Structuring case-based ethics training: How comparing
cases and structured prompts influence training effectiveness. Ethics & Behavior, 23(3),
179–198.
Harrison, B., & Clayton, P. H. (2012). Reciprocity as a threshold concept for faculty
who are learning to teach with service-learning. Journal of Faculty Development,
26(3), 29–34.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in defini-
tion, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3–4), 255–278.
Jameson, J. K., Clayton, P. H., & Jaeger, A. J. (2010). Community-engaged scholarship through
mutually transformative partnerships”. In L. M. Harter, J. Hamel-Lambert, & J. Millesen
(Eds.), Participatory partnerships for social action and research (pp. 259–278). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
170  S. Lin, J. Rattray, and C. Walker-Gleaves

Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5),

178–181.
Lee, H. C. (2011). In defense of concordancing: An application of data-driven learning in
Taiwan. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 399–408.
Lemke, C., Budka, M., & Gabrys, B. (2013). Meta-learning: A survey of trends and technol-
ogies. Artificial Intelligence Review, 44(1), 117–130.
Lin, S. W. (2018, November). Learning by teaching: A meta-learning program. Learning
Learning. Retrieved from http://ld-sig.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Shu-wenLin.pdf
Lin, S. W., Rattray, J., & Walker-Gleaves, C. (2017). Challenges affecting the development of
meta-learning capacity in Taiwanese secondary school students. Reflective Practice, 18(3),
381–396.
Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An overview. ERIC database. Retrieved from http://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474273.pdf
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2004). Action learning in higher education: An investigation of its
potential to develop professional capability. Studies in Higher Education, 29(4), 469–488.
McCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E.
Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (pp. 79–102). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Ministry of Education,Taiwan. (2009). Pǔ tōng gāojí zhōngxué yīngwén kē kèchéng gāngyào
bǔ chōng shuōmíng [Guidelines of English instruction in secondary schools]. Retrieved
from http://web.ylsh.ilc.edu.tw/course/files/990504/03.pdf
Norton, L. S., Owens, T., & Clark, L. (2004). Analysing meta-learning in first-year under-
graduates through their reflective discussions and writing. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 41(4), 423–441.
Paris, S. G., and Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting metacognition and motivation of excep-
tional children. Remedial and Special Education, 11(6), 7–15.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual develop-
ment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Reilly, C. (2013). Ira Shor. In J. D. Kirylo (Ed.), A critical pedagogy of resistance: 34 pedagogues we
need to know (pp. 113–116). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Reiman, A. J. (2002). A comparison of four-year longitudinal studies of postconventional
moral judgment reasoning in teacher education and other selected undergraduate
samples. ERIC database. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED471182
Robinson, D. R., Schofield, J. W., & Steers-Wentzell, K. L. (2005). Peer and cross-age
tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design implications. Educational Psychology Review,
17(4), 327–362.
Rush, L. (2008). An alternative perspective for ITT: Learning to learn and its basis in per-
sonal beliefs about knowledge. ESCalate final report. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.
ac.uk/13047/4/6478.pdf
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic
Books.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science edu-
cation: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science
Education, 36(1–2), 111–139.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review,
7(4), 351–371.
Shor, I. (1993). Education is politics. In P. McLaren & P. Leonard (Eds.), Paulo Freire: A critical
encounter (pp. 24–35). New York: Routledge.
 Designing a meta-learning programme 171

Shor, I. (1999). What is critical literacy? Journal for Pedagogy, Pluralism & Practice, 4(1), 1–26.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting auton-
omy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership.
Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.
Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition. Hove, NY: Psychology Press.
Tsai, C. C. (2017). Conceptions of learning in technology-enhanced learning environments:
A review of case studies in Taiwan. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 12(2),
184–205.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behavior. Journal of
Russian and East European Psychology, 17(4), 3–35.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ward, S. C., Connolly, R., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2013).The enactment of meta-learning capacity:
Using drama to help raise students’ awareness of the self as learner. Innovations in Education
and Teaching International, 50(1), 14–24.
Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In
C. D. Lee and P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research (pp. 51–85).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language. Applied Linguistics, 19(4),
515–537.
West, A. (2007). Power relationships and adult resistance to children’s participation. Children,
Youth and Environment, 17(1), 123–135.
Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau,V., Bingham, S., … Demetriou,
D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and
self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 63–85.
Winters,T. (2013). A framework for facilitating meta-learning as part of subject teaching. The
Future of Education, Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from http://conference.pixel-online.
net/foe2013/common/download/Paper_pdf/166-ITL28-FP-Winters-FOE2013.pdf
Woolfolk, A., Hughes, M., & Walkup, V. (2008). Psychology in education. Harlow, England:
Pearson Longman.
9
TEFL POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS’
PERCEPTION OF CRITICAL THINKING
Conceptualizations, obstacles,
and solutions

Hassan Soodmand Afshar

Introduction
Outline of the study
The present chapter deals with Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)
postgraduate students’ perception of critical thinking (CT) in learning English
as a foreign language. It starts with various definitions of the concept, especially
from the two known perspectives on CT, considering CT as a cognitive skill
and regarding it as a disposition. The chapter then continues with the relation-
ship between CT and foreign language learning, which is followed by a section
entitled “Why focus on CT?”. Next, the empirical section of the study presents
and discusses TEFL postgraduate students’ conceptualizations of CT and their
perceptions of the obstacles to their CT development, as well as their suggestions
on how to improve CT skills. The chapter ends with concluding remarks and
presents some implications on how to enhance CT skills.

What is CT?
Critical thinking (CT), which is subsumed under the umbrella term of higher
order thinking skills, entails self-regulation, meaning-imposition, evaluation,
and interpretation (Li, 2016a). The higher order thinking skills include the
power of reasoning, enquiry, and analysis, CT, creative thinking, evaluation,
and complex information processing (Resnick, as cited in Li, 2016a).
As Li (2016b) maintains, although CT has been investigated extensively in
the literature of the field, “it is also a fuzzy term which is difficult to define and
describe” (p. 268). Similarly, Long (2003) maintains that CT is an elusive term to
define, which has been understood differently by various scholars and in different
cultural contexts.
 Postgraduate students’ perception of CT 173

However, before embarking on the definition of the concept, we should note

that two main perspectives or domains govern the definition and description of
CT. That is, some experts have defined CT in terms of cognitive skills — that
is, as a set of such higher order thinking skills as analysis, inference, evaluation,
deduction, and induction. This perspective is, in fact, a psychological/cognitive
view of CT, which sees it as a set of helpful cognitive skills that people possess to
various degrees that can bring them success in their lives in general and in their
academic careers in particular. This view of CT is commonly contrasted with the
affective/disposition perspective, which is discussed later.
From the cognitive perspective, Cottrell (2005, p. 1) defines CT as “a cogni-
tive activity, associated with using the mind”. Similarly, Li (2016b) describes CT
as “the ability to recognize, construct and evaluate arguments, and the skills of
analyzing, synthesizing and critiquing material” (p. 268), which, she believes, is
of crucial importance in academic achievement. Tsui (2002, p. 74) defines CT
as a set of cognitive skills applied to “identify issues and assumptions, recognize
important relationships, make correct inferences, evaluate evidence or author-
ity, and deduce conclusions”. Nugent and Vitale (2008, p. 2) hold that CT “is a
cognitive strategy by which you reflect on and analyze your thoughts, actions
and decisions”. CT is also believed to be a skillful (cognitive) ability achieved
through evaluation, analysis, reasoning, inference, and problem solving (Black,
2012; Li, 2016a). By the same token, Lipman (2003) regards CT as “healthy
skepticism”, which suggests that one should see things from various angles with
different possible solutions to the given problem. Also, Carroll (2004) defines CT
as a kind of thinking that is logical, accurate, clear, relevant, complete, fair, and
sufficient in terms of evidence.
CT is thought to be heavily rooted in Dewey’s reflective thinking, which
was elaborated in his seminal work How We Think (Dewey, 1933). Reflective
thinking can be defined as efforts in solving the problems, finding a solution,
and reaching a conclusion (Tumposky, 1989). Similarly, Li and Wegerif (2014)
define CT as the context-dependent reflective thinking ability. Ennis (1993) also
defines CT as rational reflective thinking that shapes one’s belief system or course
of action. It could thus be argued that at the crux of both critical and reflec-
tive thinking lies the desire for change and openness to revision and criticism.
However, as Adams (as cited in Thompson & Pascal, 2012, p. 321) maintains,
“Reflective practice contributes to critical, transforming practice. … Critical
practice [i.e. CT] involves reflectiveness but transcends it”.
Thompson and Thompson (2008) maintain that CT consists of the two
dimensions of depth and breadth. The depth dimension refers to one’s ability
to go beneath the surface of the given phenomenon or situation to uncover the
uncharted areas and the underlying assumptions, beliefs, thoughts, emotions,
and values. This dimension, in fact, questions prejudice-based assumptions and
values that may have been taken for granted earlier.
The breadth dimension of CT enables us to see the world from a sociologi-
cal perspective and comprises such elements as discrimination, oppression, and
174  Hassan Soodmand Afshar

power relations (Thompson & Thompson, 2008). This dimension takes a flexible
and open-minded perspective and “acknowledges that there may be no straight-
forward “right” answers and that powerful established voices will often hold
sway over newer, alternative ways of seeing things” (Brechin, Brown, & Eby,
2000, p. Xi). Thompson and Pascal (2012) maintain that there must be an active
interaction and interrelationship between the two aspects of depth and breadth
for CT to function properly, the results of which they would call “critically
reflective practice”, which is open to new perspectives and new challenges and
also values the social context in a non-atomistic holistic manner.
In a nutshell, CT might be conceptualized as goal-directed and self-regulated
mental processes, strategies, and attempts to deeply analyse, evaluate, and
interpret the issue at hand (e.g. a learning point, problem, or situation) from
various perspectives with an open, non-dogmatic mind to make the right
decision, drawing on one’s existing knowledge base and considering the given
context.
Other experts in the field, however, have conceptualized CT in terms of
affective (disposition) factors, which are associated with the motivation and incli-
nation to use CT skills such as open-mindedness, truth-seeking, inquisitive-
ness, systematicity, maturity, and self-confidence (Ennis, 1989; Facione, 2011).
Atkinson (1997) maintains that CT is fundamentally associated with American
and Western modes of thinking and cannot be put into practice in such cultures
as Asian contexts, where it is not commonly practised and valued. For Atkinson
(1997, p. 89) “critical thinking is cultural thinking”, which means that CT is
a covert social practice that cannot be generalized beyond the contexts which
created it. Atkinson is inclined towards the disposition conceptualization of CT,
which enables one to acquire CT through experience in a culture that practises
and values it. In a similar vein, Facione (2000) believes that CT is a disposition,
attitude, or motivation that determines how CT skills are developed and applied
and maintains that CT is the “consistent internal motivation to engage problems
and make decisions” (p. 65). It could thus be argued that, in terms of disposition,
CT includes such concepts as logical thinking awareness, objectiveness, inquisi-
tiveness, and evidence-based judgement (Kusumoto, 2018).
This argument is supported by Ellwood (2000) and Vandermensbrugghe
(2004), especially the latter, who, believing in the disposition dimension of
CT, maintains that Asian learners are unable to think critically. Although
it might be true that Asian learners are somewhat less critical and reflective
thinkers than their Western counterparts, as maintained by Marzban and
Ashraafi (2016), this does not rule out teaching thinking skills in cultures and
contexts where they are not commonly known and practised (Davidson, 1998;
Marin & Halpern, 2011; Soodmand Afshar, Movassagh, & Radi Arbabi, 2017).
Therefore, while such scholars in the field as Atkinson (1997) hold that, since
CT is culture-specific and context-dependent, it cannot be explicitly taught
and transferred, such other experts as Davidson (1998) and Li (2011, 2016b)
believe that CT is teachable.
 Postgraduate students’ perception of CT 175

The findings of various research studies indicate that incorporating think-

ing skills in education is fruitful for developing learners (Li, 2016a; Mercer,
2004; Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999). By the same token, developing cogni-
tive abilities and incorporating thinking skills in language education have been
found to be beneficial in foreign language teaching and learning (Carter, 2004;
Ghonsooly & Showqi, 2012; Li, 2011). Therefore, EFL teachers should find
ways to help foreign language learners become critical and creative thinkers and
should teach them explicitly how to become critical thinkers, because explicit
teaching of thinking skills is also believed to be beneficial in foreign/second
language learning and teaching (Li, 2016a). The current study, thus, adopts a
more cognitive perspective on critical thinking: CT is a set of cognitive skills
that are teachable.

The relationship between foreign language

development and CT
A reciprocal positive relationship exists between CT and foreign/second lan-
guage learning and teaching (Li, 2011; Marin & Halpern, 2011). Foreign/second
language study is believed to strengthen and reinforce fruitful thinking skills,
including CT (Anderson, 1985; Li, 2011; Pally, 1997). Moreover, some other
experts in the field (e.g. Chamot, 1995; Davidson, 1998; Tarvin & Al-Arishi,
1991) maintain that thinking skills, including CT, can enhance and acceler-
ate second/foreign language acquisition. Also, empirically, positive associa-
tions have been found between CT and foreign/second language achievement
in general (e.g. Liaw, 2007; Soodmand Afshar & Movassagh, 2017), between
CT and reading comprehension of the learners (e.g. Farley & Elmore, 1992),
between CT and (argumentative) writing in a foreign language (e.g. Rafi, 2010;
Soodmand Afshar et al., 2017), between critical and reflective thinking skills
and spoken proficiency of the learners (Soodmand Afshar & Rahimi, 2014,
2016; Yang, 2012), and between (reflective) thinking skills and listening com-
prehension (e.g. Soodmand Afshar & Hamzavi, 2014). This is why enhancing
language learners’ CT in general, and that of postgraduate students in particular,
is deemed essential.

