Nominal prefixes in the Khmer Language

Nominal prefixes in the Khmer Language

By Janpha Thadphoothon

Photo taken in 2015

The two prefixes to form nouns (nominal prefixes)  commonly found in Khmer are : សេចក្តី (Sekkadai) ..and  ការ  (Karn).
They can be used as the subject or object of the sentence.

Examples

សេចក្តី + សង្ឃឹម (hoping) = សេចក្តីសង្ឃឹម - Hope

សេចក្តី + ល្ (good) អ= សេចក្តី ល្អ  - Goodness

សេចក្តី  (-ness) + គិត (think) = សេចក្តីគិត - Thought / Idea

សេចក្តី + ចងចាំ (remember) = សេចក្តីចងចាំ  - Memory

++++++ ការ    + Verb ++++++++++++++


ការ+ សាងសង់ = ការសាងសង់ - Construction

ការ+ ងារ (work as a verb) = ការងារ - Work (noun)

ការ+ នេសាទ (to fish) = ការនេសាទ - Fishery


Examples

សេចក្តីសង្ឃឹម ជារឿងសំខាន់  ពេលជួបការលំបាក
Hope is important when we face difficulties or hardship.

សេចក្តីសង្ឃឹម.គឺ កម្លាំងចិត្តនៃជីវិត
Hope..the strength of life

Some Concepts of Critical thinking in ELT

Some Concepts of Critical thinking in ELT

Janpha Thadphoothon

Authors	Concepts of critical thinking	Areas
Hymes 1964; Widdowson 1978	Appropriate communication, Communicative competence	CLT
Rubin, 1975; O'Malley & Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990; Chamot 1995	Learning strategies The main assumption being: Learning strategy training will result in improved language learning ability.	Learning strategies
Atkinson 1997; Hawkins 1997	A social practice which is bound by specific culture: critical thinking is cultural thinking	L2 Writing & CDA
Davidson 1997, Gieve 1997	Philosophical approach: Rational judgment	Informal Logic Movement
Aarts 1997; 2002	Argumentation in linguistics, Argumentation in syntax	Traditional linguistics
Maley 2001	Cognitive properties embedded in language with cultural appropriateness	L2 Writing & Traditional linguistics
Thomson 2002	Skills university students need to acquire	CDA
Day 2004	Many levels of critical thinking, ranging from basic to complex levels	Traditional linguistics & Informal Logic Movement
Tan, Gallo, Jacobs and Lee 1999	Thinking skills	Informal Logic Movement

In this research, CT is conceptualized in the context language learning. It has been hypothesized as having three major components: (1) thinking critically about language learning (learning strategies), (2) using language for reasoning (appropriate reasoning), and (3) appropriate communication.

It must be noted here that L2 proficiency, indeed, matters in L2 communication. What are its major roles in L2 contexts? If a leaner can’t express himself in L2, he is not a successful L2 learner. This is an obvious case. Experience has informed us that many adult learners, despite having limited linguistic repertoire, are often equipped with highly developed communicative skills in L1. They can perform complex non-verbal tasks successfully, e.g. solving mathematical problems, given clear instructions in L1. From this angle, it seems their cognitive ability functions independently of their linguistic faculty. Ideas expressed in L2 may have to be filtered based on different sets of knowledge.

The model presented requires that learners think critically, or be reflective about their own language learning, i.e. strategies, attitudes towards language learning as well as their perception of their own ability. In addition, learners need to be able to communicate their ideas and feelings appropriately. Their reasoning, to be deemed as appropriate, must be logical and not harmful to others.

Since it is unlikely that we will be able to directly observe what is going on in people’s heads in the near future, all we can do at the present is to infer how and what people think from the language they have produced. Ben Jonson put it aptly that ‘Language most shows a man: speak that I may see thee’. Research in the field of language learning has reported that competent language users are effective communicators, and that is that they have the ability to organize sentences or texts as well as use them for communication effectively. In other words, they need both language knowledge and strategic competence (Bachman & Palmer, 2000; Doughlas, 2000; Weigle, 2002). Critical thinkers are individuals who can sort “sense from nonsense” (Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, 1994, p. 57). When language learners ask appropriate questions, build connections among ideas, they are thinking critically. Such learners are also creative and open to new experiences.

CMCL and SLA

 How CMCL promotes language learning

Janpha Thadphoothon

Upon reflection, we (the researcher and his collaborators) realized that the two areas are equally important: fostering CT in English language learning as well as developing the students’ language proficiency. The task we undertook was enormous, but it is crucial for the students’ success in their learning.

