Recibido: 07/04/2020
Aceptado: 10/07/2020
Jessica Ochoa1,
Ana María Calle2
1.*
Universidad Nacional de Educación, Azogues, Ecuador. Email: [email protected]
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0023-9965
2.
Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador. Email: [email protected]
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1817-3095
Para
Citar: Ochoa, J., & Calle, A.M. (2020). The
effect of Critical Thinking Strategies on oral production of EFL University
Students: an action research. Revista Publicando, 7(25), 82-101. Retrieved from
https://revistapublicando.org/revista/index.php/crv/article/view/2091
Resumen: En
el campo de la enseñanza de inglés como idioma extranjero, muchas estrategias
son utilizadas de las cuales las de pensamiento crítico son las menos
empleadas. Por lo tanto, este estudio se enfoca en explorar los efectos que
tres de estas estrategias tienen en las habilidades de producción oral de
estudiantes universitarios que aprenden inglés como idioma extranjero. Esta
investigación-acción fue realizada en la Universidad Nacional de Educación,
UNAE en Ecuador. En este estudio se recolectó información cuantitativa y
cualitativa. Se aplicó una prueba al inicio y al final para recolectar datos
cuantitativos. Un grupo focal también fue realizado al final del tratamiento
para recolectar información cualitativa. Los resultados de la prueba aplicada
al final del tratamiento revelaron que los estudiantes mejoraron
considerablemente en su producción oral. Además, los resultados del grupo focal
que se realizó con participantes claves sugirieron que los estudiantes
disfrutaron de las estrategias aplicadas en el tratamiento. Entre las
estrategias preferidas por los estudiantes estuvo el Debate ya que este es
interactivo y motiva a expresar sus argumentos. La menos preferida fue Teacher
Questioning y le seguía Think-Pair-Share. También es importante mencionar que
el vocabulario y gramática dentro de las habilidades del habla fueron las que
alcanzaron el menor puntaje de mejora de acuerdo con la prueba posterior
aplicada. Por el contrario, la interacción mostró mayor mejora. Esto se explica
debido a que las estrategias aplicadas se enfocaban en fluidez y no en
exactitud o precisión en el uso del idioma. Se establecen nuevas áreas de
investigación en el ámbito de vocabulario.
Palabras
clave: Estrategias
de pensamiento crítico, producción oral, clase de inglés como lengua extranjera,
estudiantes universitarios.
. Abstract: Although many
strategies have been used in the development of oral production in EFL
students, critical thinking strategies are less frequently employed. Therefore,
this study focused on exploring the effects of three of these strategies on the
oral production abilities of Ecuadorian EFL university students. This action
research study was carried out at the Universidad Nacional de Educación (UNAE)
in Ecuador, where qualitative and quantitative data was collected. A pre-test
and post-test were used to collect the quantitative data. Furthermore, a focus
group discussion was used to collect the qualitative data. The post-test
results reveled that students increased their oral production considerably
after finishing the treatment. Moreover, the focus group discussion suggested
that students enjoyed the strategies used, because they helped pupils to
improve their vocabulary and reasoning prior to speaking. Students’ favorite
strategy according to the focus group was the Debate. On the other hand, the
least favorite was Teacher Questioning followed by Think-Pair-Share. It is also
important to mention that according to the quantitative results grammar and
vocabulary had the lowest improvement in speech production; meanwhile,
interactive communication had the highest improvement in oral production. This
has to do with the focus of the strategies on fluency over accuracy. Implications
for research regarding vocabulary were stated.
Keywords: Critical thinking
strategies, oral production, EFL classroom, university students.
INTRODUCTION
The term critical thinking has been
defined by various scholars and it is considered to be a broad term (Reed, 1998). This term has
become very important in current educational programs (Fahim & Teimourtash, 2012). Therefore,
according to Harpen (2006), critical
thinking (CT) is the term used to describe a kind of thinking that is conscious,
and goal directed. Fahim and
Rezanejad (2014) defined critical thinking as the ability a person must
think about their own thinking. Consequently, the person can recognize their
strengths and weakness. A person who thinks critically reflects, infers,
calculates, makes decisions, evaluates, and solves problems. Critical thinking
is used to examine assumptions and beliefs which are supported by evidence,
provided by experience, or any other source to draw conclusions (Glaser, 1941). Richard and Elder (2008) define critical
thinking as a self- controlled process which is related to effective
communication and problem-solving abilities. Paul (1996) describes CT as
the process by which a person takes responsibility of his/her own thinking. Ennis (1985) adds that this
thinking should be reflective and logical, specifically while deciding what to
believe and what to do. Other authors have similar definitions; for example,
according to Chaffee (2014) critical thinking
is our active purposeful and organize thought to make sense of our world
examining our own and others’ thinking in order to clarify and enhance our
understanding.
Critical thinking strategies used in EFL classrooms
Teacher Questioning,
Think-Pair-Share, and Debates are the critical thinking strategies used in this
research. Teacher Questioning is an important strategy used in class because it
initiates student participation. This strategy can motivate, focus students´
attention on a topic, and help students to think and learn more effectively
while the teacher checks comprehension (Dillon, 1988). According to Shen (2012), Teacher Questioning is linked with the
development of students´ higher order thinking and therefore their language
acquisition. It can help learners analyze, evaluate, and construct their
thinking (Glaser, 1941). It gives teacher
the opportunity to check students´ understanding and comprehension of the topic
discussed (King, 1990).
Think-Pair-Share is a strategy that
was developed by Frank Lyman in 1981. It is a student-centered strategy, based
on the three stages students go through to accomplish a task. First, the
teacher provokes students´ thinking by giving them a few minutes to simply
think about a question. Second, students find a partner and talk about the
topic proposed. Finally, the pair of students share their ideas with the whole
class (Robertson, 2006).
Debates are used in EFL classrooms
as tools to encourage students to practice the target language in real-life
situations (Alasmari & Salahuddin, 2012). According to Krieger (2005) Debates not only
help students develop their linguistic skills but also their cognitive skills.