Why focus on CT?

The incorporation of thinking skills in the curricula and educational policies has
already taken place in various contexts, including Hong Kong (in 2000), China
(in 2001), Malaysia (in 2003), and England (in 1999), and in Thailand, Russia,
Brazil, and Mexico (all cited in Li, 2016a), as well as in the United States, New
Zealand, Canada, and Japan following the Partnership for 2lst Century Learning
(P21) (Kusumoto, 2018). However, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, no
such effort has been made by the (foreign language) education policy makers,
curriculum developers, and syllabus designers to incorporate CT skills in the
176  Hassan Soodmand Afshar

educational system of the country in general and in the EFL education policies
and programmes in particular.
Also, although CT became a subject of second language acquisition (SLA)
research in the late 1990s following the paradigm shift from positivism to
post-positivism ( Jacob & Farrell, 2001) and the emergence of critical applied
linguistics (Pennycook, 2001), thinking skills have not received due attention
in language learning and teaching in general (Li, 2011; Pica, 2000; Soko, Oget,
Sonntag, & Khomenko, 2008).
Thus, even though CT is one of the most widely researched constructs in
education (Fisher, 2011), and despite the fact that promoting learners’ thinking
skills is of crucial importance in second/foreign language learning and teaching
(Li, 2016a), there is still a paucity of research on the barriers to, and ways of,
promoting second/foreign language learners’ higher-order thinking skills, espe-
cially those of postgraduate students of TEFL. Therefore, the following research
questions were formulated for the present study:

1. To what extent are postgraduate students of TEFL critical thinkers?

2. How do postgraduate students of TEFL conceptualize critical thinking?
3. What are the obstacles to critical thinking among postgraduate students of
TEFL?
4. What are some ways to enhance the critical thinking skills of postgraduate
students of TEFL?

Method
Participants
The participants in the study included 50 postgraduate students of TEFL
(39 MA students and 11 PhD candidates) who formed three groups/classes
of PhD candidates and three groups/classes of MA students enrolled in the
department. Before the study began, the informed consent of all the partic-
ipants was obtained, and they were ensured that the results of the CT test
and their remarks in focus-group discussions would be kept confidential and
would be used only for the purposes of the present study. The participants
were also assured that the study results would not affect their final-exam
course scores.

Data collection instruments and materials

Two instruments were used for data collection, the California Critical Thinking
Skills Test (CCTST-Form B) and focus-group discussions. These will be
explained briefly next.
CCTST-Form B, which includes 34 items measuring basic reasoning skills
and is widely used throughout the world in various educational contexts,
 Postgraduate students’ perception of CT 177

was first developed by Facione (1992). The questions on CCTST-Form B tap

respondents’ general knowledge background in terms of “discrete cognitive
skills” (Ku, 2009). The test consists of short passages illustrating imaginary
situations, including social, political, and economic issues, followed by some
multiple-choice items. CCTST-Form B measures five basic taxonomies of CT
skills: — analysis, inference, evaluation, induction, and deduction. Analysis
skills enable identification of reasons, claims, and assumptions; help in the for-
mation of argumentation; and enable one to collect information from graphs,
charts, diagrams, documents, and spoken and written language (California
critical thinking skills test; User manual and resource guide, 2016). Inference
skills facilitate drawing conclusions from evidence and reasons and discerning
the probable consequences of a given set of conditions and facts (California
critical thinking skills test: User manual and resource guide, 2016). Evaluation
allows us to measure the dependability of information sources and the claims
made, and to assess the strengths and weaknesses of arguments (California
critical thinking skills test: User manual and resource guide, 2016). While
induction allows people to draw inferences about the truth of phenomena
according to analogies, prior experience, hypotheses, case studies, behaviours,
and statistical analyses, deductive reasoning skills enable us to draw conclu-
sions and make decisions in precisely defined contexts where rules, basic
beliefs, conditions, principles, policies, procedures, and values determine
the outcome. It should be noted here that the CCTST-Form B has already
been used widely and validated throughout the world by scholars in the field,
including in the context of the present study by the author (see Soodmand
Afshar & Movassagh, 2017).
Focus-group discussions were also employed to explore the participants’
conceptualizations of CT, their perceptions of the obstacles to their CT devel-
opment, their suggestions on how to enhance CT skills (i.e. to answer ques-
tions 2, 3, and 4 of the study, respectively) and the contribution of CT to
foreign language learning in general and to their academic activities in particu-
lar. A copy of the questions used in the focus group discussions can be found
in Appendix 1.

Postgraduate curricula in TEFL

To give the readers a brief background about the curricula of the MA and PhD
programmes in TEFL developed by Iran’s Ministry of Science, Research and
Technology (MSRT), I should mention here that the current MA curriculum
in TEFL, recently revised in 2017, consists of 18 (obligatory and optional) two-
credit courses plus six (obligatory) credits of thesis compilation. That is, over-
all, MA students of TEFL must take and pass 32 credits (i.e. 26 course credits
and six thesis credits) altogether to graduate. Similarly, the PhD curriculum
in TEFL, revised in 2013, consists of 18 (obligatory and optional) two-credit
178  Hassan Soodmand Afshar

courses out of which the PhD candidates have to take and pass maximally
18 credits of coursework and 18 credits of dissertation compilation (which is
obligatory). In both MA and PhD curricula, some credits are compulsory to
take and some are optional.

Data collection procedure and analysis

As mentioned earlier, six groups or classes of postgraduate students of TEFL
comprising 50 students at the department of English Language, Bu-Ali Sina
University, Hamedan, participated in the present study and first completed
CCTST-Form B, which took about 45 minutes on average. The CCTST-Form
B was scored based on the answer key provided for the test by the CCTST
manual. The answers of the participants to the test in total and to its five com-
ponents (i.e. analysis, evaluation, inference, induction, and deduction) were
fed into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and subjected to
frequency analysis, and the descriptive statistics were calculated. One group of
MA students and one group of PhD candidates were not willing or available
to attend the discussions. I simply thanked them and excused them from the
focus-group discussions. Thus, only four focus-group discussions (consisting
of 36 participants) were held by the researcher (as the leader of the discussions)
with two groups of MA students and two groups of PhD candidates in TEFL.
The focus-group discussions, which lasted about 60 minutes each, were digi-
tally audio-recorded by the researcher and then were transcribed and analysed
through a grounded-theory-based approach comprising three phases of “open
coding”, “axial coding”, and “selective coding” (Strauss & Corbin, as cited in
Dörnyei, 2007). That is, I first went through the transcripts several times and
identified the recurring themes and subcategories (i.e. open coding). Then I
combined these subcategories to form some broader categories that would sub-
sume the already-identified subcategories (i.e. axial coding). Next, I selected
some main categories or core concepts that encompassed the codes and catego-
ries assigned in the previous phase and then labelled them. A holder of a PhD
in TEFL with an interest and expertise in qualitative research was asked to
randomly select and analyse and code the discussions of the two of the groups
(an MA group and a PhD group). The results indicated a high inter-coder
reliability—specifically, a correlation of nearly 92%.

Results
As mentioned earlier, the first research question of the study set out to examine
the extent to which the participants were critical thinkers. To this end, they
completed CCTST-Form B, the results of the descriptive statistics of which are
presented here. However, to save space, the results of the descriptive statistics
of the participants’ responses to the individual items of CCTST-Form B are
 Postgraduate students’ perception of CT 179

presented in Appendix 2. Here, only the results of the descriptive statistics of

the participants’ responses to various components of CCTST are presented in
Table 9.1.

TABLE 9.1  Descriptive statistics of the participants’ responses to various components

of CCTST-Form B

Component N F P M SD

Analysis 50 6.44 12.88 0.12 0.10

Evaluation 50 12.57 25.14 0.25 0.12
Inference 50 4.81  9.62 0.09 0.09
Deductive reasoning 50 7.13 14.26 0.14 0.08
Inductive reasoning 50 9.93 19.86 0.20 0.10
Total 50 8.17 16.35 0.16 0.09

As shown in Table 9.1, overall, the participants were able to answer less than
one-fifth (i.e. nearly 16%) of the CCTST correctly. This shows that Iranian
postgraduate students of TEFL were not high critical thinkers. As for the com-
ponents of CT, the highest and the lowest percentages of responses belonged to
evaluation (25.14%) and inference (9.62%), respectively. According to California
critical thinking skills test: User manual and resource guide (2016), evaluation
refers to the ability to assess whether the sources of information are reliable and
whether the arguments produced are strong or weak. Inference, however, refers
to the capacity to draw evidence-based conclusions and predict the consequences
of a set of propositions, conditions, and facts. Thus, it seems that the latter (i.e. infer-
ence) is comparatively more difficult to achieve and requires more higher-order
cognitive and metacognitive skills.
The second research question explored the participants’ conceptualizations
of CT. Focus-group discussions were conducted with the participants, and the
common codes and recurring themes of the discussions were extracted based on
the grounded-theory approach. The results are presented, in descending order of
frequency of occurrence, in Table 9.2.
As indicated in Table 9.2, the definition given most frequently by the majority
of the participants in all four groups was that CT was equal to “not taking things
for granted”, followed by “looking at things from various perspectives”. The other
definitions given by the participants included “questioning things”, “finding the
best solution (to the given problem) out of a variety of possible solutions and
making appropriate decisions”, “making sound judgements and strong reasoning
based on analysis”, “criticizing others”, “going beyond the framework of the
classroom”, “using more cognitive and especially more metacognitive strategies”,
and “CT being orientation-dependent” and disposition.
It thus becomes evident from Table 9.2 that the Iranian postgraduate students
of TEFL were at least partially familiar with CT theoretically. Thus, why is it
that they were not very critically minded in practice? This urged me to inves-
tigate the obstacles to CT faced by Iranian postgraduate students of TEFL
180  Hassan Soodmand Afshar

TABLE 9.2  Participants’ conceptualizations of CT

Category to which the

Row Pattern/code definition belongs

1 Not accepting things as they are/Not taking things Analysis

for granted
2 Looking at things from various perspectives/seeing Evaluation
both positive and negative points of something
3 Questioning things Analysis
4 Finding the best solution out of a variety of possible Analysis, evaluation
solutions and making appropriate decisions and even inference
5 Making sound judgements and strong reasoning Analysis
based on analysis
6 Criticizing others Partially evaluation
7 Going beyond the framework of the classroom and Induction
beneath the surface of things
8 Using more cognitive and especially more Cognitive skills view
metacognitive strategies of CT
9 CT being orientation- and culture-dependent Disposition view of CT

(i.e. to answer the third research question of the study). The results of this inves-
tigation are presented, in descending order, in Table 9.3.

TABLE 9.3  Participants’ perceptions of obstacles to CT

Rank Obstacle

1 Educational system
(Teachers, curricula, syllabi, and materials; teaching and testing methods,
gap between theory and practice, etc.)
2 Time
(Lack of time for CT and CT start time being late)
3 Students’ lack of a strong knowledge base in CT, especially knowledge of
how to apply it in practice
4 Sociopolitical and cultural factors
5 Students’ lack of motivation
6 Individual characteristics and personality factors

As shown in Table 9.3, the obstacles mentioned by the participants as hav-

ing impeded their efforts to think critically included the traditional educational
system of the country, lack of time set aside for CT, students’ lack of a strong
knowledge base in CT, sociopolitical and cultural factors, students’ lack of moti-
vation, and individual characteristics and personality factors, each of which will
be discussed briefly below.

The educational system

The first obstacle mentioned by the majority of the respondents is that the edu-
cational system of the country is memorization-based, exam-oriented, and pas-
sive and that it suffers from lack of participation, collaboration, and interaction
 Postgraduate students’ perception of CT 181

on the part of the learners. This finding is, in fact, consistent with the results of
Soodmand Afshar and Farahani (2018), who, studying Iranian EFL teachers’ per-
ception of the inhibitors to their students’ reflective thinking (as the root of CT,
as maintained by Dewey), found the educational system (or what they termed
“learning situation inhibitors”) to be one of the main factors, among others such
as “emotional/affective” and “cognitive” inhibitors, that discouraged Iranian EFL
learners from thinking reflectively. Supporting this, one of the participants stated,

I think our educational system kills our motivation, innovation, and crea-
tivity. It is a closed system. It is a kind of dogmatic system. It doesn’t allow
you to be critical, to be innovative and creative.

Another participant stated that the educational system was confined to mem-
orizing some books and preparing for the exams.
The teachers were also blamed by the participants for the problem. It is widely
believed that the teachers usually teach the way they were taught. One of the
participants corroborated this as follows:

Teachers themselves should believe in CT. Sometimes, they guard against

CT. As long as the teachers themselves won’t think critically, creatively and
… reflectively, they cannot teach their students reflective thinking, critical
thinking. How can a teacher teaching the handout of his student time raise
critical thinking of students?

Another participant, putting the blame more on the authorities and the edu-
cational system itself, stated,

Of course, teachers are sometimes sacrificed because of the system. The

[educational] system itself won’t allow you to be critical I think, not just the
teachers.

Some participants believed the programme and curriculum developers, syl-

labus designers, and materials writers hindered their thinking critically. They
held that the rote-oriented memorization-based curricula, syllabi, and materials
did not focus on developing students’ thinking skills in general and their CT in
particular. One of the participants criticizing the curriculum stated,

Curriculum designers are to blame more I think. The curriculum dictates the
teachers and us lots of routine memorization things to do. To be fair, some-
times the teachers are slaves to the educational system and the curriculum.