One of the strengths reported in chapter 6 was that this CMCL was a platform for teachers to engage in activities that would enable them to be reflective practitioners.

On reflection this study gave the researcher as well as the teachers opportunities to learn for the members of the Bamboo Enterprise. The students were cooperative and performed their best.

In case study 3, we (the researcher and the teacher) admitted that despite our anticipation, we did not adequately anticipate linguistic demand of the task the students had to face.

We have come to realize that collaboration is challenging, but it is the key to success. Based on the literature review, there was enough evidence to show that collaborating with one another is more effective than competing with each other or learning in isolation. In fact, successful collaboration was found as the key to success.

Collaboration is indeed a means towards strengths.

The collaborators said.

What have I learnt? For me, this was the first time I guided a group of students through the process of preparing a PowerPoint presentation. Of course, I could not have done this without the technical know-how of Janpha and Junko. I learned that it doesn’t matter if I cannot teach my students how to prepare a PowerPoint presentation, or that I cannot guide them through a communication exchange on a website, as long as I can recruit technical help. After all, one person cannot be everything!

Another reflection echoed similar tone:

What have I learnt? Firstly, I have realised that there is a useful system called Yahoo Group in which students can share their ideas freely on the Internet. I have also realised that they begin to work both individually as well as by sharing their ideas with other classmates when they are given a group task. If they know exactly what they are supposed to do, they start searching information, prepare presentation slides, and even practice their group presentations on their own at the final stage of their project. All I had to help them with was just to make sure whether they were on the right track. Some of the students needed somebody to proofread their summary for their presentation. Other students needed some help about how to use PowerPoint. I helped some of them as much as I could, but I also saw them showing their own summaries to each other in order to get some feedback or by learning from each other with PowerPoint slides.

Another one:

What have I learnt? How I managed a long-term project that involves groups of students. I learned how to use this technology myself, for example, PowerPoint, website construction, Microsoft word, and chat rooms.

Like the students, this CMCL has the potential because it has encouraged the researcher as well as the teachers to be reflective in their understandings of their work.

Potential of this CMCL

The objective of the study, as repeatedly mentioned, was to determine the potential of the approach.

This initial investigation suggests that this CMCL has a lot of potential. The five areas of its potential are as follows:

6.5.1 As a Means To Promote Communicative Use of English

There is strong evidence to suggest that this CMCL promotes the students’ communicative use of English. This CMCL was implemented in its broader sense entailing both online and off-line communication. It has the potential to promote communicative language learning. As demonstrated in all cases, English was actually used for communicative purposes was nothing but ‘a common denominator’ Group activities, with online and off-line supports, undoubtedly, have formed a trend toward communication methodology.

We agreed that this CMCL has the potential in enhancing  the students’ critical thinking in language learning. Certainly, CMCL has the potential to enhance learners’ critical thinking in language learning. Its serious emphasis on the environment could become a force within the ELT context. Critical thinking in language learning could also become an effective way of safeguarding against the abuse of information manufactured by the intentions of its sources, e.g. media and politicians and so on. The teachers should set themselves as good examples, open-minded, and develop themselves continuously.

As a Means for Teachers to Develop Themselves Professionally

This CMCL has the potential to be a viable means for language teachers to conduct such research. This study showed another way of doing it, thorough collaborative research in the classroom, which has been a widely-practiced form of research conducted by language teachers as practitioners (Brumfit & Mitchell, 1990; Cardenas, 2003; Kincheloe, 2003).Teachers need to continuously learn and grow, like students or any other professions. Conducting classroom research is another way toward professional growth (Richards, 2003), and this study has shown one way it could be done. Two cases were examples. The teacher in case study 2 wrote his paper for a conference(Cambage, 2004). One collaborator in case study 1 produced a related academic paper for her MA study (Kosaki, 2004).The two cases were examples of how this type of collaborative research could be a means for teachers and researchers could collaborate to develop themselves academically and professionally.

Recently, in the field of TESOL, teacher-researcher collaboration has been a new area of interest. Two commentaries in TESOL Quarter gave their insights they gained from their collaboration between teachers and researchers in TESOL(Hawkins & Leger, 2004; O'Connor & Sharkey, 2004). This is another way to enable teachers to become reflective practitioners (Schon, 1983).