While preparing Debates, students develop their critical thinking which helps
them to perform better while learning a language.
The utility of critical thinking in language learning environments
The exploration of how critical
reflection helps people to be conscious of their own thoughts and actions is
extremely important (Ghanizadeh
& Jahedizadeh, 2017). Consequently, studies have been carried
out at the university level to analyze students´ abilities. It is noted that
in higher education it is indispensable to push students to develop a deeper
understanding of how they learn. Doing so may allow students to abandon
negative habits of learning and develop new habits which may help them reflect,
evaluate, and analyze topics during their own process of learning (Boyd & Fales, 1983).
Currently, universities all around
the world are getting ready to promote their institutions as international
centers, in which culture is respected along with the content that universities
can offer to national and international students from all over the world. In
order to develop this cultural awareness in higher education, the ways in which
students think are essential. To promote understanding, a language student
should develop their critical and creative thinking abilities to support and
gain more insights from their own and other cultures (Zhao & Coombs, 2012). This idea has led many researchers
to look for ways to improve students´ English abilities along with the skills
used in the 21st century.
In order to achieve a society of
‘global citizens’, Zhao and Coombs
(2012)
suggest the following: “International teaching strategies need to focus on
enabling learners to critically engage in identifying and dealing with any
personal prior cultural constraints and acquire different thinking devices (or
schemas) to function in the target language and culture competently” (p.249). Critical
thinking skills can contribute to enable students to face the requirements of
current global world. The language classroom indeed also must be involved in
this challenge. Let us point out the importance of these skills as well as EFL
research regarding critical thinking strategies.
According to Fahim and Rezanejad (2014), critical
thinking strategies have not been used enough in EFL classrooms. Recently,
these skills are emphasized in the field of education. It is assumed that
learners will be successful if they develop these skills. Furthermore, the term
‘critical thinking’ has been used for many years, and it has many definitions.
For instance, Beyer (1985) defines critical
thinking as the ability to collect, analyze, and use information effectively. Fluquen and Jiménez (2013) note that the
education system currently demands students who can reflect, analyze, self-assess,
be autonomous, and evaluate their own learning process to succeed in their
academic and professional life. Therefore, EFL classes can provide students
with these tools as well. English teachers have also started to use critical
thinking strategies to achieve better results in their students´ language
learning. Lewis and Smith (1993) mentioned that
critical thinking promotes meta-cognitive process which are useful in EFL
classrooms to develop language skills. In order to help students to develop
their English proficiency, and in this case their oral production, it is also
essential to develop their thinking skills which will provide them with an
ability to communicate more effectively. Critical thinking strategies have been
used in EFL classrooms to develop oral skills in students. However, in our
context it seems they have not been employed.
As a result of a limited system of
education in which critically thinking is not valued, our students are
generally not taught to think for themselves. There are few activities included
in an EFL class in which students find a chance to develop their higher order
thinking skills while learning a language (William, 2003). Sousa (2001) points out that teachers lack the ability
to teach the brain to think. To increase students´ achievement, critical
thinking skills can be taught at all levels, and can be taught alone or
integrated with other subjects. Teaching critical thinking skills in second
language settings should be taught along with the language skills. However,
language teaching remains focused on the lower cognitive level in which
memorizing and remembering information are important. This disregards
application, synthesis, and evaluation, which are considered higher order
skills (Chaffe as cited in Marin, 2017). Wanger (as cited in Nosratinia & Zaker, 2013) suggests that
students should be able to go beyond repetition and memorization of
information; students should strengthen their skills of analysis, evaluation
and comprehension of information to be involved in a true thinking process. For
that reason, teachers should implement strategies in their English classrooms
to develop these higher order thinking skills that will allow students to
develop academically, and to gain proficiency in their language skills. These
abilities are not only necessary in their educational life, but also in their
personal and professional future.
At this point it is important to
see what research tells us about the use of critical thinking strategies. A
study conducted by Ramezani,
Larsari, and Kiasi (2016) showed a significant relationship between
critical thinking and speaking ability. According to Malmir and Shoorchech (2012), speakers who
have developed their critical thinking take a more dynamic role in speaking and
trying to understand and make decisions in challenging circumstances. Moreover,
Swain (2000) hypothesized that
language is not just a tool for communication, but is also a cognitive tool,
because it gives students the opportunity to control their target language.
Thus, it allows them to express their ideas in an independent way, which in
turn helps them to improve their thinking. As a result, students who manage
their thoughts are able to initiate conversations and control topics which, according
to Ellis (1990), is a classroom
condition that improves students’ thinking skills by increasing their chances
to speak.
In a qualitative study conducted in
Colombia with EFL teachers in which critical thinking conceptions in an EFL
classroom were discussed, it was concluded that the teachers´ understanding and
knowledge related to the topic was not enough. The authors agreed on the fact
that CT is related to cognitive development, reflection and analysis; however,
the study concluded that teachers needed more training in strategies,
activities, methodologies, resources, and all that involves the teaching –
learning process itself. The study suggested that critical thinking is an
important element in EFL classroom because it provides students with
communicative competence, creativity, argumentation, problem-solving, decision
making, autonomous learning metacognition and emotions (Marin & Pava, 2017).
Currently, critical thinking skills
have become important in Latin America. Another study done in Colombia was a
qualitative study in which teachers wanted to know to what extent critical
thinking activities helped students develop their second language. The teachers
recorded the lessons and collected data through observation. After the
analysis, the results showed that critical thinking tasks enhanced second
language learning, as it gives students a way to improve the language together
with their critical thinking skills (Pineda, 2004).