The above remarks and the like are corroborated by the contents of the MSRT
curricula. Analysing all the curricula of MSRT belonging to postgraduate
courses of TEFL, I found nothing explicit about the incorporation of thinking
182  Hassan Soodmand Afshar

skills, including CT, although I found sporadic mentions of such terms as anal-
ysis, survey, evaluation, etc. That is, the curricula neither aimed for the explicit
incorporation of CT skills in the materials and classes, nor did they encourage
the teachers to provide learners with some opportunities or ways to boost their
thinking skills in general and CT in particular.
Another obstacle that the participants believed impeded their thinking criti-
cally was the separation of theory from practice in the educational system. One
of the participants noting this, explained,

There is a divide between researchers in this field and the teachers because
teachers normally, er… I mean they are, in practice, dealing with students
on daily basis, but the researchers always talk from ivory towers, because
they are not really involved with the practice itself, so, sometimes, their
messages are not really well received by teachers, because they are very
idealistic probably.

This is seemingly an epidemic problem in education (Pascal & Brown, 2009)

and especially in applied linguistics, as maintained by Bhatia (1993) and Fairclough
(1992). However, as highlighted in a post-method paradigm, the teachers should
theorize from their practice and practise what they theorize (Kumaravadivelu,
2006). In addition, at the crux of such thinking skills as CT and reflective prac-
tice lies the need to combine theory with practice to produce fruitful outcomes
(Thompson & Pascal, 2012), a process which Schön (1983) calls the integration
of high lands of theory with the “swampy lowlands” of practice. Therefore, to
be practical, thinking skills should integrate theory and practice and establish an
interaction between the two constructs.

Time
The second factor that reportedly prevented postgraduate students from think-
ing and acting critically was not enough time being allotted to CT. The results
of the study in this respect are corroborated by those of Soodmand Afshar and
Farahani (2018) and Moradkhani and Shirazizadeh (2017), who also found that
lack of time interfered with the participants’ efforts to develop their (reflective)
thinking skills. This is also echoed by Thompson and Pascal (2012), who believe
that development of thinking skills requires the allocation of enough time. One
of the participants, a PhD candidate, agreed:

I cannot concentrate on it [i.e. thinking] because of different problems

[like] housing, family, husband, cooking, financial problems, and so on.

Besides setting aside some time for developing critical and reflective thinking
abilities, the time in their studies when learners start to think critically and reflec-
tively is also of paramount importance. The educational system of the country,
 Postgraduate students’ perception of CT 183

from the very beginning, in elementary education, is memorization-based and

exam-oriented, just as stated earlier, which firmly shapes students’ mindsets,
styles, and strategies for secondary and even tertiary education.
Echoing this, one of the participants remarked,

I think the teachers who are teaching at elementary schools and levels have
to be more knowledgeable and critical thinkers because at that time the
learners’ personality is shaped, not at PhD level!

The remarks of this participant and those of others show that there is a press-
ing need to start developing the critical and creative thinking skills from the very
beginning at primary schools.

Lack of knowledge
The third factor that postgraduate students of TEFL perceived as inhibiting
their efforts to think critically was lack of a strong knowledge base in CT, and
especially lack of knowledge of how to apply it in actual EFL learning envi-
ronments. This finding is partially corroborated by the results of Moradkhani
and Shirazizadeh (2017) and Soodmand Afshar and Farahani (2018), who both
found that lack of a firm knowledge base in reflection (as the root of CT) dis-
couraged Iranian EFL teachers and learners from acting reflectively. As Coyle
(2002) and Minott (2006) rightly hold, the given problem or situation is eval-
uated, analysed, and explored critically according to our existing knowledge
base. Thus, when students lack a firm knowledge base in CT, they cannot
readily analyse, evaluate, infer, and reason well. Supporting this, one of the
participants stated,

An in-depth knowledge base is a must for critical thinking. If you lack a

good knowledge base, you cannot analyse and evaluate things scientifically
and objectively.

Sociopolitical and cultural factors

The participants cited sociopolitical and cultural factors as a fourth obstacle to
developing their CT skills. As Thompson and Pascal (2012) maintain, human
beings are social creatures in nature, and thinking skills, besides being personal
and interpersonal, are also cultural and social. Therefore, socio-cultural factors
affect the way we think. That is, since school is regarded as a small-scale society, if
individualistic, atomistic, dogmatic only-one-right-answer-for-every-question,
inflexible approaches and perspectives are encouraged in society at large, then
we cannot expect to raise participatory, interactive learners at school. Supporting
this line of reasoning empirically, Kusumoto (2018) found that group discussions
in a learner-centred class enhanced CT in Japanese economics majors.
184  Hassan Soodmand Afshar

Corroborating this, one of the participants stated,

I think if more interaction with students is created in the class, they have
more opportunities to develop their critical thinking abilities.

He added,

The way we think also goes back to society. In our culture, people believe
that questioning the elders, the teachers, etc. somehow undermines their
authority. So, it is [considered a sign of ] disrespect. But, after all, questioning
broadens up the people’s minds!

Another participant, a senior PhD candidate, stated,

The sociopolitical and cultural context in which we are engaged affects our
critical thinking. For example, in more democratic and developed socie-
ties, the people automatically grow to be critical thinkers, but in underde-
veloped and developing countries, they are not grown to be very much so.

Lack of motivation
The fifth obstacle to CT mentioned by the participants was lack of motivation
on the part of the postgraduate students of TEFL. Previous research findings
(e.g. Bartlett, 1990; Soodmand Afshar & Farahani, 2018) show that the learn-
ers’ enthusiasm, interest, and motivation can influentially involve them in var-
ious thinking processes and skills, the lack of which might potentially act as an
obstacle to CT skills development. Along the same lines, CT skills can lead to
self-motivation and self-esteem of the learners (Bolitho et al., 2003; de Villa,
2017). One of the participants, corroborating this, said,

I say to myself, I learn this and that. Well, I think critically. So what? Who
cares? If I learn it from different perspectives, so what [happens]?

On the other hand, incorporating CT skills in language learning can also

enhance students’ motivation to enquire about and promote their thinking skills.
This shows that there is a reciprocal relationship between motivation and use of
thinking skills. In other words, it can be argued that the more motivated learners
are, the more likely they are to use thinking skills. Also, the more thinking skills
learners use, the more motivated they might become to do so.

Individual characteristics and personality factors

The last obstacle mentioned by the participants as hindering their thinking
critically was individual characteristics and personality factors. Jay and Johnson
(2002) and Akbari (2007) hold that individual differences and personality factors
 Postgraduate students’ perception of CT 185

make a difference in thinking skills. They, in fact, caution us against down-

grading such higher-order thinking skills as reflective thinking to a set of fixed,
invariable techniques to be acquired and/or applied equally well by all learners.
In support of this line of reasoning, one of the participants of the study stated,

Personal characteristics certainly play a role. Some people might accept

things more easily than the others. On the other hand, some people are
hard to please. They keep saying, why did you say that? What is the ideol-
ogy and philosophy behind that?

The last question of the study invited the participants to suggest how to
improve CT skills. To this end, the participants’ responses were subjected to
content analysis, the results of which are presented in descending order in
Table 9.4.

TABLE 9.4  Participants’ responses on how to improve their CT

Row Pattern/code

1 Reform in the educational system

2 Active learning, participation, and classroom interaction
3 Keeping reflective journals and diaries
4 Questioning

As indicated in Table 9.4, the first suggestion presented by the participants for
improving their CT skills was that a serious reform in the educational system of
the country was needed. Some Asian countries like Japan and China have already
started such efforts, but they are still lacking in Iran. As one of the participants
mentioned,

A complete overhaul of the educational system from the basis is necessary.

Usually the teachers teach the same way as they were taught. This must
change.

Another participant stressed the crucial role that curricula, syllabi, and mate-
rials can play:

The curricula provide food for thought. But, the curricula, materials, and
syllabi here are not challenging enough to give us enough chance or impe-
tus to think critically. The design of the curricula, materials, and syllabi
should encourage CT. They should raise students’ consciousness of CT to
enable them to think more deeply.

Unlike Atkinson’s (1997) reasoning that CT is mainly a cultural disposi-

tion that cannot be taught, the majority of the participants believed that CT is
teachable.
186  Hassan Soodmand Afshar

Corroborating this, one of the participants said,

We are not in the habit of thinking critically. We are just passive recipients
of knowledge, so the teacher or the educational system should teach us how
to think critically.

Another one remarked,

I don’t know how to think critically, you know, or how to approach it.
Nobody has told me, you know. Maybe it has some criteria, components,
or types. It must be encouraged by teachers or, I don’t know, even directly
taught.

The second suggestion offered by the participants was the need for active
learning, participation, and interaction. Thompson and Pascal (2012), listing the
tenets of reflective thinking, mention active learning and participative learning
as two of the main features of, or prerequisites for, reflective thinking — among
others, such as blending theory with practice and challenging dogma.
One of the participants remarked,

The culture of learning is very important. In most Asian countries, for

example, most of the learners are known to be passive. They regard the
teacher as a very high figure and don’t dare question him or her. So, there
is no interaction in the class. But, to increase critical thinking, you need
participation, collaboration, and interaction.

Another participant supported this stance as follows:

I think if you create more interaction with students or learners, probably,

they have more opportunities for critical thinking.

On the one hand, it is believed that thinking skills are acquired through
interaction, participation, and negotiation, as stated earlier. On the other hand,
foreign language development seems to be an indispensable part of active par-
ticipation in today’s world, considering the place of English as an international
language (EIL). This view can also be verified by the constructivists’ view
of language, which holds that knowledge is co-constructed through the acts
of communication, interaction, negotiation, and reflection. This reasoning
could also be justified from the socio-cultural perspective, wherein learning is
defined as negotiation and collaboration rather than as acquisition of knowledge
(Yang & Miller, 2004). That is, as Li (2011, p. 147) maintains, one of the mis-
sions of language is “to develop ideas and to negotiate concepts”, which implies
that “knowledge-based teaching” should be shifted to “skills-based learning”
 Postgraduate students’ perception of CT 187

to make learners self-directed, autonomous, and active. Vygotsky (1978)

argues that language use shapes thinking. Similarly, Rojas-Drummond and
Mercer (2003) hold that language learning and use have a significant impact
on thinking development.
The third suggestion mentioned by the participants for improving their CT
skills was “keeping reflective journals and diaries”. Reflective journals are believed
to enhance learners’ creative and critical thinking skills (Good & Whang, 2002)
and to boost their power of argumentation and reasoning (Abednia, Hovassapian,
Teimournezhad, & Ghanbari, 2013).
Highlighting this significance of reflective journals, one of the participants
stated,

I think one of the best ways to be a critical and reflective thinker is to keep
a diary to record what you read or do.

Another participant remarked,

When I read an article, I look at the references. They trigger me to read

more articles on the topic. So, from one article, I read many other articles
and I think them over and write whatever I understand in a notebook. I
always try to think more about what I’m learning, write it down, and think
it over.

The last suggestion presented by the participants to boost their CT included

“questioning”. As Li (2011, 2016a, 2016b) maintains, questions, especially open
and referential questions, have been found in the literature to enhance higher-
order thinking skills, including CT, through the thought-provoking interac-
tion that happens in the class. Hawkins (1998) maintains that “asking questions”
can result in students’ self-discovery of language, promotion of their thinking
skills, and their becoming problem solvers.
One of the participants, echoing this, stated,

Questioning triggers critical thinking. If you don’t raise any ques-

tions here in this class, you cannot develop our critical thinking skills.
Questioning, especially asking inferential questions, enhances critical
thinking.

Another one added,

Yeah, questioning in general and questioning even the established ways

of thinking can improve critical thinking. Everything, in fact, is started
with a question. If we [i.e. the students] question the managers, teachers,
positions, and so on, we are critical thinkers.
188  Hassan Soodmand Afshar

Conclusion and the implications of the study

The study set out to investigate how Iranian postgraduate students of TEFL
conceptualized CT, what obstacles they felt impeded their efforts to think and
act critically, and their suggestions for improving CT skills. To this end, the
CCTST-Form B was administered to 50 MA students and PhD candidates, and
four focus-group discussions were conducted. The results of CCTST revealed
that the participants were not critical thinkers in practice (i.e. they were able to
answer only about 16% of CCTST questions correctly).
The results of the content analysis of the focus-group discussions revealed that
the participants had partially true conceptualizations of CT, even though they
sometimes downgraded the concept to a simple “criticism”, for instance.
The participants also reported that some obstacles discouraged them from
thinking and acting critically. These included the educational system of the
country (i.e. the curricula, syllabi and materials, the teachers, the methods of
teaching and learning a foreign language, the gap between theory and practice,
etc.), lack of time, lack of a strong knowledge base in CT (especially how to
implement it), sociopolitical and cultural factors, students’ lack of motivation,
and personality factors.
The participants also shared some ideas on how to improve their CT skills.
These included the need for a serious reform in the educational system, active
learning, participation, and interaction, keeping reflective journals and
diaries, and questioning.
This shows that Iranian postgraduate students of TEFL were partially aware
of CT conceptually; however, they were not much able to implement it in actual
classroom settings or in their learning, which was found to be one of the obsta-
cles hindering their efforts to think and act critically. Of course, as rightly put
by the German philosopher Hegel, “to be aware of limitations is already to be
beyond them”. That is, as the findings showed, the participants, having become
aware of the limitations and obstacles, suggested some fruitful solutions to the
problem at hand, the most important one of which was the need for a serious
reform in the (EFL) education system of the country. Put simply, there is a press-
ing need to reform the educational system and to incorporate, into the curric-
ula, syllabi, and materials, thinking skills in general and CT skills in particular.
It will also be important to change the memorization-based, exam-oriented,
atomistic, non-participatory, passive, and managerialistic educational system,
which, as the participants frequently remarked, has undermined their criticality,
reflectivity, and creativity. As the famous contemporary Persian poet Sohrab
Sepehri (cited in Emami, 1997, pp. 114–115) puts it, “Eyes should be washed, to
see things in a different way” and “We should fold our umbrellas, / And walk
out into the rain, / We should take with us, / All our ideas and memories [italics
mine] into the rain”. Seeing things differently and walking in the rain with the
umbrella folded (i.e. taking the risk to think and act differently) are, at least
partially, what CT is about.
 Postgraduate students’ perception of CT 189

This key reform, to incorporate thinking skills into the curricula and pro-
grammes, has already taken place in various educational systems throughout the
world. However, to the best of my knowledge, this has not yet happened here in
Iran, nor perhaps in some Asian countries. Therefore, first, EFL education pol-
icy makers and curriculum developers, syllabus designers, and materials writers
especially for postgraduate programmes in TEFL are strongly urged to draw up a
comprehensive plan to incorporate critical, reflective, and creative thinking skills
into their policies, curricula, syllabi, and materials and to teach these skills explic-
itly and practically, as echoed by the participants in the study, if they intend not to
fall any more behind the international trend in other contexts as mentioned earlier.
Second, the EFL teachers would be well advised to provide an open-to-criticism,
tolerant, interactive, active, and participative atmosphere in their classes, so that the
students do not take the things the teacher says or does for granted. Rather, they
should be encouraged to participate in discussions and to freely negotiate meanings,
ideas, and questions with their classmates and teachers so that they can promote
their thinking skills through participation, negotiation, discussion, and interac-
tion. Third, the students themselves should see the need and persevere enough to
question and challenge the ideas and materials presented to them and to make use
of their power of reasoning, argumentation, analysis, inference, evaluation, and
interpretation in the language classroom and beyond, rather than remaining silent
during the whole class period. I have sometimes begged my postgraduate students
to inject their ideas and comments and/or to raise questions about the topic under
discussion, but too often I have been unable to elicit anything from some!

