Critical Thinking in Language Learning

Broadly speaking, there are two main approaches to critical thinking: direct and indirect. The direct approach to critical thinking regards critical thinking as skills that should be explicitly taught (Black, 1952; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko, 1985; Ennis, 1962, 1987; Fisher, 2001). This approach grew out of the movement called informal logic movement promoting in the 1980s, especially by Ennis (1987) and others (e.g. Lipman, 2003; e.g. Paul & Elder, 2002; Siegel, 1988). Those educationists viewed critical thinking as general skills and dispositions applicable across domain of knowledge. Teachers, thus, can directly teach critical thinking ability and skills. McPeck (1981), however, disagreed. He advocated that educationists should teach critical thinking within its particular domain of knowledge. This study takes no side of the debate. This study agrees that thinking needs its contents; it also agrees that what constitutes that contents or domains of knowledge seem unclear and problematic.

It should be noted again that critical thinking, like cooperative learning, is a conception originated within L1 contexts. Two languages mean two different sets of practices. Is critical thinking cultural thinking? Can there be a uniquely concept of critical thinking in L2 learning? What is the relationship between critical thinking and language proficiency? Such questions merit careful investigation. This study presents a model that extends its explanations to L2 contexts. Indeed, serious discussions within TESOL contexts began in the 1990s. Many TESOL researchers and practitioners discussed many important issues related to critical thinking in TESOL (Atkinson, 1997, 1998; Atkinson & Kaplan, March 1994; Davidson, 1998; Day, 2003; Gieve, 1997; Hawkins, 1997). In particular, they discussed effective ways to foster critical thinking skills in ESL/EFL learners. Despite some problems in terms of CT’s definitions, the question has moved from whether or not critical thinking should be introduced in TESOL contexts(Atkinson, 1997) to how to effectively integrate it into TESOL’s practices (for example Davidson, 1998; for example Day, 2003). However, the concepts discussed so far, including those discussed by TESOL pioneers (Atkinson & Kaplan, March 1994; Ballard, 1995, 1995; Ballard & Clanchy, 1988; Benesch, 1993; Fox, 1994; Gajdusek & Van Dommelen, 1993; Moham & Van Naerssen, 1996) can be classified into three areas: (1) communication, (2) reasoning, and (3) self-reflecting. This study has proposed a model of critical thinking, recognizing many difficulties most non-native speakers may have, especially their proficiency. Obviously, it has seriously proposed a workable model that can fit well in the TESOL contexts. It should be noted here that critical thinking in ELT that emerged in Australia (Thompson, 2002; Wilson, 1998), like those that emerged in North America and the United Kingdom(e.g. Briggs, 1999), was a result of the fact that there are more international students in Australian universities. Thomson (Ibid.) proposed a five-step guide, a set of activities, for teachers to solve the problem. Despite the difference in their theoretical and operational definitions, all of them agreed that critical thinking is something desirable.

This study views cooperation as a theme in education, in addition to a typical teaching method (Jacobs, 2002, personal communication). Hence, this theme regards action research as collaborative efforts (Burns, 1999). In addition, it welcomes the notion that computer-mediated communication requires a new paradigm of learning: computer-supported collaborative learning (Koschman, 1996). With network technology, research can be carried out collaboratively, which brings benefits for all parties involved, including the teachers. Collaboration also extends to fields. Teachers from different fields can work a long side with one another on an equal footing, e.g., science and English. According to Sagor (1992), collaborative action research can help creating “ an active community of professionals” (p. 10). Besides, when teachers work together, they are more satisfied with their job. Sagor summarized the benefits: “ We all gain more, learn more, and are more professionally satisfied when we work with others" (p.26). In general education context, Kincheloe (2003) urged teachers to do more action research in order to empower themselves. In TESOL context, Nunan (2002)[1] gave reasons why classroom research has to be carried out: “Priorities for research often reflect the interests of academic researchers or central office administrators, not school people. Teachers and students in the classroom are rarely actively engaged in the research”. Online collaboration, according to Schulz-Zander et al (2002), benefits both teachers and students: teachers develop their competencies in educational methods and students increase their effort and motivation to achieve.

In TESOL context, Burns (1999) discussed major benefits of collaborative action research for teachers. Based on the comments from teachers and the literature, she summarized that teachers should engage in collaborative action research for their professional development. In this respect, CL also is in line with one of TESOL’s values--- collaboration in a global community. CL can be a means for professional development. CL in this context can bring about reflective practice. According to Richards (1990), reflection can "help teachers move from a level where they may be guided largely by impulse, intuition, or routine, to a level where their actions are guided by reflection and critical thinking" (p.5).

This study aims to integrate ELT with environmental issues by intentionally setting the environment as the theme of the research’s vehicle, the Bamboo Enterprise. The main reason is that the environment is one of the global trends encompassing every aspect of human life, and all areas of study. The scale of the human impacts on Earth is immense(Suzuki, 1990). It is everybody’s duty to take action to ensure a clean, healthy, and safe environment for future generations. According to an OECD report, the outlook of the world’s environment in the year 2020 is not so rosy (OECD, 2001). There are serious problems ahead. Thus English teachers, like other professionals, have this important role to play in promoting environmental protection and sustainability. Language can carry with it certain contents. This argument follows a conviction that language can shape the worldview of its users (Jacobs & Cates, 1999; Jacobs, Goatly, & Ming, 1995).

Thinking is pervasive. Students need to think critically about something, e.g. their own learning. Teachers should use global issues as objects for them think. Too often in second language pedagogy, the content is just a thin excuse for practicing language. Global issues offer more substantive content. On the other hand, we can think critically about anything. Like other fields, albeit limited, ELT professionals should contribute to the call for global environmental awareness.

[1] At the same conference, Michael Long (2002) has put it that “Much SLA research has little or no relevance to language teaching, and is not conducted with the classroom in mind --- the researcher have other fish to fly”.