All languages are represented in
the way native speakers think, and therefore learning a language should reflect
the needs of students. The importance of developing critical thinking skills is
a necessity in all the ways discussed above. Questioning in a classroom is
necessary to develop the ability to think critically. This is what Freire calls
“Pedagogy of questions¨ (Freire
as cited in Nosratinia & Zaker, 2013). Nosratinia and
Zaker (2013) studied critical thinking (CT) and Autonomy (AU) in university
students whose majors were Translation and English literature. Their results
indicated that CT and AU were positively interrelated. Moreover, the study
showed the importance of the development of critical thinking while learning a
language. Therefore, the authors suggest creating a curriculum based on the
students where books should be designed with different activities to develop
students´ higher order thinking skills. Today´s world requires students to
develop these two skills in order to succeed in their language learning.
The relationship between the use of
critical thinking and speaking in an EFL setting was researched by Sanavi and Tarighat (2014) who examined how teaching
critical thinking explicitly affects students´ speaking proficiency in English.
A mixed-method study was employed to collect and analyze the data. The results
showed that the experimental group of students who were taught critical
thinking explicitly had a positive result in their speaking performance.
In the same line, Ramezani, Larsari, and Kiasi (2016) carried out a
study on speaking and critical thinking where they concluded that those
students who were better critical thinkers performed higher in their speaking
tests. This was a quantitative study in which the IELTS test was used to
measure the students’ speaking ability, while the Lauren Starkey critical
thinking test was used to test students’ critical thinking skills. With the
obtained results the researchers concluded that students who increased their
critical level thinking, improved their speaking performance, too. (Ramezani, Larsari, & Kiasi, 2016).
According to a study done by Iman (2017) at the University
of Indo Global, students aimed to improve their English skills because of the
importance English has in their country. The researcher wanted to measure how
Debates would help develop speaking and critical thinking skills, specifically
relating to how a globalized world requires students to develop their low and
higher order thinking abilities in the expression of their thoughts in their
second language. This was a quasi-experimental study in which a non-equivalent
pretest- posttest control group design was used. The results showed how this
academic activity helped students improve their speaking skills. According to
the previous analysis, students’ improvement was seen mainly in fluency.
Moreover, critical thinking skills were developed along with speaking skills,
as students were asked to reflect, evaluate, and research the topics that were
discussed.
The aforementioned studies
illustrate how critical thinking skills are key to the development of second
language skills in today´s globalized world. However, in our country, Ecuador,
there are few studies related to critical thinking in the EFL classroom. At the
University of San Francisco in Quito, Martínez (2011) implemented critical thinking activities
in an EFL classroom. This was an action research study in which quantitative
and qualitative data was collected. The results showed that there was no
significant difference between the two groups, but students who received the
treatment showed more motivation and were able to better voice their opinions. Rodas (2014) centered her
thesis on the application of critical thinking strategies to develop writing
and reading in a high school in Cuenca. This study used an
experimental-qualitative-statistical method. The author analyzed the data
through pre-test, mid-test, and post-test results. The results showed how the
activities helped students to improve their reading and writing skills in
second language learning. As can be seen, and as far as we know, there is no
research done on oral production in the context of Ecuador. For that reason,
more research needs to be conducted using these strategies in our country. That
is why the present study aims to analyze how critical thinking strategies
affect oral production development in Ecuadorian university-level students and
contribute to fill the gap in the literature.
The Ecuadorian Educational system
Learning English in the Ecuadorian
school system is a must for today´s university students. In many universities,
students are required to complete a level of English to graduate. According to
the Ley Orgánica de
Educación Superior (LOES)[1] universities need
to create an intercultural environment in which learning foreign and national
languages will promote research and national development. Therefore, public and
private universities in Ecuador need their students to achieve a B1 English
level according to the Common European Framework of Reference. Consequently,
the incorporation of different teaching alternatives plays a main role in
today´s higher education in Ecuador. We want our students to learn a global
language; as a result, providing them with the necessary skills that help them
to accomplish that goal is essential for today´s global educators.
This study was completed in Universidad
Nacional de Educación (UNAE), which is a new public university in Ecuador
with an educational focus. This university has its own pedagogical model, which
includes different methodologies, such as flipped classroom, project-based
learning, cooperative learning, etc. Its main purpose is to improve the
Ecuadorian educational system.
Despite all these methodologies,
the university needs to undergo many more changes and improvements. When the
first author started to work with university students at UNAE, the first author
thought they would ask hundreds of questions, discuss different topics, and
give their opinions frequently since the first author believed their English
level was higher. This is because according to the Ecuadorian Curriculum of
English as a foreign language, students who have finished high school are
supposed to have a B1 English level (2016). However, the first author noticed
that university students struggled with using English. Most of them entered the
university with little to no English knowledge. Education First (as cited in El Comercio 2017), indicated that
the English level in Ecuador is 49,42/100. This shows clearly that English
level is quite low in our country. An Ecuadorian study conducted by Calle et al. (2012) determined that
“the use of traditional teaching strategies, the teacher-centered approach, the
lack of interaction with and among students in the target language, and the
confusion of teachers when applying different communicative strategies” (p.1)
are determining factors that impede students from learning English effectively
at public schools in the city of Cuenca. This shows the problem our educational
system has had from many years, and the lack of opportunities we provide to our
students to learn this language in a more meaningful way.
Considering one of my classes[2], the majority
of my students are not able to express their ideas freely in English. Very few
students are interested in learning more than what is presented in class, and
therefore most of them do not frequently think deeply or ask questions about
the material; therefore, they are not used to think deeply and ask questions.
This seems to correspond with our educational model of memorization, which has
been practiced in schools for years. According to Espinoza (2017) most Latin American countries have
societies in which a mere transmission of content and theories is the basis of
the education system, which is not always interrelated with practice. In this
context Freire (1976) idealized
education which would transform society through critical and reflexive thought.
Currently, university students need
to develop higher order thinking skills to be part of a globalized world in
which opportunities are given to those individuals who can make fast decisions
and provide ideas based on arguments. Williams (2003) remarks that 21st century
students need more than just to recall ideas; they need to be prepared to think
creatively and critically to face the changing world. For instance, a true
education is one which liberates and teaches students to reflect and take
action to transform society (Freire
as cited in Espinoza, 2017).