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest thanks and gratitude to my dear postgraduate
students here at the department who kindly completed the CCTST and generously
and enthusiastically provided me with their invaluable comments and discussions. I
also thank my dear family members, my dear wife, and my lovely kids, Mahan and
Mersana, who patiently tolerated and energized and re-energized me throughout
the completion of this study. Thanks also go to my dear colleague here, Dr. Mostafa
Hosseini, who kindly provided me with the translation of Sohrab Sepehri’s work.
Last but not least, my heartfelt thanks go to Dr. Li and the publisher, Routledge,
who provided me with the opportunity to present the work.

References
Abednia, A., Hovassapian, A., Teimournezhad, S., & Ghanbari, N. (2013). Reflective journal
writing: Exploring in-service EFL teachers’ perception. System, 41, 503–514.
Akbari, R. (2007). Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2
teacher education. System, 35, 192–207.
Anderson, S. R. (1985). Phonology in the twentieth century: Theories of rules and theories of
representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
31, 9–37.
190  Hassan Soodmand Afshar

Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan
(Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 202–214). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bhatia,V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Black, B. (2012). An overview of a programme of research to support the assessment of
critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(2), 122–133.
Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R., Ivanič, R., Masuhara, H., & Tomlinson, B. (2003). Ten
questions about language awareness. ELT Journal, 57(3), 251–259.
Brechin, A., Brown, H., & Eby, M. A. (2000). Introduction. In A. Brechin, H. Brown, & M. A.
Eby (Eds.), Critical practice in health and social care (pp. ix–xv). London: Sage.
California critical thinking skills test: User manual and resource guide. (2016). San Jose, CA:
California Academic Press. Retrieved from www.insightassessment.com
Carroll, R.T. (2004). Becoming a critical thinker: A guide for the new millennium (2nd ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Custom Pub.
Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity:The art of common talk. New York: Routledge.
Chamot, A. (1995). Creating a community of thinkers in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESOL
Matters, 5(5), 1–16.
Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical thinking skills. London: Pallgrave Macmillan.
Coyle, D. (2002). The case for reflective model of teacher education in fundamental principles module.
Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.
Davidson, B.W. (1998). A case for critical thinking in the English language classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(1), 119–223.
de Villa, A. (2017). Critical thinking in language learning and teaching. History Research, 7(2),
73–77.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellwood, C. (2000). Dissolving and resolving cultural expectations: Socio-cultural approaches
to program development for international students. Proceedings of the national language
and academic skills conference, La Trobe University.
Emami, K. (1997). From the ups and downs of translation: Seven papers. Tehran: Niloofar
Publications.
Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179–186.
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed
research. Educational Researcher 18(3), 4–10.
Facione, P.A. (1992). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test and test manual. Millbrae, CA:
California Academic Press.
Facione, P. A. (2000).The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and
relationship to critical thinking skills. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84.
Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Millbrae, CA: California
Academic Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Farley, M. J., & Elmore, P. B. (1992). The relationship of reading comprehension to critical
thinking skills, cognitive ability, and vocabulary for a sample of underachieving college
freshmen. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 921–931.
Fisher, A. (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ghonsooly, B., & Showqi, S. (2012). The effects of foreign language learning on creativity.
English Language Teaching, 5(4), 161–167.
Good, J. M., & Whang, P. A. (2002). Encouraging reflection in preservice teachers through
response journals. The Teacher Educator, 37, 254–267.
 Postgraduate students’ perception of CT 191

Hawkins, M. R. (1998). Apprenticing nonnative speakers to new discourse communities.

TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 129–132.
Jacob, G. M., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2001). Paradigm shift: Understanding and implementing
change in second language education. TESL-EJ, 5(1), 1–16.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice
for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73–85.
Ku, Y. L. K. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measure-
ments using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 70–76.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post method.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kusumoto, Y. (2018). Enhancing critical thinking through active learning. CercleS, 8(1),
45–63.
Li, L. (2011). Obstacles and opportunities for developing thinking through interaction in
language classrooms. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(3), 146–158.
Li, L. (2016a). Integrating thinking skills in foreign language learning: What can we learn
from teachers’ perspectives? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 273–288. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.09.008
Li, L. (2016b). Thinking skills and creativity in second language education: Where are we
now? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 267–272.
Liaw, M. (2007). Content-based reading and writing for critical thinking skills in an EFL
context. English Teaching and Learning, 31(2), 45–87.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Li, L., & Wegerif, R. (2014).What does it mean to teach thinking in China? Challenging and
developing notions of “Confucian Education”. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 11, 22–32.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.09.003
Long, C. (2003). Critical thinking and English education. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics, 7, 215–224.
Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in ado-
lescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
6, 1–13.
Marzban, A., & Ashraafi, N. (2016). Assessing reflective thinking skills in EFL/ESL instruc-
tors based on differences in graduation degree and nationality. Reflective Practice, 17(6),
681–693. doi: 10.1080/14623943.2016.120687
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode
of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 13–168.
Minott, M. A. (2006). Reflection and reflective teaching: A case study of four seasoned teach-
ers in the Cayman Islands (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, England.
Moradkhani, Sh., & Shirazizadeh, M. (2017). Context-based variations in EFL teachers’
reflection: The case of public schools versus private institutes in Iran. Reflective Practice,
18(2), 206–218.
Nugent, P. M., & Vitale, B. R. (2008). Fundamental success: A course review applying critical think-
ing to test taking (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis.
Pally, M. (1997). Critical thinking in ESL: An argument for sustained content. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 6(3), 293–311.
Pascal, J., & Brown, G. (2009). Ontology, epistemology and methodology for teaching
research methods. In M. Garner, C.Wagner, & B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching research methods
in the social sciences. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
192  Hassan Soodmand Afshar

Pica, T. (2000). Tradition and transition in English language teaching methodology. System,
29, 1–18.
Rafi, M. S. (2010). Promoting critical pedagogy in language education. International Research
Journal of Arts & Humanities (IRJAH), 37, 63–73.
Rojas-Drummond, S. M., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective
collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99–111.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic
Books.
Soko, A., Oget, D., Sonntag, M., & Khomenko, N. (2008). The development of inventive
thinking skills in the upper secondary language classroom. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
3(1), 34–46.
Soodmand Afshar, H., & Farahani, M. (2018). Inhibitors to EFL teachers’ reflective teaching
and EFL learners’ reflective thinking and the role of teaching experience and academic
degree in reflection perception. Reflective Practice, 19(1), 46–67.
Soodmand Afshar, H., & Hamzavi, R. (2014). The relationship among reflective thinking,
listening anxiety and listening comprehension of Iranian EFL learners: Does proficiency
make a difference? Issues in Language Teaching (ILT), 3(2), 237–261.
Soodmand Afshar, H., & Movassagh, H. (2017). On the relationship among critical thinking,
language learning strategy use, and university achievement of Iranian English as a foreign
language majors. The Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 382–398.
Soodmand Afshar, H., Movassagh, H., & Radi Arbabi, H. (2017).The interrelationship among
critical thinking, writing an argumentative essay in an L2 and their subskills. The Language
Learning Journal, 45(4), 419–433.
Soodmand Afshar, H., & Rahimi, M. (2014). The relationship among emotional intel-
ligence, critical thinking, and speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. TELL, 8(1),
31–59.
Soodmand Afshar, H., & Rahimi, M. (2016). Reflective thinking, emotional intelligence,
and speaking ability of EFL learners: Is there a relation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19,
97–111.
Tarvin,W., & Al-Arishi, A. (1991). Rethinking communicative language teaching: Reflection
and the EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 9–27.
Thompson, N., & Pascal, E. J. (2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective
Practice, 13, 311–325.
Thompson, S., & Thompson, N. (2008). The critically reflective practitioner. Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four
institutional case studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 740–763.
Tumposky, N. (1989). Foreign language learners as critical thinkers. Inquiry: Critical Thinking
Across the Disciplines, 4(4), 13–16. doi: 10.5840/inquiryctnews19894447
Vandermensbrugghe, J. (2004). The unbearable vagueness of critical thinking in the context
of the anglo-saxonisation of education. International Education Journal, 5(3), 417–422.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning:
An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development.
Learning and Instruction, 9(6), 493–516. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00013-4
Yang, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL
writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 519–535.
Yang, Y. C. (2012). Cultivating critical thinkers: Exploring transfer of learning from preser-
vice teacher training to classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1116–1130.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.007
 Postgraduate students’ perception of CT 193

Appendix: 1 Focus-group discussions questions

We are going to talk about critical thinking. Please take part in the discussion
actively and share your valuable ideas with me and your classmates specifically
bearing the following questions in mind:

1. How do you define critical thinking? Elaborate please.

2. What are some obstacles or barriers to critical thinking of Iranian post-graduate
students of TEFL?
3. How do you think your critical thinking skills can be enhanced and
improved?
4. How do you think CT helps foreign language learning in general and you
in your academic activities in particular?

You can give examples, narrate memories of your own experience of learning
as related to critical thinking, and say whatever else you think is related to the
topic and the questions mentioned.
Thank you very much for your kind cooperation and contribution in
advance.
194  Hassan Soodmand Afshar

Appendix 2
Descriptive statistics of the responses to individual items of CCTST-Form B

Item no. N F P M SD

1 50 7 14.00 0.14 0.35

2 50 14 28.00 0.28 0.45
3 50 11 22.00 0.22 0.41
4 50 22 44.00 0.44 0.50
5 50 8 16.00 0.16 0.37
6 50 8 16.00 0.16 0.37
7 50 7 14.00 0.14 0.35
8 50 1 2.00 0.02 0.14
9 50 7 14.00 0.14 0.35
10 50 11 22.00 0.22 0.4
11 50 9 18.00 0.17 0.36
12 50 7 14.00 0.14 0.35
13 50 0 0.00 0 0
14 50 11 22.00 0.21 0.40
15 50 5 10.00 0.1 0.30
16 50 2 4.00 0.04 0.19
17 50 2 4.00 0.04 0.19
18 50 5 10.00 0.09 0.27
19 50 1 2.00 0.02 0.14
20 50 2 4.00 0.04 0.19
21 50 11 22.00 0.23 0.41
22 50 6 12.00 0.12 0.32
23 50 6 12.00 0.12 0.32
24 50 2 4.00 0.04 0.19
25 50 14 28.00 0.29 0.43
26 50 10 20.00 0.21 0.40
27 50 9 18.00 0.18 0.38
28 50 7 14.00 0.15 0.34
29 50 17 34.00 0.35 0.47
30 50 22 44.00 0.44 0.50
31 50 5 10.00 0.11 0.30
32 50 13 26.00 0.26 0.42
33 50 9 18.00 0.19 0.38
34 50 16 32.00 0.31 0.45
10
TEACHER COGNITION OF
CREATIVITY IN PRIMARY
EFL CLASSROOMS
Xuying Fan and Li Li

Introduction
There is a wealth of research literature on the development of creativity in edu-
cational contexts worldwide, revealing the significance of promoting creativ-
ity in expanding learners’ opportunities to become 21st-century learners and
global citizens (e.g. Li, 2011, 2016; Wegerif, 2010, 2015; Xerri & Vassallo, 2016).
Promoting learners’ creativity has become one essential objective in EFL edu-
cation in many regions, such as China (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2011).
Research studies suggest that creativity can be developed during EFL learn-
ing and that, in return, creativity improves foreign language prof iciency
(e.g. McDonough, Crawford, & Mackey, 2015; Xerri & Vassallo, 2016). As evi-
denced in the literature, higher-order thinking (HOT) such as creative thinking
often takes place to facilitate successful communication (Mercer, 2000; Mercer
& Littleton, 2007).
Language classroom interaction is an effective and dynamic context for prac-
tising the use of the target language for social interaction (Cook, 2000; Ellies,
1999; Li, 2011). This is particularly the case in primary EFL classrooms, where
teachers facilitate learners’ learning by making pedagogical decisions and com-
municating them via instruction, building up interaction patterns, and promot-
ing different forms of talk in class (Myhill, Jones, & Hopper, 2006). Hence,
teachers’ knowledge of creativity, which is implicitly embedded in their talk, can
directly affect children’s development of creativity and eventually influence their
learning outcomes (Borg, 2006; Myhill, 2006; Myhill et al., 2006). Recognizing
the importance of creativity and the significance of the teacher’s role, and taking
mainland China as an example, this chapter sets out to explore teacher cognition
about creativity to map out teachers’ beliefs and practices of creativity that policy
makers can utilize to improve the educational community.
196  Xuying Fan and Li Li