As a Means To Actually Protect the Environment

English teachers, too, have their part in saving the environment, the broken in nature. Certainly, writing on the computer reduces the use of paper, and keeping the texts online means reducing more paper waste. As shown in many projects with the BE, many files were systematically stored and was ready to be retrieved by other members. Participants did not need to print them out from the site. Information available means photocopying can be reduced. Moreover, texts produced can be shared. In this thesis, CMCL by itself, through writing and publishing on websites, is an act of conservation, an act of saving trees to make paper as well as an act of reducing paper waste. Writing English, with help functions, e.g. spelling checkers, on computers may slowly replace writing using pen and paper.

Online networks help make online collaboration easier, and sharing of expertise on environmental issues. For example, a volunteer from Chile may wish to share how Santiago had successfully resolved their water pollution with a group of students in Bangkok. A global problem requires global efforts. Based on observational learning principles, sharing of success stories can help encourage others to do the same. A teaching profession that deals with language education like TESOL often regarded by the public as having limited role in societies, dealing with grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, rhetoric, how to use words to attain power. It’s the profession dubbed by many critics as one of the Sophists’ disciple. Recognizing the limitation of using words, the sixth caucus asks TESOL practitioners to take constructive actions.

Kumaravadivelu (2003) has urged ELT practitioners to work collaboratively with other stakeholders, e.g., fellow teachers, learners, experts in the field, and community activists.  Teachers should move away being passive technicians, which is their traditional role, to being those of the transformative intellectuals. However, his call has not been materialized, especially in the field of TESOL. Neither nor he suggests any practical items of advice for teachers or researchers.

More and more progressive educationists and policy makers would like to see more schools and communities work together to solve social and environmental, among others. Jacobs (2004, personal communication), for example, would like EFL studies or classrooms to actually do something to protect the environment, in addition to just ponder upon something in the air. Following is a good example. Amy Hemmert and Tammy Pelstring (2003), at CATESOL 2003 Convention reported some examples of schools that had actually implemented environmental projects. They gave the final thought as follows:

- As a society we’ve come a long way.

- We still have a long way to go to fully protect and effectively manage our natural environment.

- As teachers, we now have a large number of resources available to us, especially on the Internet.

- We need to make sure that we continue to involve ESL students in environmental education programs.

As a Possible Theme in ELT

This study showed that learning online and off-line can be mixed, and such learning does not have to be isolated. CMCL is a means towards independent learning capacity. Most people may fail to notice that some of the loneliest places are big cities. There is growing argument that what will work best in this new learning environment is, an appropriate one, a mixed approach which combined online and face-to-face elements. Teachers need to find ways that suit their circumstances. Needless to say, they need to think integration. An image of a person sitting alone and felling lonely in front of the computer screen should be the history.

However, it can be argued either that interdisciplinary work need not be so ambitious or theoretically demanding (e.g., an academic based in an English department and an academic based in a Cinema Studies department may be quite readily able to define a mode of interaction that is rooted in an interdisciplinary procedure when examining a filmic text) or that it may be able to draw upon a set of procedures and theories that have attained a measure of clear definition (political economy). What is needed, perhaps, is clarity about what (and how much) is being attempted. Different levels of ambition can be defined.

Plainly, for example, there are different types of inter-disciplinary study:

Developing conceptual links using a perspective in one discipline to modify a perspective in another discipline

Recognizing a new level of organization with its own processes in order to solve unsolved problems within existing disciplines or problems that lie beyond the scope of any one discipline.

Using research techniques developed in one discipline to elaborate a theoretical model in another

Modifying and extending a theoretical framework from one domain to apply in another

Developing a new theoretical framework that may reconceptualize research in separate domains as it attempts to integrate them

Addressing broad issues and/or complex questions spanning more than one disciplinary field. (Klein, 1990)

What certainly seems to be the case is that, because the coverage of disciplines is incomplete and partial (in both senses of the word) some migration of specialisms and some hybridization is inevitable, and these need to be explored in any higher education programme of learning. Linguistics’ interactions with the (other) Social Sciences certainly illustrate this, with Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistics in particular firmly established as what can be called interdisciplines—areas of knowledge, study and learning with distinct, evolving theoretical and methodological procedures. Such interdisciplines are certainly not unamenable to undergraduate study.

Even though a real sense of being in a community, in this case BE, was not strong among members. The best that this study can claim was that many members had benefited from the support provided by the community. CMCL as a theme means working towards knowledge-building community where knowledge can be systematically archived and shared (Wenger, 1998).