At UNAE, students are expected to
develop a high level of English in a very short period of time and are also
required to develop critical thinking skills in order to become teachers in the
future. According to the Reglamento de Régimen Académico[3] article
80, it is stated that university students must obtain a B1 level of English to
complete their studies. To improve the education system in Ecuador, future
teachers should possess the ability to speak aloud and express their opinions
in English in the classroom – abilities which will help them in their future
professions. Stirling and McGloin (2015) point out that
the role of a university is to form students with high critical awareness,
which allows them to solve social problems.
However, developing speaking
ability can become a distinct challenge we face in our context. In specific
reference to Ecuador’s colonial education history, students are not taught to
reflect analyze, or evaluate the content, but to simply repeat content provided
by teachers (Freire, 2005). Mota (2010) agrees with the
fact that teachers in Latin American countries are not implementing critical
thinking strategies in the classroom, and that education is based more on a
transmission model. Pineda (2003), in her study
done in Colombia, emphasized that our communities have limited knowledge on how
to incorporate critical thinking into our EFL classrooms. That is why Freire’s (2005) pedagogy looks to
emancipate individuals, allowing them to bring support to the critical thinking
model’s incorporation into every classroom, and to help learners have their own
voices.
Taking into consideration this need
in the EFL university level and the gap in the literature, the purpose of this
action research is twofold: the first goal is to analyze the use of critical
thinking strategies in oral production in an EFL university classroom. The
second is to understand how students perceive these strategies. The following
questions guided this study.
1.
What
are the effects of critical thinking strategies on oral production in EFL
students?
2.
How
do students perceive these critical thinking strategies applied in their
classroom?
METHODOLOGY
Context and participants
This classroom-based action
research study was applied in an EFL classroom in an Ecuadorian University
UNAE. This is the first public University in Ecuador to offer education-only
related majors. It is located in the city of Azogues in Ecuador. Due to higher
education policies in Ecuador, students are required to obtain a B1 level in a
foreign language in order to graduate stated in Reglamento de Régimen
Académico article 80. Therefore, UNAE offers language courses to fulfill
this requirement. There are 6 levels of English offered in the Language
Institute of UNAE. In order to enroll in the final level of majors, students
must take a proficiency B1 exam, which is designed by the teachers of the
University. To teach English, teachers use English File and the Touchstone
series and each level covers 6 units per semester. Participants have 4 hours of
class per week. They have a total of 60 hours of English per semester.
Fifteen students voluntarily
accepted to participate in this research by signing an informed consent (see Appendix
1). Their English level was A.1. and A.2. Students who participated hailed
from different provinces in Ecuador, some of whom were first generation college
students. Students came from low or low-middle income; therefore, scholarships
were given to many students by the government. The native language of all of
the students was Spanish. This group of students were in the third level of
English according to the leveling of the English area at UNAE. The participants
passed the first and second level respectively. There were 12 women and 3 men
in the classroom. Each of the students was completing a major in an education-related
field.
Research Design
This study was
a classroom-based action research project, which employed quantitative and
qualitative tools to collect and analyze data. A classroom-based action
research study involves conducting research in a classroom in which the teacher
attempts to improve the students` performance by
taking into account the quality and
purpose of their practices (Convery,
2019).
The study involved a pre-test and post-test to measure students´ oral
production. A group pretest-posttest design is defined by Mertler (2016) as a kind of
study in which no comparison is made – rather, there is no control group.
Instead, therefore, the study was comprised of just one group which received
the experimental treatment. Moreover, a focus group discussion was carried out
at the end of the treatment to analyze the students’ perceptions regarding the
strategies applied, and to understand in depth the participants’ point of view.
This methodology helped to collect qualitative data.
Data collection Techniques and Instruments
Quantitative Data:
Procedure
In order to collect pre-intervention
data, students completed a Cambridge A2 speaking exam. All the students were
assessed in three categories which evaluated oral production, described in the
exam as grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation, and interaction (see Appendix 2).
Students were evaluated following the same logic of the international exam.
Students completed the pre-test in pairs. After the treatment the same
Cambridge A2 speaking exam was applied. All the students were evaluated in
pairs. A rubric was used which gave 5 points for each category previously
described. In total, students were assessed out of 15 points.
To collect the quantitative data,
the pre-test and post-test grades were used to explore the influence of the
critical thinking strategies applied in the development of speaking skills.
Later, in order to analyze the data, the SPSS 25 software was used with a
significance level of 0.05. Graphics (e.g. Histograms, etc.) illustrated
whether the variables distribution is symmetric or asymmetric across the data
set. These results showed the type of distribution that variables followed, in
order to decide the use of parametric or non-parametric tests.
Qualitative Data:
Procedure
The qualitative data was collected
by applying a focus group discussion to a group of participants to know the
students´ points of view about the strategies applied in their English lessons.
According to Flores and Alonso (1995), a focus group is
a technique used in research which entails the collection of data by the
researcher which involves the discussion of certain topics or questions by the
participants of the study. It is said that focus groups can provide more
meaningful information based on the interaction among participants and
moderator (Lederman, 1990). This led to the
collection of information from the participants in which they expressed their
ideas freely, avoiding the interference of the researcher’s prejudices in their
opinions (Bertrand, Brown & Ward, 1992). Key
participants were selected to be part of the focus group discussion. In order
to get meaningful data, participants who had high, medium and low results in
the post test were chosen. A topic guide was created based on the following
aspects: study´s objectives, unpredictable information collected in the
intervention, and the pre-test and post-test results. Furthermore, during the
focus group discussion, a question guide was used to help students direct their
conversation. The moderator was the first author, based on her familiarity with
the study. The discussion, conducted in Spanish, was recorded, transcribed, and
translated into English. Later the data was coded manually, and the information
was classified into themes and categories. These results were analyzed and
interpreted.