Defining creativity
The definition of creativity is developmental because there are various lenses
to see it through, such as the psychoanalytic perspective (Sternberg & Lubart,
1999), cognitive approach (Albert & Runco, 1999; Sawyer, 2003), behaviourist
approach (Craft, Gardner, & Claxton, 2008), humanistic approach (Craft, Dugal,
Dyer, Jeffrey, & Lyons, 1997), and post-humanizing approach (Chappell, 2018).
Among the different perspectives on creativity, some perceive creativity as a trait,
assuming that a person’s creativity is a matter of personality and that divergent
thinking featuring flexibility and originality is the primary component of cre-
ativity (Ellis, 2016). Viewing creativity as product-oriented is another approach,
assuming that the creative product is both original and useful (Sternberg &
Lubart, 1999) and that the “subjectivity of feeling, and in-depth insights, [are]
often made manifest in creative products, for example in art” (Craft, 2011, p.19).
Others assume that creativity is process-oriented and thus fundamental in all
areas of life (National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education
[NACCCE], 1999). In this respect, creativity is not only a multifaceted generative
process that is not limited to the generation of novel ideas, but also a construc-
tive behaviour that produces possibilities and new embodiments of knowledge
(Knight, 2002; McGregor, 2007). It is concerned with the process in which one
makes connections with ideas to produce new understanding, new relationships,
and new perceptions of issues.
Because it is difficult to offer a precise definition of creativity, the Four C
conceptual model of creativity was introduced to articulate the nature of this
concept. Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) framed the four C’s as follows: Big-C
creativity is the remarkable contribution and giftedness of an individual (Craft,
2005); Pro-C creativity is consistent with professional expertise; little-c creativity
is everyday creativity that everyone draws on to solve challenges in daily life
(Craft, 2001; Craft, Jeffrey, & Leibling, 2001); and mini-c creativity consists of
the novel and personally meaningful interpretation of experiences, actions and
events” (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007, p. 73). It is the “dynamic and interpretive
process of structuring personal knowledge and understanding within a particular
sociocultural context” (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p. 3). In this model, mini-c
creativity yields the personal meaning-making that expands the concept of
little-c creativity (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007).
In relation to education, the notion of little-c creativity is probably most
relevant (Craft, 2001), because it is “a seamless part of everyday curriculum”
(Beghetto & Kaufman, 2010, p. 198) and provides more general and thought-
ful insights into how learners construct and make sense of ideas interperson-
ally (NACCCE, 1999). This category stimulates creative expression for most
learners, and learning new knowledge might lead to creative practice. In foreign
language education, creativity is a strong means to motivate learners to engage
in learning, and to enable teachers to teach effectively ( Jones, 2016). To use
target language for successful communication, one needs to be flexible in order
 Creativity cognition in primary EFL classrooms 197

to recontextualize the linguistic resources that one has accumulated, and to use
language to create, conform to, and transform the turns to accomplish the social
interaction (Mercer, 1995). Learners who have little competence in L2 need to
be creative in order to utilize their limited linguistic resources to adjust to the
situational and dialogic context in such a way as to make their meaning under-
stood (Ellis, 2016; Jones, 2016). This leads to the belief that creativity is not just
an individual property, but something that could be developed with others in an
open dialogic space (Wegerif, 2010). Thus, the little-c creativity approach is used
in this chapter to explore teacher cognition of creativity during classroom inter-
action, because it focuses on everyday creativity, including knowledge, technical
skills, personal insights, and attitudes. The social and interactive nature of cre-
ativity addresses socio-cultural and historical factors that influence its expres-
sion (Rudowicz, 2004). Thus, one needs to position the discussion of creativity
within a certain socio-cultural context.
In the Chinese context, it is suggested that “thinking” means reflective
thinking, which involves creativity and criticality (Li & Wegerif, 2014).
Chinese learners are encouraged to engage in deep thinking before they speak
(Li, 2015). Hence, silent engagement could be an indication that learners are
involved in deep thinking — that they are looking at a question from a holistic
point of view and weighing their ideas against those of others. This approach
is similar to the definitions of creativity given by the various research studies,
which show that the process of creative thinking involves generating multi-
ple ideas and then selecting the most useful, effective, or appropriate ideas in
order to have a workable solution to the problem (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999;
Yaqoob, 2012). Engagement of Chinese learners in inner dialogue with multi-
ple voices also seems to be beneficial in generating new and creative thoughts
(Li, 2015).
Consistent with the above definitions of creativity, we can see that originality
is the key feature in creativity. The NACCCE (1999) proposed a definition of
creativity as an imaginative activity that enables learners to produce original
and valuable outcomes. Being original can be divided into a number of differ-
ent levels. It can be the unexpected and highly original contribution that can
change the world (Sternberg, 1999), or it can consist of original possible solutions
for everyday practice. In this study, the enrichment of creativity leads to the
ability to perceive things in a new way, to recognize unforeseen problems, and
to generate unique, original, and effective solutions suitable in different con-
texts (McGregor, 2007). Therefore, it is not a randomized process of thinking:
rather, everyday creativity involves logic and making sense of real-life scenar-
ios. Thus, critical thinking is one of the features that constitute creativity. The
creative process or a creative product needs to be critically evaluated in order
to discover and examine multiple possibilities and determine what works, and
what does not work, to ensure that the creative process is appropriate to the
task at hand, and to assess its value via reflective scepticism (Brookfield, 1987;
NACCCE, 1999).
198  Xuying Fan and Li Li

Possibility thinking is also at the heart of little-c creativity, which children

exhibit in articulating “what if ” and “as if ” thinking, positioning themselves in
other personae scenarios that often emerge from their lifeworlds (Craft, 2015;
Walsh, Chappell, & Craft, 2017). This concept helps us to understand how chil-
dren inhabit the world with their imagination (Wegerif, Li, & Kaufman, 2015).
This is particularly important in language learning in that possibility thinking
allows children space to immerse themselves into a benign environment where
they can play with the language within the “as if ” space, questioning the lan-
guage as they try to make connections between things they imagine and the
real-life situation, decide what actions to engage in for a task, and take risks try-
ing out their creative ideas. This leads to the feature of playfulness, because play
is a behaviour that is used to make connections and draw associations among dif-
ferent concepts (Tsai, 2012). In foreign language learning, children need to use
their playful imagination to make associations or draw inferences from different
terms or phrases to try to generate meaningful sentences in English. Play is also
a mood that stimulates learners’ creative thinking. Tsai (2012) concluded from
a range of playful activities that the main purpose of those activities is to “play”
and investigate various pathways to solve problems. It is the playfulness that has
positive effects on learning, creating fruitful learning experiences and a positive
attitude that facilitates learners’ creative development (Kangas, 2010).
This approach is similar to the definitions of creativity given in the various
research studies which show that the process of creative thinking involves gener-
ating multiple ideas and then selecting the more useful, effective, or appropriate
ideas in order to have a workable solution to the problem (Sternberg & Lubart,
1999; Yaqoob, 2012).

Teacher cognition of creativity

Teacher cognition has been understood as teaching practitioners’ knowledge,
thoughts, and beliefs about their classroom practices (Kagan, 1990). Teacher
cognition can be multifaceted, because it is informed by their own critical
insights and teaching practices and is shaped by contextual factors. As we can
see, teachers have the central role in the classroom: They make judgements and
decisions in the dynamic teaching and learning environments which have great
impacts on learners’ learning outcomes (Borg, 2003). First, teachers’ knowledge
of creativity influences their beliefs about it and their practices in teaching cre-
ativity. Because teachers’ beliefs are closely related to their personal practical
knowledge, one can assume that teachers’ knowledge of creativity exists at a
very personal level derived from their experiences and shaped by their cultural
heritage (Mak, 2011; Sun, 2012), to form their patterns of actions in an EFL
class (Ellis, 2006). A systematic review of the literature (1999–2015) conducted
by Mullet, Willerson, Lamb, and Kettler (2016) showed that teachers’ personal
and cultural beliefs affect their perceptions of creativity and the characteristics
of creative learners. A study conducted by Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds
 Creativity cognition in primary EFL classrooms 199

(2005) found that teachers had multiple misconceptions about creativity, which
affected their attitudes toward creativity and the creative students’ behaviours.
Second, teachers’ beliefs might be either strong or less intense, depending on
socio-cultural factors such as past learning experiences, their knowledge, the
cultural context, and prevailing policy (Borg, 2006). Therefore, teacher cog-
nition is a developmental dimension in that teachers’ beliefs can be formed or
changed through their teacher education programme (Warford & Reeves, 2003;
Li, 2012). Complex beliefs about creativity and teaching practices are evident
in research studies. For instance, Mak’s research (2011) revealed the conflicting
beliefs of an EFL teacher in teaching practice, indicating that some culturally
bound beliefs might override the teacher’s teaching decisions. Forrester and Hui
(2007) revealed that learners’ development of creativity is positively related to
teachers’ creative personality and teaching techniques. One recent study con-
ducted by Li (2016) reported that creative thinking has been perceived as less
important in language classrooms than in other subjects. Other contextual fac-
tors, such as a lack of teaching time, undesirable learner performance in creative
tasks, and a tight and overloaded curriculum, have also been identified as influ-
encing teachers’ beliefs about promoting creativity (Cheng, 2010).

Classroom discourse and creativity

Classroom interaction is essential for EFL learning since learners can practise
their language and develop communication skills if time and space are given.
During interaction, individuals seek agreement to complete tasks or develop
alternatives in order to achieve the learning goal (Hung & Higgins, 2015). This
requires students to use their creativity. It also enables teachers to gain insights
into how their students learn.
The discourse pattern IRF (initiate, respond, feedback; Sinclair & Coulthard,
1975) has been recognized as one of the most popular interaction patterns in learn-
ing and teaching (Higgins, 2015). There are various functions of initiation, and
teacher questioning can be used to probe learners’ speaking and stimulate their
thinking (e.g. Smith & Higgins, 2006; Li, 2011). However, the effectiveness of
teacher-talk on students’ creativity is not solely question-bound; rather, it derives
from all the features embedded in the interaction that form a mutual exchange
between teacher and students. For example, in order to facilitate pupils’ subsequent
use of talk for creative thinking and learning, feedback can have powerful effects on
follow-up learning, such as the level of discussion on a certain topic after the teach-
er’s initiation (Smith & Higgins, 2006). Walsh (2002) shows that a teacher’s talk has
a major impact on learners’ involvement in learning in terms of error correction,
giving constructive feedback, extending wait time (Ingram & Elliott, 2016), and
scaffolding. Therefore, the way teachers use their talk can either provide opportu-
nities or obstruct learners’ development of creativity (İnceçay, 2010). In terms of
creative language use, recent English L1 studies on spoken interaction revealed that
creative language use includes playful language (Carter, 2004; Tagg, 2012).
200  Xuying Fan and Li Li

Research design
Informed by the aforementioned literature on the significance of teacher cog-
nition in EFL classrooms, I intend to explore and illuminate the insiders’ views
associated with teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and teaching practices regarding
creativity in EFL classrooms. Hence, this study sets out to investigate teachers’
conceptions of creativity, their perceptions of implementing creativity and strat-
egies to do so, and how they actually promote creativity in EFL classrooms.
This exploratory case study was conducted in one state primary school in
Guangdong Province, China, and four EFL teachers participated in the study
(see Table 10.1).
Semi-structured interviews and classroom video recordings were used to pro-
vide a fuller picture of EFL teacher cognition on creativity. The interview data
were analysed by using thematic content analysis. The video-recording anal-
ysis mainly focused on identifying how teachers promote learners’ creativity
through an interactive process, using the insights of teachers’ perspectives from
their interviews, principles of dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2017), and the fea-
tures of Exploratory Talk from socio-cultural discourse analysis to identify the
“creative thinking moment” from the teacher-learner interaction (Mercer, 2004).
I have used Jefferson’s system of transcription notation to capture what was said
in these conversations, and to illuminate the details of complex interaction in
EFL classrooms ( Jefferson, 2004; see the Appendix).

Findings
Teachers’ conceptions of creativity
Although all the participants reported that they had little experience in defining
creativity, they expressed their own understanding of it. For example, Han and
Lei expressed their views:

HAN:  When a learner masters the sentence structure, he can bring in other words
to make it a new sentence. This is a way to foster creativity. It is also about
flexibility.
LEI:  I would also ask them to think of the words which have the same phonet-
ics, and present their ideas in class. In this way, they could develop creative
thinking.

TABLE 10.1  Participants’ information

Participant Year group Number of students Students’ age Teaching experience (years)

Mei Year 2 48 7–8 10

Lei Year 3 40 8–9 4
Han Year 4 40 9–10 6
Wei Year 6 42 11–12 16
 Creativity cognition in primary EFL classrooms 201

Their understanding stressed “new contribution” or innovation in their state-

ments, which seems to relate to originality in creativity. Their examples elabo-
rated that creativity is process-oriented (Craft, 2005; McGregor, 2007). However,
using different words in one sentence and reproducing the same phonetics for
different vocabulary are associated with practising or repetition drill, rather than
with producing original ideas. Therefore, their conceptions of creative thinking
are more related to the reconstruction of knowledge and a reproduction process.
Moreover, Mei’s definition of creativity seems to be similar to the concept of
possibility thinking:

The bus isn’t going to the beach, what can they do? I would provide instruc-
tions to the learners and tell them that there is more than one answer to this
question. They need to have different ideas and these ideas are related to the
same topic.