We came to one conclusion, that is: this CMCL has a lot of the potential in promoting communicative use of English and enhancing critical thinking in language learning. On top of that, despite difficulties, it also has the potential to be a means for professional development through classroom research. This CMCL also has the potential to be platform for teachers and students to put critical thinking into action by actually, as one of the student websites has put it: Do Something About It, protect the environment. Lastly, from a bigger picture, this CMCL, from an ecological approach to language learning and teaching, has the potential to be a possible theme in education.

How to develop students' critical thinking skills?

How should we teach critical thinking to students?

Janpha Thadphoothon

There are those who believe that CT is directly teachable. This approach would like the teacher to teach critical thinking separately and explicitly. In his book, Critical Thinking, Alec Fisher (2001) aimed to teach directly an important range of thinking skills. For him, CT is a set of skills, and they are the things that every student should know in order to be a good spectator or a person who can assess the text properly. He would like students to use 'thinking maps' which can help improve thinking by asking key questions when encountered different types of problems. Fisher also explains the language of reasoning, how to understand different kinds of arguments and how to ask the right question. Critical Thinking entails many examples and exercises which give extensive practice in developing what he refers to as ‘critico-creative thinking skills’. Edward de Bono’s popular thinking methods, e.g. Six Thinking Hats and the like fall into this approach. In many parts of the world, e.g. Singapore, Thailand, Japan, or Australia, accreditation courses for de Bono’s thinking methods are offered to the public. There are courses for students as well as working executives. There seem to be courses for everyone, every age level, across culture, in every continent. Lateral thinking, according to Frank, Rinvolucri, and Berer (1982), can be developed through a series of exercises that would enable the learners to develop strong relationships within the group or class, based on the sharing of problems, ideas and experience. Similarly, Sofo (2004) recommended six ways for teachers to encourage their students to think deeply in their learning in order to become independent learners and thinkers.

This direct approach regards critical thinking as skills and dispositions that should be explicitly taught and can be tested with specific instruments (Black, 1952; Ennis, R. et al., 1985; Ennis, R. H., 1962; 1987; Fisher, 2001). One of the most talked-about approaches to critical thinking is the introduction of philosophy to children (Lipman, 2003). Children need to be instructed to develop thinking skills and dispositions.

In ELT, those who belief in the benefit of learning strategies will try to make the students become reflective in their language learning (Rubin, 1975; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990;Oxford, 1990; Chamot, 1995). In the classroom level, teachers should create a community of thinkers (Chamot, 1995). Most will agree that directly training of the students on learning strategies is desirable and effective approach. Chamot (1995) suggested three things teachers should do to promote thinking in the classroom by (1) tapping on the students’ prior knowledge, (2) asking the students to be reflective about their learning strategies, and (3) providing them the opportunity to reflect on their learning experience.

Davidson (1997) and Gieve (1997) argue that CT is teachable and is a desirable thing to do. Their concept of CT is based on the philosophical approach. They prefer direct: and explicit instruction. For Davidson (1997), critical thinking is a thing that can be directly assessed. Another strand of CT in ELT is the old notion of CT in linguistics. For Aarts (1997; 2002), argumentation in linguistics and argumentation in syntax can be enhanced through the process of habit forming. The teachers, in the classroom, need to motivate the answers they give to particular problems they are faced with. In practical classroom context, Day (2004) suggests that there are many levels of critical thinking, ranging from basic to complex levels. For Day, activities should be prepared in ways which the students have opportunities to identify facts, opinion from the given statements or passages. Likewise, Tan, Gallo, Jacobs, and Lee (1999) said that CT is a set of thinking skills. It can be integrated into normal classroom instructions. They prefer activities that focus on contents and cooperative learning.

However, there are those who doubt the effectiveness of direct teaching. There are those who prefer an indirect approach.

Many critics argue that there is little empirical evidence to show that students are able to transfer such thinking abilities to their real life situations. There are scholars who still argue that critical thinking is subject-specific. This research heeds the wisdom of Professor Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976). If critical thinking is so important, an aim in education, why not make every course or subject a critical thinking course? Some academics maintain that they have been doing this all along, albeit not explicitly mention the name. Critical thinking can be a slippery term. Most people have some ideas of what a kitchen looks like, but they can’t precisely pinpoint its exact object, e.g. a knife, a chopping board, and so on. There are teachers who argue that they have been teaching their student critical thinking. The advocates of this approach will teach critical thinking indirectly, as part of everything else. Another version of this belief is that CT should be approached indirectly.