Procedure of intervention
Fifteen English language learners,
who voluntarily agreed in participating, were part of this study. All the
students belonged to the third level of English according to the leveling of
the university. The intervention lasted for 4 months, from April 2019 until
July 2019. The topics were based on the university syllabus. We covered six
topics during the semester: making friends, interests, health, celebrations,
growing up, and around town. Each strategy was used based on the topics under
study.
During the intervention, Teacher
Questioning, Think-Pair-Share, and Debates were applied. Sometimes two of the
strategies were used in each class due to the importance of discussion in
speaking ability. Teacher questioning was mainly used in each class because of
the nature of the strategy. To apply Teacher Questioning, the teacher created a
series of high order thinking questions based on the topics. Think-Pair-Share
was applied when students needed to interact amongst themselves. Debates were planned
in order to organize the topic, the participants on each team, and the time.
Students sometimes prepared their ideas at home to defend them during the
debates. The Debates were also based on the topics listed above. As Debates
needed more preparation, this strategy was used mostly at the end of units in
which students were able to use all the new vocabulary and grammar structures
learned during the unit in order to illustrate their improvement. For example,
one Debate topic considered whether Saint Valentine´s should or shouldn´t be
celebrated. This debate topic is an example of the “celebrations” unit.
Data Analysis
The information processing was
carried out in the statistical program SPSS 25 and the creation of tables and
graphs in Excel 2019. The results are expressed through measures of central
tendency and dispersion. In addition, to determine the number of students with
or without changes, absolute frequency measures were used. To determine the
changes generated, the statistical test was used for related Wilcoxon
samples, and decisions were made with a significance of 5%. On the other hand,
the qualitative part was analyzed organizing the information in different
themes. After that, the information was organized and categorized. Finally, the
information was interpreted and summarized.
RESULTS
Quantitative results
Oral production was measured as the
sum of grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation, and interactive communication,
and presented oscillations between 6 and 24 with an average of 14.00 (SD =
4.96). This result implies that the students reached 46% of the maximum grade.
Table 1 shows that the interactive communication skill was the weakest (M =
4.13; SD = 1.92).
According to the qualitative data,
all of the students who were part of the focus groups discussion agreed that
the strategies were good for their learning. All of them mentioned this phrase:
“The strategies are very good and I liked them a lot”. This illustrates that
critical thinking strategies used in an EFL classroom have a positive effect on
students’ preferences. Students mentioned different reasons to support their
predilections towards these strategies. They indicated that these strategies
helped them to improve their oral production. One of the participants mentioned
that these strategies helped them to interact with the teachers as well as with
their classmates. Another participant mentioned the way in which these
strategies helped them to acquire new vocabulary, specifically because they
needed it to communicate their ideas. “We could talk and think more”, mentioned
one participant. Another participant referred to the steps they followed
during the activities. He said, “We thought, reasoned, and later spoke.” These
reasons helped to support the fact that these strategies indeed were useful
among students during the treatment. Even though the teachers applied other
strategies and worked with different activities, participants stated their
opinions specifically towards critical thinking activities.
Participants during the focus group
also discussed their preferences among the three strategies used in the
treatment. Six of the seven students who participated in the focus group
discussion agreed that debates were their favorite treatment. One of the
participants had a different opinion and mentioned his preference for
Think-Pair-Share, because he could interact with his classmates. One of the
students also mentioned Teacher Questioning and Debates both together as her
favorite activities. The participants suggested that Debates were their
favorite strategy because they pushed them to speak and express their ideas, as
students were motivated to win the debate. Moreover, they wanted to defend
their thoughts and achieved the use of more vocabulary. A participant mentioned
that working on Debates helped him to develop collaborative and cooperative
work. Everybody wanted to speak and make themselves heard while expressing
their ideas. A participant concluded that while working with Debates in class,
they gained fluency and vocabulary. Debates forced participants to think and
speak, as they had to reply their classmates with answers they spontaneously
created. A participant stated that he preferred the Teacher Questioning
Strategy because the questions made him think and he had time to reflect and
give a well-thought-out answer. He said that having time to think was very
effective because he could provide a better answer.
In relation to the sub-skill they
developed the most during the treatment, three participants suggested that
fluency was the area they developed the most. This happened because they had to
speak consistently, and they did not focus on accuracy but on fluency. A
participant mentioned they interacted quite a bit with the teacher and with
their classmates. Three participants agreed that they acquired a good amount of
vocabulary and improved their lexicon. This was as a result of having time to
organize their ideas and look for new words in the dictionary in order to speak
to the whole class or with their classmates.
The participants also mentioned
some of the things they did not like about the treatment. Some students said
that while they worked with their peers, they tended to speak in Spanish rather
than in English. Also, they felt nervous and a little bit anxious at the very
beginning of the treatment because they did not know the way the strategies
worked, and because of their English level. Participants could not express
everything that they wanted to, but with time and practice, they overcame their
initial fear and began to improve in both confidence and language ability. Two
participants noted two negative things about debates; namely they mentioned
that defending a topic that sometimes they did not agree with was difficult
because they did not feel comfortable speaking about said topic. Furthermore, a
participant mentioned that when participating on debates some students did not
stay on topic, and this situation of students not being on task, created
conflicts among them which made difficult to manage the strategy.
Three of the participants of the
focus group mentioned that they were nervous and afraid during the first
classes because they did not have enough language ability to communicate their
ideas. They also noted that this changed when they learned more vocabulary and
built confidence in themselves, their classmates and the teacher. One of the
participants mentioned he was very motivated to learn and speak because he felt
that he was improving his English language abilities. Three of the participants
reported that they felt comfortable and happy during the treatment.
DISCUSSION
This study´s main objective was to
observe the effects that three critical thinking strategies had on oral production
applied in an EFL classroom in Ecuador. The participants started the course
with a 46% of achievement out of 100%. This was the result of the pre-test.