Mei’s understanding of creative thinking is related to possibility thinking in

terms of the “what if ” nature, because she would create some “as if ” scenario to
stimulate learners’ creative thinking. The features of imagination and problem
solving might also be promoted in class, according to her reported practice, because
the children need to imagine the situation and produce solutions to solve the “what
if ” problem. Her statement also indicates that she values creative thoughts, and
these thoughts should be relevant to the topics rather than randomized ideas.
From teachers’ perspectives, another important element of creative thinking
is critical thinking. In Wei’s definition of creativity, she claims,

I think creativity is about presenting different personal views. I would like my

learners to present new ideas towards an issue, rather than stick to the only
answer. As long as they can justify and be reasonable, I will accept the answers.

Wei expected different ideas from learners, indicated that creative thinking
embraced alternatives and kept options open, and believed that evaluating, chal-
lenging, and exploring ideas are embedded in the creative process, which in similar
to critical thinking in ensuring that the answer is valuable in context (Craft, 2005).

Teachers’ beliefs about promoting creativity

All of the teachers held positive attitudes in promoting creativity in an EFL class;
however, they have reversed their positive beliefs about promoting creativity,
because of the exam-oriented educational system and teachers’ limited knowl-
edge of creativity. First, the performative framework of the Chinese education
system affected their decision about promoting creativity in class:

HAN:  I would spend more time on teaching linguistic knowledge than any other
aspects as it would be tested in exams.
202  Xuying Fan and Li Li

WEI:  The headmistress of the school would come and talk to you if the stu-
dents’ exam results were not good enough. Given that situation, most of
the teachers would just give up teaching thinking but focus on teaching
linguistics which is tested in the exams. This is more efficient than teaching
other things.
LEI:  It would be teachable only if parents show understanding and pay less atten-
tion to exam results.

It is clear that EFL teachers regarded creativity development as something

extra that could be omitted from their teaching, because it was not tested in the
exams and was thus irrelevant to their professional evaluation.
Second, teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge of promoting creativity
was reported to be limited. Mei maintained, What is creativity? is a fundamental
question to be solved before promoting it in class. Lei explained that limited con-
tent and pedagogical knowledge were the factors that undermined her positive
attitude towards promoting creativity:

It is risk-taking to promote learners’ creativity as I have insufficient

understanding of this knowledge, and I’m afraid that I might mislead the
students.

Wei confirmed that teachers puzzled over designing tasks and struggled
with the preparation time. They would either give up teaching thinking skills
because these would not be evaluated in the exams, or stay up late to prepare
their teaching.
Besides this, EFL teachers’ past learning was reflected in their contrasting
beliefs about promoting creativity. Traditional learning methods such as mem-
orizing vocabularies and grammar rules were assumed to be essential for suc-
cessful foreign language learning. For example, Lei understood that creativity
was important for language learners, but her suggestion of the best way to learn
English was through learning grammar, according to her experience of being a
successful language learner and exam-taker in the past.
Only Wei maintained that the ideal way to learn English is through classroom
interaction:

It is significant to maintain equal relations between teachers and learners

as learners could perform naturally in the tasks and develop their English
proficiency.

Wei explained that her current teaching belief was influenced by her past
learning experience when she was taught and learned English in a traditional
way. Because being interactive in class is essential for developing children’s crea-
tivity, Wei would provide the space for children to develop their creativity; this
has also been found in her teaching practices (see Extract 1).
 Creativity cognition in primary EFL classrooms 203

Teachers’ reported strategies for promoting creativity

According to the teachers’ interpretations, creativity would be developed through
classroom interaction, such as peer interaction, silent ways of learning, effec-
tive feedback, tolerance of incorrect responses, and creative teaching. The class-
room-based interactive learning environment benefits peer interaction, where
children could learn from each other even when they were in silence:

HAN: If one learner demonstrates an idea in front of the class, others could
observe, listen, and learn from him/her.
LEI:  The low-attaining learners might not have the opportunity to express their
thoughts during interaction, but they listen and learn from those who are
more competent. I think this is a way of thinking skills’ development.
WEI:  Some learners shared what they have seen or experienced in other places, and
this created an environment which allowed learners to communicate. They
used English to interact and they would reflect their thoughts. Sometimes
learners would learn new vocabulary and generate new ideas for a topic.

Teachers encourage a silent way of learning that accompanied learners’ think-

ing process and “inner reflection”, which has the potential to promote creativ-
ity (Li & Wegerif, 2014). Learners receive information from their peers when
they interact with the teacher or others, and then they process that informa-
tion through applying diverse ways of thinking, such as relating it to their prior
knowledge, analysing, reasoning, generating new ideas, and constructing new
meaning to understand. This is related to Chinese reflective thinking, where
children experience inner reflection within multiple voices to extract the infor-
mation and internalize the knowledge (Li, 2015). It is not a passive way of learn-
ing; rather, it represents learners’ active ways of silent learning, which supports
creativity enrichment.
Providing encouraging feedback is another strategy that teachers would
use. Mei and Wei reported that teachers’ affirmative and enthusiastic feedback
would be supportive to learners’ language and creativity development, because
such feedback encourages and acknowledges students’ thoughts and creates a
light-hearted atmosphere in which to learn. Tolerance of inaccurate answers
was another way of giving feedback to promote learners’ creativity and foreign
language development:

HAN:  I often show my appreciation for students’ contributions in the class even
when the answers are incorrect because children had made their efforts in
learning and thinking.
WEI:  It is a way to allow students to show their personality in class, which makes
them feel that the teacher appreciates their ideas, and their efforts are being
valued. In this way, thinking skills would be developed. Otherwise, they
would stop participating because they would assume that the teacher would
be angry at them if they replied with incorrect answers.
204  Xuying Fan and Li Li

The tolerance suggested by the teachers could be interpreted as encourage-

ment in giving feedback that could increase learners’ motivation. Especially
when learning English, children would be inspired if they were allowed to
play with the language and use their creativity and imagination to transform
their thoughts into spoken language. They would also learn from making
mistakes.
The EFL teachers believed that creative teaching leads to the development of
creativity. Thus, they would design different tasks to promote learners’ creative
thinking.

MEI:  Iwould ask them to imagine the follow-up stories of a topic as a way to
inspire them to think.

Mei defined this “follow-up stories” activity as creative teaching that allowed
learners to develop their creative thinking skills and opened up a space for them
to challenge and develop each other’s ideas. Additionally, Wei proposed that
using games in language learning is creative teaching and leads to the develop-
ment of creativity. However, creative teaching and teaching for creativity are
two different concepts, and creative teaching practice would not necessarily pro-
mote children’s creativity (see Extract 2).

Promoting creativity in practice

Below is one of Wei’s teaching practices which demonstrated her conception of
creativity, and the moments for promoting creativity during interaction. The
aim of this lesson was to teach past tense. Learners were required to describe
two pictures of unpolluted and polluted Earth by using present and past tenses
in English.

Extract 1 (Wei, Year 6)

1. T: How about these pictures. Before, and now. It is our Earth, OK. Talk
2. about it with your partner.
3. Ss: ((Discussion)) (33.9)
4. T: NAME
5. S1: The Earth was clean before, but it’s dirty now.
6. T: Good idea. Clean before, dirty now, and who else, who else? NAME
7. S2: The Earth was healthy before, but it’s unhealthy now.
8. T: Very good idea. The Earth is healthy before, but it’s unhealthy now. You
9. know that, we talked about the pollution, right. What else, what else,
NAME,
10. would you try?
11. S3: The Earth, the Earth was happy before, but it is crying now.
12. T: Yes, but it is sad now. Right. The Earth was happy before, but it’s
sad now.
 Creativity cognition in primary EFL classrooms 205

13. It is crying. OK, nice idea, what else? You try ((Invite S4))
14. S4: The Earth was beautiful before, but it’s ugly now.
15. T: Yes, it was beautiful before, but it’s ugly now. NAME
16. S5: The ((/ðə/)) Earth is
17. T: The ((/ði:/)) Earth
18. S5: The((/ði:/)) Earth is::
19. Ss: was/was/was ((noise))
20. S5: (9.2) The Earth was strong before, it’s weak now.
21. T: Nice idea, I like it. Yes, strong and:: weak 现在很虚弱很脆弱 ((it’s
very weak now)). OK.
22. Strong and weak. ((Unclear))The Earth one two go
23. Ss: The Earth was strong before, but it is weak now.
24. T: Any more? 刚才的同学讲得非常好 ((very good answers from S5)).
Imagination OK.
25. 想象力 ((Chinese translation)).

First, the notion of little-c is applicable here because the creative expressions
that learners shared in the class or in their groups came from their individual
imaginations (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2010). Creativity is process-oriented in that
learners construct the meaning by connecting what they know (the adjectives
and the tenses) to produce new and imaginative ideas, and co-construction of
meaning could be taking place during discussion. In this episode, Wei embraced
different ideas by inviting learners to present their imaginative responses and
encouraged other learners’ willingness to contribute (lines 4–20), which was
consistent with her conception of creativity in the interview. Wei perceived
using metaphor as a way of developing imagination because the teacher provided
feedback on all the responses learners produced that were imaginative (lines 24
and 25), which potentially led to creativity enrichment.
Second, the teacher created time and space for promoting learners’ creativity
in this episode. For one thing, the teacher provided space and time for them to
discuss with their partners the different appearances of the Earth from two pic-
tures (lines 1–3). This is evident in the use of antonyms in describing the pictures
(lines 5, 7, and 11). Learners’ responses suggested creativity was promoted, espe-
cially when using metaphors such as crying, ugly, and weak (lines 11, 15, and 21)
to describe the Earth. These metaphors effectively related the abstract concept of
the status of the Earth to their everyday experience as human beings. Metaphor
is not just about words, it is about thoughts; and language is an important source
of evidence that reflects our thoughts (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). In other words,
learners used English as a tool to describe an abstract situation by mapping with
their concrete experiences, such as human emotions. These imaginative thoughts
were reasonable because students had generated them through in-depth think-
ing, through contrasting and comparing skills, and through making associations
with their previous experiences (NACCCE, 1999), in order to fit into the current
context. The language they produced was creative and appropriate for this task.
206  Xuying Fan and Li Li

Peer correction and the increase of wait time were used to facilitate stu-
dents’ creativity and language development. A grammar error was found by the
rest of the students (line 19), when S5 was trying to present his idea through
English (line 18). Wei did not provide a direct corrective repair; instead, she
waited for 9.2 seconds to allow S5 to think and generate the right answer.
S5 continued his turn with consideration of the peer feedback and presented
his idea (line 20). Thus, the increase of wait time facilitated the learner’s lan-
guage and creativity development, because S5 provided a logical and imagi-
native response that demonstrated his creativity and linguistic knowledge. To
go further, Wei also showed her tolerance in S5’s incorrect answer that “is” is
missing in his response (line 20). This behaviour echoed her belief in showing
her appreciation for learners’ efforts in learning and thinking. To encourage
learner participation in class, she provided positive feedback on S5’s contribu-
tion (lines 21 and 24).
Although learners were actively engaged and provided imaginative responses,
there are still some potential moments that could have further developed their
creativity and language learning. The feedback Wei provided was repetition of
the learners’ responses (lines 6, 8, 14, and 21), which did not expand learners’
responses into creative thoughts, as she suggested in her interview; instead, she
provided her own explanation (line 9). In line 11, S3 proposed a creative idea
which was grammatically correct. However, the teacher replaced crying with sad
in her feedback (line 12). This indicated that the teacher emphasized the sen-
tence structure by using antonym opposites, although she repeated crying as in
the present continuous tense as a new sentence (line 13). This limited the space
for learners to develop their creativity, because children would receive a message
of producing the right linguistic knowledge. It was obvious that Wei welcomed
more than one possible answer, to help learners develop their imagination and
linguistic knowledge. However, without effective feedback, the quality of the
active participations in an interactive environment cannot be guaranteed (Smith
& Higgins, 2006). This could reduce the opportunities for promoting learn-
ers’ creativity and thus limit their learning potential. Overall, the above results
show that creative thinking is a developmental ability, which can be fostered
through foreign language learning. Learners were encouraged to generate personal
responses in order to develop creativity in the EFL class.
The following extract demonstrates the teacher’s understanding of creative
teaching. In this lesson, children were learning body parts, and they were asked
to create a stationery man from the stationery items supplied by the teacher.
Extract 2 (Han, Year 4)
1. T: Children, we can make a fruit man and we also can make a stationery
2. man. Mr. Stationery. OK.
3. T: Stationeries, can you make a (5.4)
4. Ss:((Whispering))
5. T: What can be the head?
 Creativity cognition in primary EFL classrooms 207

6. S:Pencil
7. T: Pencil can be the head?
8. S:Yes/Yes
9. T: OK. Body, body. The book can be the body. OK.
10. Ss: Ruler/ruler
11. T: OK. I have a Mrs. Stationery.
12. Ss: Wow…
13. T: See? What is this one? The book is his body. OK. and the ruler↑::are
14. his [legs
15. Ss: [legs
16. T:The erasers are his::[feet
17. Ss: [Feet/foot/feet
18. T:Feet
19. T: OK. The paper is his head. OK. 不是全部用到, 选择合适的就可以, 有一
20. 些创意 ((You don’t have to use all the stationery, pick those
21. that are suitable and have some creativity)). OK. You can use the
22. rulers, the reading glass. OK. If you have time, make a stationery
23. man like this.