On reflection, invoking the term critical thinking is like saying I love you. Some people like to say it; others don’t. Mathematicians or physicists rarely mention ‘critical thinking’ as being their focus. Very few people, however, question their ability to think critically.

This indirect approach’s basic tenet is that critical thinking should best be approached as part of traditional school subjects. Elements of CT are already there, staring at your face trying to get your attention. If an education aim is to create a person who can think critically, it should follow that the most important thing to teach is critical thinking. However, there are subject matters to be mastered and tested. Every subject of study requires that the learner be able to deal with some ‘problems’ effectively. To do so, the person may need to apply mathematical principles, for example. In this regard, CT can be compared to mathematics or formal logics. It has its place and role in most areas of education and life learning. The main argument is that elements of critical thinking are already there.

Critical thinking in any particular contexts may be a term appropriate for this method. However, skeptics of the direct method, as their label suggests, have pointed out that there has been very little empirical evidence to suggest that students have been able to transfer such thinking abilities to real life situations. Slower students may not think as effectively as faster ones. Many students may be too focused on content and details and may fail to be reflective about themselves and their learning. Nonetheless, McPeck (1981) has maintained that critical thinking is subject-specific. If that is the case, it has to logically follow that critical thinking should best be taught indirectly, embedded in an existing epistemology. You do not have to use words to say ‘I love you.’ Another classic example is the teaching of Latin as a means to enable learners to develop their thinking. The direct approach to CT has indeed been a predominant one.

In ELT, CT needs to be introduced with care and indirectly. From the L2 writing scholars, CT is perceived as a social practice which is bound by specific culture. In other words, critical thinking is cultural thinking (Atkinson, 1997; Hawkins, 1997). Consequently, these scholars do not believe in the benefit of direct training, but prefer an indirect approach such as cognitive apprenticeship. For Maley (2001), CT is perceived as cognitive properties embedded in language with cultural appropriateness. With some doubt about its success, he suggests that CT should be gradually introduced. Maley prefers linguistic and cognitive activities. In Australia, CT is perceived as being important skills for university students. Thomson (2002), for example, suggests the 5-step activities (content-based), including group discussion, as an approach to this complex issue.

Most teachers wouldn’t mind citing CT as one of the educational aims. The real issue comes down to the question: How to do it successfully? This study offers an ecological approach to CT in language learning.

What is Critical Thinking?

What is Critical Thinking?

Janpha Thadphoothon

**

Every educationist on CT seems to agree on one thing --- critical thinking is dispositional. In this section, how English has become a global language is invoked as a metaphor for a critical thinker and is invoked as being ‘open-minded.’ In the context where more and more people learn English, its users are varied culturally and geographically, the need for its users, be they native or non-native, to be flexible and open is greater than it used to be a hundred or so years ago.

Life is organic and flexible. Our brains are, according to Kagan (2002, Fall) ‘social organisms’. The dinosaurs, some believe, were extinct because they were not able to adapt to the new environment. A living language changes and adjusts itself to new reality. English is changing and is becoming an international language, a global means for people from different parts of the world to ‘talk together,’ In this section, English is being personified as a person who is open-mended, a dispensable quality of a critical thinker.

Indeed, how English has attained its global status is in itself a remarkable story. Melvin Bragg, in his audio book The Adventure of English (2003), has personified English as a traveler, an adventurer, survived the Romans, the Danes and the Normans. In this research, English, a great adventurer, is also an example of a ‘critical thinker’. This analogy may offer the readers some valuable lessons in terms of thinking qualities: open and flexible. Circumstances have forced it to be open; flexibility made it survived. Historical records confirm one thing: English, as its speakers were controlled, once thought to be suitable for the peasants, the language not suitable to be printed on the Bible (Bragg, 2003). Moreover, throughout its long journey, English has been scolded by many critics as the remains of colonization, mocked by its rivals as a language of mass destruction (e.g. Swales, 1997), the language that has lost its purity, etc., with its enduring soul, English prevails and moves on.

To be open like English means to be open to criticism and open for changes. English has also been a very successful ‘collaborator,’--- someone who works well with others. It collaborated with its conquerors, challenged the Latin for its right to be used in the church. It adjusted, adapted, and survived. Nowadays, English has become a window of opportunities for many people. Its users, upon reflection, may wish to learn about its journey as a source of inspiration. This research urged its readers to appreciate English, to see its beautiful qualities.