Also, it is important to mention that interactive communication was the weakest
sub skill. After the treatment, the results showed the improvement students
had. Eleven out of fifteen students had positive changes in their oral
production. These results are in line with the findings by Ramezani, Larsari, and Kiasi (2016) who concluded
that students who are better critical thinkers performed higher in their
speaking tests. The results of the present study showed a 74% level of
achievement out of 100%. We can notice that most of the students had positive
effects in their performance in the post-test. Therefore, the results reveal
that critical thinking strategies used in an EFL classroom have positive
effects in the participants´ oral production. This aligns with Malmir and Shoorcheh’s (2012) study which
concluded that a student who thinks critically will learn English more
effectively.
Analyzing the quantitative results,
we can also see that grammar and vocabulary had the lowest improvement in
speech production; meanwhile, interactive communication had the highest
improvement in oral production. This also has to do with the focus on fluency
over accuracy. Students were more engaged with speaking freely or fluently
rather than accurately. This is supported by Marin and Pava (2017) who concluded in their research that
critical thinking strategies is an important element in an EFL classroom as
they offer students communicative competence. Pineda (2004) noted that
critical thinking strategies enhance second language learning.
Another important element to
discover was the students’ perceptions in relation to the strategies applied in
class. All the participants mentioned that they enjoyed the critical thinking
strategies because they helped them to enhance their oral production as they
had to speak in class frequently. Participants mentioned these strategies
helped them to think before speaking, which is one of the advantages that
critical
thinking strategies offer. When
students have time to think before speaking, they produce better structured
sentences and with more meaningful content. Also, they mentioned the importance
of having time to prepare their ideas at home or in class with their
classmates.
The favorite strategy according to
students were debates, because participants mentioned they were motivated to
express and defend their ideas using valid arguments. Krieger (2005) suggested the importance of debates to
develop a second language. Participants mentioned that debates provided them
with the ability to increase their fluency and vocabulary as they had a limited
time to speak in their debates. This suggests that students increased their
fluency in their second language.
Students mentioned during the focus
group that they improved their vocabulary because they needed the words to
speak in class. Critical thinking strategies like Teacher Questioning,
Think-Pair-Share, and Debates force students to produce oral speech in class.
Therefore, according to the results of this study, students increased their
vocabulary. This matches with research conducted by Sanavi and Tarighat (2014) in which deeper learning of new
vocabulary was seen during the course they carried out in which they trained
students in the use of critical thinking skills. Also, Fahim and Komijani (2010) found a positive effect on
critical thinking on L2 vocabulary learning.
The area that participants
developed the most according to students’ perceptions was fluency, as they
interacted with the teachers and their peers. Students mentioned the importance
of teacher questioning, more specifically that they should answer the questions
in English. Sanavi and Tarighat (2014) reinforced this
idea in their study which found that participants who belonged to the
experimental group performed better in their speaking ability than those in the
control group. This forced student to improve their vocabulary because the
questions were challenging for them. The participants needed more complex
vocabulary in order to answer the questions. Also, students valued the
necessity of interacting with their classmates. They felt less anxious when
they worked with their classmates. Moreover, they said they developed
cooperative and collaborative learning abilities because they helped each other
during the activities. However, I found interesting that one of the
participants
mentioned that sometimes when they
had to interact with their friends, they did it in Spanish. He mentioned that
this was not good for their English practice.
Most of the students reported that
they were nervous and afraid at the beginning of the course. The participants
argued that speaking in another language produces anxiety because they could
not express what they have in their minds in the target language. However, they
mentioned that this changed with time as they started to feel more comfortable
and confident in class. Students struggled with oral production at the
beginning of the course because they were not used to working on similar
strategies in their previous courses.
CONCLUSIONS
Critical thinking strategies
applied in a university-level English class had positive effects in the
development of oral production. Participants showed an increase in
communicative interactions as these strategies allowed students to interact
with the teacher and their classmates frequently and consistently. It can be concluded
that these strategies helped students to develop their speaking skills.
However, grammar was the sub skill in oral production that showed the least
improvement. This corresponds with the nature of the strategies considered. It
can be said that these strategies are more useful to develop fluency than
accuracy.
Critical thinking strategies are
appealing to students. In fact, participants mentioned that they liked the
strategies. University students like to provide their opinions, but they need
to be trained to think and opportunities should be provided in class in which
they can have the chance to participate actively. These strategies give a voice
to students and allow them to improve their oral production while training
their brain to think critically and analyze their answers before speaking.
It can be
concluded that these strategies can help to increase vocabulary acquisition.
Students mentioned many times that they learned a considerable amount of new
vocabulary, as they needed the words to speak. Even though this study did not
focus on vocabulary acquisition, it is important to consider it in
further research.
Critical thinking strategies
provide students with time to reason. This is extremely important to students
in early levels of second language learning because they need to organize their
ideas before producing speech. Using these strategies with students who have an
A1 level of English is possible. It could be misinterpreted that these high
order level of thinking strategies are better applied with higher levels of
proficiency, but we can now say that A1 and A2 students can work with these
strategies as well as others.
All of the strategies included in
the study were easy to use and adapt to the topics presented in class. Teacher
Questioning needs to be prepared in advanced if the teacher is using this
strategy for the first time. Think-Pair-Share is a very adaptable strategy, as
the instructor does not need to prepare anything in advance, just a discussion
topic or question. It takes up very little time in class as well. Debates
usually take more time to set up, regarding specifically the formation of
groups and asking students to organize themselves and gather ideas. Also,
during this study, this strategy needed more time to be completed as students
liked to give their opinions and defend them.
Even though this study has
contributed to the Ecuadorian EFL context, further research needs to be
conducted in other type of universities and high schools, private and public
ones. Thus, by carrying out research in different conditions of other
educational contexts, we will be able to have a better idea of what is
happening in our country regarding the effects of critical thinking skills in
oral production in our EFL students. Also, the effects of the employment of
these strategies can be studied in other language skills, such as vocabulary.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully thank the students
who participated voluntarily in this study and the Universidad Nacional de
Educación, UNAE for its support.