It was clearly stated (lines 19 and 20) that this task was aimed at helping
learners to develop their creativity. The nature of the designed task reflected
the component of playfulness and imagination in that the children were to be
given opportunities to explore the stationery items, and to use their imagination
to create their own stationery man with the given stationery. In relation to EFL
learning, this task could encourage children to engage in this playful activity
that stimulates them to associate stationery items with body parts that they have
learned in order to generate the meaningful English expressions. However, there
is little evidence in this extract that the learners had developed creativity.
First, the children did not have a chance to elaborate their creative thoughts
because the teacher dominated most of the talk. In line 3, the teacher waited
for 5.4 seconds and did not invite any children to express their ideas, although
they were whispering about the task (line 4). Instead of encouraging creative
responses, Han asked the children (lines 5 and 7) to guess, with short answers
(lines 6 and 8). In lines 9 and 11, the teacher proposed her own idea again and
ignored other learners’ contributions (line 10). Second, this task placed more
emphasis on vocabulary and sentence structure than on promoting creativity as
the teacher claimed (lines 19–22). For example, from lines 13 to 19, the teacher
was trying to check learners’ understanding of the vocabulary by demonstrating
the whole sentence herself. The learners did not have the space to produce the
creative ideas nor to practise the sentence structure themselves. Therefore, there
is an indication that Han might have mistakenly assumed that creative teaching
necessarily leads to creativity enrichment. In fact, this task has the potential to
promote learners’ creativity, but her insufficient pedagogical understanding has
hindered her teaching.
208  Xuying Fan and Li Li

Because teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and teaching practices are intertwined

(Borg, 2006), their conception of creativity and beliefs about promoting creativ-
ity can be an indicator of their decision-making and teaching practices (Pajares,
1992), that influence students’ learning. Below is an example from Lei’s teaching
on promoting creativity in class. This extract reflects the interrelationship among
the teacher’s knowledge, beliefs, and practices in teaching creativity.

Extract 3 (Lei, Year 3)

1. T: How about me, you can also say what↑ about me, what about me. OK.
2. Follow me. What about me
3. Ss: What about me
4. T: How about me
5. Ss: How about me
6. T: What about me
7. Ss: What about me
8. T: OK. 那是我呢那你呢 ((it is about me, how about you)) [你呢
9. Ss: [you/you/
you/you
10. T: Who can say, wow, 谁会创新一下 ((Who can be creative)), NAME.
11. S16: What about
12. T: How about, what about me
13. Ss: You/you/you/you
14. S16: ((Unclear))
15. T: How about you. Very good. How about you 或者是 ((or)) ↑::
16. [what about you
17. Ss: [How/What about you
18. T: OK.

This extract reveals Lei’s understanding of creativity in practice: She regarded

drilling practice (lines 1–7) as a way of being creative (line 10). In fact, the
learners were repeating the structural pattern through oral practice, and they
imitated the teacher’s model (line 2). Thus, the main focus was on accuracy
rather than on promoting creativity. It can be seen that the children were pro-
vided with intensive practice of this sentence structure. This could be a way of
deepening their memorization instead of producing original ideas. Lei applied
substitution drills (Richards & Rodgers, 2014) to elicit another sentence in
which a word changed during the drill (line 8, lines 15 and 16). She identified
children who could replace me with you, and how with what, as being creative.
Therefore, this was a practice that enhanced learners’ memorization of this lin-
guistic knowledge. This shows that Lei might not have sufficient knowledge in
teaching creative thinking in class, and it was consistent with the conception of
creativity that she expressed earlier.
 Creativity cognition in primary EFL classrooms 209

Discussion
Fragmented content knowledge about creativity has been found, which is sim-
ilar to Li’s (2016) research on thinking skills in the Chinese EFL secondary
context. Some teachers defined creativity similar to the literature, as a process
for the active use of creative imagination, the initiation of new possibilities, the
expression of original ideas, and making connections to what is already known
to construct new embodiments of knowledge (Knight, 2002; McGregor, 2007;
Craft, 2015). Creativity has also been perceived as a regenerative process, lead-
ing to the reconstruction of existing knowledge where the characteristics of
originality or newness were missing. Craft (2005) points out that the Eastern
perspective entails the reinterpretation of traditional ideas, which contrasts
with the Western perspective of celebrating creativity. However, Li (2015)
argues that reviewing the old knowledge is desired for respecting the tradi-
tion, and it is also for learners to critique the old knowledge and discover new
knowledge from it. Hence, both Eastern and Western approaches to creativity
emphasize newness and originality. Alternatively, Mullet et al. (2016) reported
that in most of the studies they reviewed, teachers’ perceptions of creativity
were based on subject-specific experiences. Therefore, one possible reason for
defining creativity in relation to the reproduction of knowledge could be the
teachers’ subject-specific experience: They themselves may have been taught
that successful language learning is about memorizing vocabulary and gaining
linguistic knowledge, especially in exam-oriented education systems, such as
China’s (Sargent, 2015).
Conflicting beliefs regarding the promotion of creativity in the EFL class
were found due to the exam-oriented system and teachers’ knowledge of crea-
tivity. Overall, teachers realized the importance of integrating creativity in their
teaching, which contradicts Li’s (2016) finding that creative thinking skills were
ranked as the least important skills by EFL teachers. EFL teachers’ insufficient
knowledge of both content and the pedagogy of creativity was discovered, which
echoes the findings of some empirical research studies (Aljughaiman & Mowrer-
Reynolds, 2005; Stapleton, 2011; Li, 2016) that support confidence in promoting
creativity in class. Additionally, the exam-oriented system has heavily influenced
teachers’ decisions in promoting creativity and has created a washback effect on
EFL teaching and learning (Bailey, 1996; Messick, 1996). This points out the
need to investigate the discrepancy between curriculum and assessment, because
the objective of developing creativity is not tested, and thus there is a failure to
determine how effectively learners have mastered this objective (Brown, 1995).
This is not to suggest that creativity should be tested; rather, it is to argue that
test developers should be encouraged to design indirect measures of the construct
in accordance with the curriculum objectives in regards to creativity (Muñoz &
Álvarez, 2010).
Providing feedback (Smith & Higgins, 2006; Diaz-Ducca, 2014), the use of
wait time (Ingram & Elliott, 2016), and creative teaching methods ( Jeffrey &
210  Xuying Fan and Li Li

Craft, 2004) are the ways of promoting creativity that were identified during
the classroom interaction. The use of wait time shows that teachers can influ-
ence the nature of a classroom discussion by manipulating silence (Ingram &
Elliott, 2016). Learners used the silence as a “thinking time” to restructure
the sentence and successfully delivered the creative idea, which reflected their
use of inner reflection (Li, 2015). This also shows that the appropriate use of
wait time is important in facilitating learners’ development of higher cog-
nitive levels (Tobin, 1987). However, Ingram and Elliot (2016) argue that
“the extended pauses can be interpreted as a signal of trouble, which can lead
to participants self-selecting in order to initiate a repair” (p. 50). Therefore, a
closer examination is needed to analyse in what ways teachers could manip-
ulate the wait time or silence appropriately — in combination with other
features in classroom discourse — to promote learners’ learning and creativity
in the EFL context.
It is evident in this study that “creative teaching is not the same as teaching
to develop creativity” (Starko, 2014, pp. 19 and 20). Part of teachers’ creative
teaching seems to echo the suggestion that it is teacher-oriented (Cremin,
2009), through using an imaginative approach in order to make learning
interesting and fun (NACCCE, 1999). Teaching for creativity implies the
empowerment of learners ( Jeffrey & Craft, 2004), yet learners have not been
empowered because they did not voice their creation. The use of creative
teaching in this study indicates that teachers might perceive a lesson as
“a series of plannable mini-episodes”. Without clear guidance for defining and
teaching creativity, creative teaching becomes an exercise in blind faith that
might lead to ignorance of techniques that teachers could use for creativity
enrichment.

Conclusion
To conclude, this study has contributed to the understanding and richness of
teachers’ conceptions, beliefs, and practice of creativity in the EFL context.
Constrained by fragmented content and pedagogical knowledge, as well as
by other contextual factors, teachers’ reversed their positive attitudes towards
promoting creativity. Teachers’ fragmented understanding of creativity influ-
enced their teaching practices, yet effective feedback and increased wait time
have been found useful in promoting learners’ creativity and language devel-
opment. Therefore, more teacher professional development (TPD) in this field
needs to be established, including teacher training for both pre-service teachers
and in-service teachers. Al-Thani (2010) reported that teachers differed signif-
icantly in using creative thinking skills according to their qualifications and
in-service training. A “multilayer concept” of creativity needs to be brought
forward for the “pedagogical consideration” (Li, 2016, p.285) because teachers’
pedagogical knowledge affects their teaching practices (Borg, 2006; Mok, 2010).
For policy makers, the discrepancies between curriculum and practices need to
 Creativity cognition in primary EFL classrooms 211

be bridged. A clear conceptual framework for creativity and practical guidance

is needed for teachers’ to enrich creativity in the language class, so as to bridge
the gap between policy and practice. Teacher cognition of creativity in EFL
classrooms deserves more research attention. Thus, this area of study needs to
be investigated in a wider population, including different stages of schooling
and different sectors of education. At the policy level, further research could
inform the policy makers about the changes they need to make to improve the
development of creativity. If provided with detailed and contextualized pol-
icy, local schools and teaching practitioners could develop and choose suitable
materials to promote learners’ creativity in EFL classrooms. At the knowl-
edge level, further research studies on teacher cognition of thinking skills in
the Chinese context would allow Chinese educators to develop their own
framework of definitions and their own approaches to the teaching of think-
ing skills. Critical examinations of this innovative approach could be another
type of future research. These research studies would contribute to greater
understanding of thinking skills from a socio-cultural perspective. They might
also reveal new knowledge about thinking skills and establish new relation-
ships to the world from the perspective of the Confucian-heritage learning
culture. Students’ perspectives also need to be taken into consideration. For
example, research could examine how students view the teaching of creativity
in Chinese EFL classrooms. Understanding students’ perceptions of creativity
could lead to the incorporation of new values into classroom teaching about
creative thinking.
Developing learners’ creativity is significant for fostering 21st-century com-
petencies, and teacher cognition about creativity is the very first step in promot-
ing learners’ thinking. Without sufficient understanding of teachers’ perspectives
on creativity, it is less likely to be successfully implemented in class as a means of
equipping children with the skills and knowledge to succeed in life and work in
the 21st century.

References
Al-Thani, T. (2010). Investigating teachers’ practices of creative thinking skills in Qatari
preschools. The International Journal of Learning, 17(5), 221–230.
Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1999). A history of research on creativity. In R. J. Sternberg
(Ed.). Handbook of creativity (pp. 16–31). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Alexander, R. J. (2017). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. New York: Dialogos.
Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers’ conceptions of creativity and
creative students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(1), 17–34.
Bailey, K. M. (1996). Washback in Language Testing. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case
for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Broadening conceptions of creativity in the
classroom. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Ed.). Nurturing creativity in the classroom
(pp. 191–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
212  Xuying Fan and Li Li

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what lan-
guage teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Bloomsbury.
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways
of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The element of language curriculum. New York: Heinle & Heinle.
Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity:The art of common talk. London: Routledge.
Chappell, K. A. (2018). From wise humanising creativity to (post-humanising) creativity.
(online). [accessed 7 December 2018]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/
10.1007%2F978-3-319-96725-7_13#citeas
Cheng,V. M.Y. (2010). Tensions and dilemmas of teachers in creativity reform in a Chinese
context. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(3), 120–137.
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Craft, A. (2001). An analysis of research and literature on creativity in education. Report prepared for
the Qualification and Curriculum Authority. London: QCA.
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools:Tensions and dilemmas. Abingdon: Routledge.
Craft, A. (2011). Creativity and education futures: Learning in a digital age. Staffordshire:Westview
House.
Craft, A. (2015). Possibility thinking. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.). The
Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 346–375). London:
Taylor and Francis Group.
Craft, A., Dugal, J., Dyer, G., Jeffrey, B., & Lyons, T. (1997). Can you teach creativity?
Nottingham: Anna Craft and Contributors.
Craft, A., Jeffrey, B., & Leibling, M. (2001). Creativity in Education. London: Continuum.
Craft, A., Gardner, H., & Claxton, G. (2008). Nurturing creativity, wisdom and trusteeship in
education: Exploring the role of education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Cremin, T. (2009). Creative teachers and creative teaching. In A. Wilson (Ed.). Creativity in
primary education:Theory and Practice (pp. 36–46, 2nd ed.). Exeter: Learning Matters.
Diaz-Ducca, J. A. (2014). Positive oral encouragement in the EFL classroom, a case study
through action research. Revista de Lenguas Modernas, 21, 325–346.
Ellies, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, M. E. (2006). Language learning experience as a contributor to ESOL teacher cognition
(online). [accessed on 7th December 2018]. Available from: http://www.tesl-ej.org/
wordpress/issues/volume10/ej37/ej37a3/
Ellis, R. (2016). Creativity and language learning. In R. H. Jones & J. C. Richards (Eds.).
Creativity in language teaching: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 32–48). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Forrester,V., & Hui, A. (2007). Creativity in the Hong Kong classroom: What is the contextual
practice? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 30–38.
Higgins, S. (2015). A Recent History of Teaching Thinking. In R. Wegerif, L. Li & J.C.
Kaufman (Eds). The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Teaching Thinking
(pp.19-28). Aingdon: Routledge.
Hung, Y. W., & Higgins, S. (2015). Learners’ use of communication strategies in text-based
and video-based synchronous computer-mediated communication environments:
Opportunities for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 901–924.
İnceçay, G. (2010).The role of teacher talk in young learners’ language process. Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 277–281.
Ingram, J., & Elliott, V. (2016). A critical analysis of the role of wait time in classroom
interactions and the effects on student and teacher interactional behaviours. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 46(1), 37–53.
 Creativity cognition in primary EFL classrooms 213