Widdowson (quoted in McKay, 2002) explained the logic behind this internationalization of English as follows:

As soon as you accept that English serves the communicative and communal needs of different communities, it follows logically that it must be diverse. An international language has to be an independent language. It does not follow logically, however, that the language will disperse into mutually unintelligible varieties. For it will naturally stabilize into standard form to the extent required to meet the needs of the communities concerned. Thus it is clearly vital to the interests of the international community … that they should preserve a common standard of English in order to keep up standards of communicative effectiveness.

(p. 53).

However, if his statement is interpreted correctly, Widdowson did not seem to refuse that there may be many norms and they are evolving all the time. So the key is its flexibility. As English has become a global language, its users need to become more open-minded, more tolerant to language variation, e.g. non-native accents or ways of expressing their ideas and feelings. In this respect, the success of English can be invoked as a good example, or rather as a metaphor. The message is as follows: A learner of English needs to be open and flexible. This research would like to use the success of English as a ‘metaphor’ for a critical thinker, a possible way to become a critical thinker. Carl Sagan, a science-fiction writer, has been quoted as saying that: “ The creation of the Ionian [2500 years ago off the coast of Turkey] derived from the freedom of inquire, the conflict of different perspective, and the importation of writing as a tool of thinking” (quoted in Bielaczyc & Collins, December 2002). With tools, freedom of expression, and different perspectives, the conditions are there for them to learn. The ancient Ionians were open to new experiences. To be open-minded also means to be intellectually humble, ready to change one’s mind if evidence has proven otherwise. In this regard, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), in his autobiography, wrote in the preface that he had lived for three passions: love, knowledge, and a desire to alleviate human suffering. With regard to knowledge, his attitude towards learning was humble. He wrote: “I have sought knowledge. I have wished to understand the heart of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this, but not much, I have achieved”(The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, 1967).

**

Challenges of Online Cooperation

Challenges of Online Cooperation

Janpha Thadphoothon 

Feedback & Suggestions from Research Participants

During the research briefing stage in Thailand, Some issues had emerged. They were derived from the opinions of some research participants. Following were are some issues that challenged the research. The issues were those that were related to: (1) the access and use of Internet, (2) collaboration, and (3) aim and objectives of the research.

(1) Internet Access and the Use of the Internet

(2) Issues Relate to Collaboration

So far this research has come to realize that collaboration is the key to success. Like any other business or educational enterprises, collaborative research involves different kinds of people, thus it requires a great deal of active cooperation, especially from other collaborators. In this case, the collaborators are classified into three groups --- the administrators, the teachers and the students. At this early stage, the researcher has found that if the administrators and the teachers are cooperative, the students are likely to be cooperative.

The next step to proceed after this was the briefing of prospective participants in Canberra. However, there was particular one issue related to collaboration worth mentioning here: motivation, which will be discussed in details later in this chapter (4.8.1.2).

At this stage it was found that inviting the teachers to participate was not an easy task. In DPU case, of the 7 teachers the researchers had approached, only three of them agreed to join the research project, and only one teacher had carried out the project until the end. The similar situation occurred within the high school.

(3) Issues Related to the Aim of the Research.

The researcher briefed the participants about the aim of the research i.e. to investigate learners’ critical thinking in language learning. Many of them wondered what critical thinking in language learning was. It is not easy to make the participant understand the significance of critical thinking in language learning. The researcher has told the participants that joining the research project “would enhance their critical thinking in language learning”, which has turned out to be quite complex for many of them to make sense of the term. The better way was to describe as concrete as possible. One indicator explained was the extent to which they use English for communication appropriately. They were informed that working together would make them learn from each other. Collaborating with students from other institutes would enable them to learn and offer them ample opportunity to use the language. The context of learning, the researcher explained, would enable them to use English as a tool to deal with real problems e.g. presenting the traffic problems in their neighborhood. They would have a chance to seek advice from others or share their opinion. In addition, Collaborating with the teacher participants is very helpful because they can help explain the significance of the research in ways and language that are easier to understand, and that motivate the students.

Below are examples of what the students have said:

I think learning English on the Internet is good because we can get any information from Internet.

Because my English is not good, when I read a writing from internet is difficult for me. So if my English is well. I think learning English on the Internet is more interesting for me.