REFERENCES
Alasmari, A., & Salahuddin Ahmed, S.
(2012). Using Debate in EFL Classes. English Language Teaching, 6(1),
147-152. doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n1p147
Bertrand, J., Brown, J., & Ward, V. (1992). Techniques for analyzing focus
group data. Evaluation Review, 16(2), 198-209. doi: https://doi.org10.1177/0193841X9201600206
Beyer, B. K. (1985). Critical thinking: What is
it? Social Education, 49 (4), 270-276. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ316045
Boyd, E. M., & Fales, A.W. (1983).
Reflective learning: Key to Learning from Experience. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 23(2), 99-117. doi: 10.1177/0022167883232011
Calle, A.M., Calle, S., Argudo, J., Moscoso, E., Smith, A., y Cabrera P.
(2012). Los profesores de inglés y su práctica docente: Un estudio de caso de
los colegios fiscales de la ciudad de Cuenca, Ecuador. Maskana, 3 (2),
1-17. https://doi.org/10.18537/mskn.03.02.01
Chaffee, J. (2014). Critical Thinking,
Thoughful Writing, 6th ed. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Google Scholar
Consejo de
Educación Superior.
(2019). Reglamento de Régimen Académico, (111) 80, 1-53.
Google Scholar
Convery, A. (2019) Encouraging
practitioners’ agency through action research approaches. Educational
Action Research, 27(5), 647-650. doi:10.1080/09650792.2019.1674003
Dillon, J. T. (1988). Teacher Questions. In New
York: Teachers College Press (Ed). Questioning and teaching: A manual of
practice. (pp.42-77). London: Croom Helm.
Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Google Scholar
El Comercio. (2018). El nivel de inglés en el Ecuador todavía es bajo. Retrieved
from http://www.elcomercio.com/tendencias/ecuador-nivel-ingles-adultos-educacion.html
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for
measuring CT skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.
Retrieved from https://jgregorymcverry.com/readings/ennis1985assessingcriticalthinking.pdf
Espinoza, O. (2017). Paulo Freire’s ideas as an alternative to higher education
neo-liberal reforms in Latin America. Journal of Moral Education, 46(4),
435-448. doi: https://doi.org10.1080/03057240.2017.1363601
Fahim, M., & Komijani, A. (2011). Critical Thinking Ability, L2 Vocabulary
Knowledge, and L2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies. Journal of English Studies,
1(1), 23-38. Retrieved from https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=207747
Fahim, M., & Teimourtash, M. (2012).
A critical look at the notion of critical thinking from a new personality trait
perspective: “Midtrovert”. Advances in Digital Multimedia, 1(3),
149-152. doi: https://doi.org/10.1.1.459.8577
Fahim, M., & Rezanejad, A. (2014). Critical Thinking in the EFL Context
of Iran. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature,
3(4), 128-135. doi: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.4p.128
Flores, J. G., & Alonso, C. G. (1995). Using focus groups in educational
research: Exploring teachers' perspectives on educational change. Evaluation
Review, 19(1), 84-101. doi:10.1177/0193841X9501900104
Fluquen, A.Y., & Jimenez, P. K. (2013).
Implementing tasks that stimulate critical thinking in EFL classrooms. Cuadernos
de Lingüística Hispánica, 21(1),143-158. doi: https://doi.org/10.19053/0121053X.1955
Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom´s taxonomy:
Original and revised. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning,
teaching, and technology, (pp. 1-10).
Google Scholar
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogía Del Oprimido.
México: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
Google Scholar
Freire, P. (1976). Educación y Cambio
(Education and Change). Buenos Aires: Comisión Ecuménica Latinoamericana de
Educación (CELADEC).
Ghanizadeh, A., & Jahedizadeh, S. (2017). Validating the Persian Version of
Reflective Thinking Questionnaire and Probing Iranian University Students'
Reflective Thinking and Academic Achievement. International Journal of
Instruction, 10(3), 209-226. doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.10314a
Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the
development of critical thinking. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Halpern, D. (2006). The Nature and Nurture of Critical Thinking. In R.
Sternberg, H. Roediger III, & D. Halpern (Eds.), Critical Thinking in
Psychology (pp. 1-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804632.002
Iman, J. N. (2017). Debate Instruction in EFL
Classroom: Impacts on the Critical Thinking and Speaking Skill. International
Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 87-108. doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1046a
King, A. (1990). Enhancing Peer Interaction and Learning in the Classroom
through Reciprocal Questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4),
664-687. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312027004664
Krieger, D. (2005). Teaching debate to ESL students: A six-class unit. The
Internet TESL Journal, 11(2). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Krieger-Debate.html
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of
critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(1), 16–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028002016
Lederman, L. (1990). Assessing educational effectiveness: The focus group
interview as a technique for data collection. Communication Education,
39(2), 117-127. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378794
Ley Orgánica de
Educación Superior (2014).
Quito, Ecuador.
Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining
higher order thinking. Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 131-137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543588
Malmir, A., & Shoorcheh, S. (2012). An
investigation of the impact of teaching critical thinking on Iranian EFL
learners speaking skill. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(40),
608-617. doi: https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.4.608-617
Marin, M., & Pava, L. (2017). Conceptions
of Critical Thinking from University EFL Teachers. English Language Teaching,
10(7), 78-88. doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n7p78
Martínez, C. (2011) Tres actividades de
pensamiento crítico: debate, solución de problemas y dramatización aplicadas en
una clase de inglés como lengua extranjera en una universidad privada
ecuatoriana (Master´s thesis). University of San Francisco de Quito. Quito,
Ecuador.
Google Scholar
Mertler, C. (2016). Action research improving
schools and empowering educators (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Google Scholar
Ministerio de Educación. (2016).