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner,

(Ed.). Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.16–31). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004).Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and
relationships. Educational Studies 30(1), 77–87.
Jones, R. H. (2016). Creativity and language. In R. H. Jones & J. C. Richards (Eds.).
Creativity in language teaching. Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 16–31). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the
Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419–469.
Kangas, M. (2010). Creative and playful learning: Learning through game co-creation and
games in a playful learning environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1), 1–15.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little:The four c model of creativity.
Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.
Knight, P. (2002). Notes on a creative curriculum. London: Open University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of
Philosophy, 77(8), 453–486.
Li, L. (2011). Obstacles and opportunities for developing thinking through interaction in
language classrooms. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(3), 146–158.
Li, L. (2012). Beliefs construction and development:Two tales of non-native English speaking
student teachers in a TSOL programme. Research on Youth and Language, 6(1), 33–58.
Li, L. (2015). A Confucian perspective on teaching thinking in China. In R. Wegerif, L. Li,
& J. C. Kaufman (Eds.). The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking
(pp. 45–67). Abingdon: Routledge
Li, L. (2016). Integrating thinking skills in foreign language learning:What can we learn from
teachers’ perspectives? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 273–288.
Li, L., & Wegerif, R. (2014).What does it mean to teach thinking in China? Challenging and
developing notions of ‘Confucian education’. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 11, 22–32.
Mak, S. H. (2011). Tensions between conflicting beliefs of an EFL teacher in teaching practice.
RELC Journal, 42(1), 53–67.
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & Mackey, A. (2015). Creativity and EFL students’ lan-
guage use during a group problem-solving task. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 188–199.
McGregor, D. (2007). Developing thinking developing learning: A guide to thinking skills in education.
Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Talk amongst teachers and learners.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode
of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking:A sociocultural
approach. London: Routledge.
Messick, S. (1996).Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241–256.
Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2011). English curriculum standards for compulsory education.
Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press (Chinese).
Mok, J. (2010). The new role of English language teachers: developing students’ critical
thinking in Hong Kong secondary school classrooms. Asian EFL Journal, 12 (2), 262-287
Mullet, D. R.,Willerson, A., Lamb, N. K., & Kettler,T. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions
of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9–30.
Muñoz, A. P., & Álvarez, M. E. (2010). Washback of an oral assessment system in the EFL
classroom. Language Testing, 27(1), 33–49.
214  Xuying Fan and Li Li

Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research
Papers in Education, 21(1), 19–41.
Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Hopper, R. (2006). Talking, listening, learning: Effective talk in the primary
classroom. Berkshire: Open University Press.
National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education [NACCCE]. (1999).
All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. (online) [accessed on 7 December 2018].
Available from http://sirkenrobinson.com/pdf/allourfutures.pdf
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rudowicz, E. (2004). Creativity among Chinese people: Beyond Eastern perspective. In
S. Lau, A. Hui, & G. Ng (Eds.). Creativity. when East meets West (pp. 55–86). London:
World Scientific Publishing.
Sargent, T. C. (2015). Professional learning communities and the diffusion of pedagogi-
cal innovation in the Chinese education system. Comparative Education Review, 59(1),
102–132.
Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Mergence in creativity and development. In R. K. Sawyer,V. John-Steiner,
S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.).
Creativity and development (pp. 12–60). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by
teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Smith, H., & Higgins, S. (2006). Opening classroom interaction:The importance of feedback.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4), 485–502.
Stapleton, P. (2011). A survey of attitudes towards critical thinking among Hong Kong
secondary school teachers: Implications for policy change. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
6(1), 14–23.
Starko, A. J. (2014). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. New York: Routledge.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sun, D. (2012). “Everything goes smoothly”: A case study of an immigrant Chinese language
teacher’s personal practical knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 760–767.
Tagg, C. (2012). Scraping the barrel with a shower of social misfits: Everyday creativity in text
messaging. Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 480–500.
Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of Educational
Research, 57(1), 69–95.
Tsai, K. C. (2012). Play, imagination, and creativity: A brief literature review. Journal of
Education and Learning, 1(2), 15–20.
Walsh, C., Chappell, K., & Craft, A. (2017). A co-creativity theoretical framework to foster
and evaluate the presence of wise humanising creativity in virtual learning environments
(VLEs). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 228–241.
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the
EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3–23.
Warford, M. K., & Reeves, J. (2003). Falling into it: Novice TESOL teacher thinking. Teachers
and Teaching, 9(1), 47–65.
Wegerif, R. (2010). Mind expanding: Teaching for thinking and creativity in primary education.
Berkshire: Open University Press.
 Creativity cognition in primary EFL classrooms 215

Wegerif, R. (2015). Technology and teaching thinking: Why a dialogic approach is

needed for the 21st century. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.). The Routledge
international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 427–440). Abingdon: Routledge.
Wegerif, R., Li, L., & Kaufman, J.C. (2015). The Routledge international handbook of research on
teaching thinking. Abingdon: Routledge.
Xerri, D., & Vassallo, O. (2016) Creativity in English language teaching. Floriana: ELT Council.
Yaqoob, M. (2012). Developing creative thinking: Using a cognitive teaching model in literature
classroom. International Journal of Learning, 18(6), 71–82.

Appendix: Transcription convention

(( )) Contextual information
T Teacher
S Unidentified speaker
S1, S2, S3… Identified speaker
Ss Several speakers speak at the same time
NAME Name of a student
↑ Rising tone
↓ Falling tone
[ Overlapping utterance
= No break or gap between the speech
(2.8) Waiting time. The number indicates the length of the elapsed time in seconds
:: Prolongation
/italics/ Phonetics
yes/yes/no Simultaneous speech by more than one person
INDEX

analogical, 10, 167 cognitive skills, 8, 17, 25–26, 32, 61, 96,
arguments, 1, 3, 95, 103, 111–12, 129, 111, 152, 172–73, 175, 180
166–67, 173–74, 177, 179 comprehension, 10, 18, 46, 76, 80, 114,
assessment, formative, 60, 67 134–35
attitudes: bicultural, 27–29; complexity- conceptions, 8, 11, 30, 200–201, 204–5,
seeking, 8, 27, 29–31; open-minded, 208, 210
17, 27, 29–30 conceptualizations, 10, 29, 97–98, 101,
116, 172, 179, 188
Barnett, 75–77, 80, 93 contexts, cultural, 51, 92, 172, 184, 199
beliefs, 10–11, 22, 48, 65, 96, 135, 166, creative attitudes, 20–21, 27
173, 195, 197–200, 208–9 creative teaching, 11, 203–4,
bicultural, 8, 17, 20, 27–28, 31 206–7, 210
biculturalism, 8, 17, 28, 31 creative thinking, 3, 6, 11, 23, 27–28,
bilingualism, 6, 8, 17, 21–26, 28, 31–32, 31–32, 172, 195, 198–201, 204, 206,
34; effect of, 22–23, 26 208, 211; process of, 27, 197–98
bilingualism and creativity, 8, 17, creative thinking skills, 8, 17, 20, 24–25,
23, 27, 29 27–28, 30, 32, 183, 189, 209–10
Bloom’s taxonomy, 49, 75, 78, 80 creativity, 1–8, 10–12, 17, 19, 23–27,
29, 31, 151, 181, 188, 195–97,
California Critical Thinking Skills Test, 199–211; developing, 7–8, 11, 21, 209;
10, 176 development of, 2, 6–7, 24, 28, 195,
classroom discourse, 78, 90–91, 210 199, 202–4, 206, 211; knowledge of,
classroom interaction, 185, 197, 199, 195, 198, 209; perceptions of, 198, 211;
202–3, 210 practices of, 195, 210; promoting, 195,
climates, creative, 17–18, 21 199, 201–4, 207–10; teacher cognition
CLT (communicative language teaching), of, 195, 197–98
134, 139 creativity enrichment, 197, 203, 205,
cognition, 131, 135, 147, 160 207, 210
cognitive flexibility, 7, 25–27, 30 critical thinkers, 10, 79, 90, 97,
cognitive listening instruction, 10, 141, 100, 175–76, 178, 183–84,
143–44, 146–48 187–88, 212
cognitive processes, 4, 134–36, critical thinking questions, 75, 81, 92
138, 146 critical thinking skills test, 177, 179
 Index 217

CT (critical thinking), 3–5, 10, 19, language classrooms, 12, 92, 189, 199
42, 74–77, 79–81, 88–93, 95–102, language competencies, 43, 52, 55
104–6, 108–16, 172–77, 179–88, language development, 3–4, 45, 206, 210
197, 201, 214 language proficiency, 2, 23, 25, 74, 100
Cummins, 22–23, 45, 53 language skills, 42, 95, 131, 134, 139
learning environments, 46, 68, 198
design, instructional, 8, 42, 46–47, 53 learning processes, 11, 27, 152–53,
Dewey, 154, 173, 181 164, 166
dispositions, 42, 90, 97–98, 116, 172, 174, Li, 1–6, 8–10, 12, 59, 74, 77–78, 92, 96,
179; critical, 4, 43, 46, 76, 80, 82, 87, 172–76, 186, 189, 195, 197–99, 203,
92–93, 99 209–10
divergent thinking, 7, 55, 196 linguistic knowledge, 201, 206, 208–9

educational system, 176, 180–82, 185–86, mediation, 98, 114–15

188–89 memories, 26, 111, 188
Elder, 9, 96–97, 100, 104, 112, 184 memory capacity, 146–47
EOT (Elements of Thought), 100, 102, Mercer, 1, 44, 175, 187, 195, 197, 200
106–8, 113, 115–16 Merrill, 8, 46–48, 55
evaluation, 2–3, 59, 61, 67, 70, 76, 96, 98, metacognition, 2–5, 27, 60, 76, 115, 132,
100, 161, 172–73, 177–79, 182, 189 134–35, 138, 153, 160
event-related potential (ERP), 26, 40 metacognitive awareness, 27, 96, 102,
expertise, 17–18, 21, 178 132, 135, 138
metacognitive instruction, 131–32, 146
factors, cultural, 43, 180, 183, 188 metacognitive knowledge, 5, 132,
flexibility, 7, 18–19, 22–23, 196, 200 135, 160
metacognitive listening instruction, 10,
Higgins, 97, 114, 199 133, 135, 139, 141, 144, 146–48
higher-order thinking skills (HOTS), metacognitive strategies, 5, 45, 115, 139,
1–2, 4, 8, 59, 62, 176, 185, 187 179–80
HOTS tasks, 60, 62 meta-learning, 152–54, 166, 168
meta-learning capacity, 153, 156–57, 161,
identities, 77, 79, 155, 166–67 164, 166–67
imagination, 198, 201, 204–7 meta-learning programme, 10, 165, 168
inferences, 98, 102–3, 120, 173, 177–80, mind map, 64, 103, 106, 115
189, 198 monitoring, 26, 90, 135, 152–53, 161–65
innovations, 5, 7–10, 15, 17–18, 20–24, motivation, 43–44, 77, 98, 114–15,
32, 168, 201 131–32, 138, 152, 174, 180–81, 184,
instruction, 45, 47, 97, 100, 107, 114, 132, 188, 204
134, 136–39, 195, 201; cognitive, 139, multimedia learning, 132, 135–38,
144, 146–48 146, 148
interaction, 10, 31, 46, 59, 65–66, 115,
154–55, 168, 180, 182, 186–87, 189, new knowledge, 1, 11, 47–49, 51, 196,
199, 203–4; teacher-student, 10, 79 209, 211

KADEI framework, 43, 49–50, 52–55 openness, 28, 173

Kaufman, 1, 6, 196, 198
knowledge: insufficient, 10, 209; participation, 7, 180, 185–86, 188–89
new cultural, 29; person, 135, 139; Paul, 9, 96–97, 99–101, 104, 106,
tacit, 53, 153 112–13, 129
knowledge base, 18, 174, 183 pedagogies, critical, 46, 80–82, 92
knowledge construction, 138, 155 perceptions, 10, 52, 97, 135, 160, 168,
172, 177, 181, 200, 209
language, target, 9, 74, 80, 92, 160, 195 personal knowledge, 5, 196
language acquisition, second, 2–3, 176 perspectives, critical, 78–79, 91
218  Index

playfulness, 12, 20, 198, 207 teaching thinking, 12, 43, 97, 114,
primary EFL classrooms, 10, 195 116, 202
principles, 8, 10, 46–49, 54, 136–37, 143, teaching thinking skills, 10, 12, 96,
155, 165, 177, 200 174, 202
problem solving, 1, 6, 23, 115, 135, 142, technology, 4, 8, 54, 69, 98, 139,
152, 173, 201 143–44, 148
processing, 136, 147, 153 thinking, logical, 95, 107, 110
thinking dispositions, 9, 42, 45,
reasoning, 3, 100, 172–73, 183, 185–87, 55, 96, 114
189, 203 thinking process, 4, 99, 184, 203
reflections, 58, 60, 62, 68, 70, 99, 102, thinking skills, 1, 8–9, 11, 45, 59, 61–62,
107, 151, 153–56, 160, 162–63, 167–68, 74, 78, 82, 96, 175–76, 181–89, 203,
183, 186 209, 211; higher-order, 1–2, 59, 176,
185, 187; reflective, 98, 173, 175, 181,
Sawyer, 6–7, 196 185–86, 197, 203
scaffolding, 42, 44, 46, 49, 54, 99–100, thinking skills and creativity, 3–4, 8, 11
132, 142, 199 thinking skills pedagogies, 58–61, 63,
scaffolding thinking, 8, 42–45, 55 68–70, 73
socio-cultural contexts, 5, 7–9, 197
Sternberg, 6, 197 Vandergrift, 132–35, 141
Visible thinking, 48
teacher cognition, 10, 195, 197–200, 211 Vygotsky, 6, 44, 46–47, 59, 98, 100, 102,
teacher feedback, 9, 102, 106 155, 187
teacher professional development (TPD),
69, 210 Wegerif, 1, 5, 12, 98, 173, 175, 195,
teachers, creative, 7, 54 197–98
teaching creativity, 198, 208, 210 working memory, 25, 136, 147