[Student A, Case 2]

In my opinion I think using Internet is very good for learning English, because you have to using English and doing on Internet. Moreover, doing powerpoint, surf the Internet and photo. Using Internet which can doing more different and difficulty work and for other students.

[Student B, Case 2]

Based on the above written feedback, it is clear that the students have positive attitudes towards CMCL. The purport of their feedback was clear.

This is what my DPU collaborator has to say about the research project: [February 2004]

The online-project is quite a challenging thing for students to learn English. From the study at DPU, all groups (5) seemed to start the projects with doubt. They learned to operate the computer system, which they had never done before. They tried to get necessary help from staff in SALLC (Self-Access Language Learning Centre) In DPU (Dhurakijpundit University) or even an instructor, or contact the researcher, Aj Janpha Thadphoothon, in Australia. They wrote in English and sent e-mails to ask for what they needed. Finally they did their projects successfully.

They worked in groups, but only some students, usually the owners of the groups, answered or made comments on the web-board, and that’s why we can see the same names appeared on the web board. The topics they made were clear. They language they used is quite understandable and easy to read. They can give examples to support the point being made, especially in Group 3, the pictures and examples they gave were very specific and dealt with the significant factors. They sticked to the issue. It would be more interesting if they did more research or made effort to response to the statements discussed online. The opinions they gave were only from their points of view. But it was true according to their everyday lives in Thailand.

Not every student got benefits from the project. But they read English articles from newspapers and other websites and summarized it. They tried hard to accomplish the work they had been assigned.  Moreover, they had learnt to use English in realistic ways.

6.3.2. Motivation

It is the fact that participants have different levels of motivation and their reasons for joining the project may be diverse. This research revealed that inadequate support contributes significantly to the students’ low motivation. Active support functioned as a source of motivation. Moreover, motivation has a lot to do with ability, and ability to perform has a lot to do with help and support, including encouragement, from others, especially their teachers.

It was not easy to sustain the participants’ motivation. At the initial stage, it seemed obvious to the research that Yothinburana School (Case 4) was highly motivated. Organization in terms of collaboration and operation was fine. The head of the Research and Development Department had actively joined the project. The team of collaboration was set up. There were a lot of students who were keen to be part of this research project. However, their motivation seemed to fade away as time went by. The result was the case that connected with a science project. Case 4 basically had emerged from the process of collaboration.

Everybody is motivated. But what matters are the direction and the consistency of such motivation. Some students are motivated not to study hard, but some are. Motivation is indeed a complicate issue, underpinning the levels of participation. What makes the students actively engaged in the activities? The obvious answer would be the scores. This is an external factor. However, as showed in many examples, an internal factor exists; many student participants did really want to learn English. Some students, with supports from teachers, continue their work, regardless of the incentives from scores.

Indicators of Students' Critical Thinking

Indicators of Students' Critical Thinking

Janpha Thadphoothon

What would be relevant indicators of the students’ thought? Obviously, it is their linguistic output. Richard Day (2004, personal communication) opined that ESL teachers could look into their students’ critical thinking from elementary to higher levels. For example, at a basic level, the students can be asked to identify whether a particular statement is a fact or an opinion. “ I think Mr. John Howard is going to be the next prime minister, ” may be considered as an opinion. Whereas, “ Canberra is the capital of Australia,” is a fact. At a higher level, students may be asked to evaluate opinions and facts. For instance, they should be able to give reasons why Mr. John Howard, rather than Mr. Mark Latham, is a better candidate for Australia’s prime minister. They should be able to validate the claim that Canberra is indeed the capital of Australia, for example, through individual testimonies or other records of evidence.

For specific purposes, many studies in general education often rely on scores from standardized tests (e.g. Garett and Wulf, 1978). Two examples are Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal and the Cornell Critical thinking Tests (Levels X and Z). Scores from standardized tests would give some indications of test takers’ thinking ability. Nonetheless, they are indirect ways of measuring the students’ thinking ability. In many cases results are used for selection purposes. However, these tests may not be able to cover or test many dispositions (Ennis et al., 1985). Moreover, there are errors of measurement attached to such measures of abilities. While there are some values, the use of such tests often dehumanizes students’ opportunities to learn. Given appropriate learning conditions, students would grow, physically, emotionally, and intellectually. History has proven many assumptions about human learning & growth wrong, deprived their possibility to learn more. Students that make low scores have to suffer many social mechanisms. Many are excluded from the system; have been made to repeat the same class with the same curriculum (and the same teacher); given less to learn, or given drastically simplified tasks.