Currículo Ecuatoriano. Retrieved from https://educacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2018/09/MINEDUC-MINEDUC-2018-00089-A.pdf
Mota de Cabrera, C. (2010). Desarrollo del pensamiento crítico a través del discurso
argumentativo: Una experiencia pedagógica en un curso de lectura y escritura. Entre
lenguas, 15(1), 11-23. Retrieved from http://www.saber.ula.ve/bitstream/handle/123456789/32629/articulo1.pdf;jsessionid=4FA88E24AB11753F3438495FB9114FBE?sequence=1
Nosratinia, M., & Zaker,
A. (2013). Autonomous Learning and Critical Thinking: Inspecting the
Association Among EFL Learners. CIVILICA,1(2),100-114. Retrieved
form http://www.civilica.com/Paper-TELT01-TELT01_226.html
Paul, R. W. (1985). Bloom’s taxonomy
and critical thinking intervention. Educational Leadership, 42(8),
36-39. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ319813
Paul, R. (1996). Critical
thinking workshop handbook. Rohnert Park, CA: Centre for Critical Thinking,
Sanoma State University.
Google Scholar
Pineda, C. (2003). Searching for
improved EFL classroom environments: The role of critical thinking-related
tasks. Bogotá: Departamento de Publicaciones Universidad Externado de
Colombia.
Google Scholar
Pineda, C. (2004) Critical Thinking in
the EFL Classroom: The Search for a Pedagogical Alternative to Improve English
Learning. Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 9, (15), 45-80.
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277834572
Ramezani, R., Larsari, E., & Kiasi, M.
(2016). The Relationship between Critical Thinking and EFL Learners’ Speaking
Ability. English Language Teaching, 9 (6), 189-198. doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n6p189
Reed, J. H. (1998). Effect of a model for
critical thinking on students' achievement in primary source document analysis.
(PhD dissertation) University of south Florida. Retrieved from www.criticalthinking.org
Richard, P., & Elder, L. (2008). The
Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for
Critical Thinking. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Robertson, K. (2006). Increase student interaction with “Think-Pair-Shares” and
“Circle Chats”. Colorin: Colorado. Retrieved from https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/increase-student-interaction-think-pair-shares-and-circle-chats
Rodas, T. (2014) Critical Thinking Skills
Development and English Improvement through Reading and Writing Activities at
Lower-Intermediate Level in Sagrados Corazones High School in Cuenca, Ecuador
(Master´s thesis). University of Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.
Savani, R., & Tarighat, S. (2014). Critical
Thinking and Speaking Proficiency: A Mixed-method Study. Theory and Practice
in Language Studies, 4 (1), 79-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.1.79-87
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: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n1p199
Sousa, D. (2001). How the Brain Learns, 2nd
Edition. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Google Scholar
Stirling, J., & McGloin, C. (2015).
Critical pedagogy and social inclusion policy in Australian higher education:
identifying the disjunctions. Radical pedagogy, 12 (2), 1-20. Retrieved
from https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3016&context=lhapapers
Swain, M. (2000). The Output Hypothesis and
beyond: Mediating Acquisition through Collaborative Dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf
(Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97-114).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Williams, B. (2003). Higher Order
Thinking Skills: Challenging All Students to Achieve. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Google Scholar
Zhao, H., & Coombs, S. (2012). Intercultural teaching and learning
strategies for global citizens: A Chinese EFL perspective. Teaching in
Higher Education, 17(3), 245-255. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.611874
Zhao, C., Pandian, A. & Mehar, M.
(2016). Instructional Strategies for Developing Critical Thinking in EFL
Classrooms. English Language Teaching, 9(10), 14-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n10p14
APPENDIX 1
Formulario
de Participación Voluntaria
Nombre
del estudio:
Efectos de estrategias de pensamiento crítico en el desarrollo de la habilidad
de hablar en el idioma inglés.
Investigador: Jessica Ochoa D.
E-mail:
[email protected]
El
presente estudio tiene como objetivo analizar los efectos que tienen las
estrategias de pensamiento crítico en el segundo idioma. Es de su completa
decisión aceptar el ser parte del estudio o no. Después de haber aceptado,
usted tendrá la opción de abandonar hasta antes del análisis de datos
recolectados. Es importante recalcar que usted no será afectado de ninguna
forma por el estudio y sus resultados; al contrario, su participación supone
una valiosa contribución para la academia y futuras técnicas de enseñanza del
inglés como lengua extranjera.
El
estudio comprende la aplicación de técnicas de enseñanza en el inglés y el
impacto de las mismas en el dominio de la lengua. Se busca aplicar estrategias
que promueven el trabajo en equipo y el progreso estudiantil. El tratamiento
del estudio durará 3 meses en los cuales usted desarrollará actividades
académicas las cuales serán analizadas para obtener medidas y sacar
conclusiones. Todo resultado obtenido del estudio o tareas no será incluido en
su promedio de calificaciones.
Toda
la información del estudio será de absoluta confidencialidad, así como
resultados individuales de los participantes. Usted será asignado un número el
cual solo usted y el docente tendrán conocimiento, y en caso de publicación del
estudio como artículo académico, su identidad no será revelada por ningún
concepto. Finalmente, es importante recalcar que usted no pagará por ser parte
estudio ni recibirá un pago por lo mismo.
Su
participación es estrictamente voluntaria y si tiene alguna pregunta sobre el
estudio, puede contactarme a través del correo electrónico o en persona.
Yo,
Jessica Ochoa D., he cumplido con informar de manera completa sobre el estudio
al estudiante. He discutido las actividades a realizarse, procedimientos,
confidencialidad y he respondido a todas las inquietudes.
Investigador:
___________________________
Date:
______________________
Estudiante,
He
leído toda la información incluida en este consentimiento escrito. Todas mis
dudas fueron respondidas satisfactoriamente. De manera voluntaria, acuerdo
participar en este estudio.
Estudiante:
_____________________________
Date:_______________________
APPENDIX 2