This study attempts to move away from the above directions. Besides, critical thinking in language learning is a new construct, so it relies on the collaborators’ report, the students’ actual performance and their self-report. It has also used self-evaluations.

Possible indicators include:

Give reasons for their own performance

Become aware of their own learning style

Ask appropriate questions i.e. for clarification or verification

Cooperating with others i.e. with peers or more capable peers

Empathizing with others

Ask for help

Learners’ Self-Report

The student participants answer two questionnaires. PEA is a means to tap on their perceived ability and ATT, their attitudes. They are also a means to raise their awareness. In addition, the researcher interviews them. See appendix C for the two questionnaires.(Chamot, October/November 1995; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990)

Teachers’ Opinions, Comments & Suggestions

This study take into accounts the teachers as collaborators’ comments and opinion. The researcher would interview them, and they would also write a report on their collaboration.

Bibliography: Critical Thinking in Language Learning

References

Kalama Sutta, the Buddha's Charter of free inquiry. (S. Thera, Trans.).

The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell. (1967). London: George Allen and Unwin Limited.

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. (3 ed.)(1995). Harlow, Essex: Longman Dictionaries.

The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology. (4 ed.)(2000).

Community Works on Literacy. (2002, December 13). Hauraki Herald.

Help and Hints: the Blix report. (2002). The Australian.

Monitoring Internet Access in the APEC Region. (2004). Retrieved April 21, from http://www.apectelwg.org/apecdata/telwg/26tel/dcsg/dcsg04.htm

Aarts, B. (1997). English syntax and argumentation. (2 ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Aarts, B. (2003, 20/12/02). Argumentation, 2003, from http://www.lang.ltsn.ac.uk/resources/goodpractice.aspx?resourceid=1380

Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh: University Press.

ABS. (2004). Household Use of Information Technology (2001-2002) (No. 8146.0.). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics BS.

Adams, P., & Davies, P. (2003). The Big Questions: ABC.

Aitkin, D. (2002). The University: International Expectations. In Alexander & Alexander (Eds.), Reinventing Universities in Australia (pp. 21-31). Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Al-Jarf, R. S. (2004). The effects of web-based learning on struggling EFL college writers. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 49-57.

Amornviwat, S. (1988). Thinking in the Buddhist Context. Bangkok: Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University.

Anderson, R. E. (2002). International Studies of Innovative Uses of ICT in Schools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 381-386.

Ashmore, & Wardman. (1935). Ability Exercises in English. London: Herbert Russell.

Atkinson, D. (1997). A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 71-94.

Atkinson, D. (1998). The Author responds. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 71-94.

Atkinson, D., & Kaplan, R. B. (March 1994). A critical approach to critical thinking in ESL. Paper presented at the 28th Annual TESOL Convention, Baltimore, M.

Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 539-566.

Austen, J. Pride and Prejudice.

Avi-Yonah, M. (1973). Ancient Scrolls. London: Cassell.

Ayer, A. J. (1956). The Problem of knowledge. Edinburgh: A Pelican Book.

Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2000). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays.

Ballard, B. (1995). How critical is critical thinking? A generic issue for language in development. In T. Crooks & G. Crewes (Eds.), Language and Development (pp. 150-164). Jarkarta: Indonesia Australia Language Foundation.

Ballard, B. (1995). Some Issues in Teaching International Students. In L. Conrad & L. Phillips (Eds.), Reaching More Students (pp. 107-114). Queensland: Griffith Institute for Higher Education.

Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1988). Cultural variations in styles of thinking. In Study Abroad: A Manual for Asian Students (pp. 25-32). Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1997). The cultures of learning. In Teaching International Students: A Brief Guide for Lecturers and Supervisors (pp. 9-25). Deakin, ACT: IDP Education Australia.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundation of Thought and Action. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Baron, N. (2000). Alphabet to Email: How Written English Evolved and Where Its Heading. New York: Routledge.

Beach, R., & Myers, J. (2001). Inquiry-Based English Instruction: Engaging Students in Life and Literature. New York: Teachers College Press.

Beals, L. B., Hoijer, H., & Beals, A. R. (1977). An introduction to anthropology (5 ed.). New York: Collier MacMillan.

Becker, J., & Varelas, M. (2001). Piaget's Early Theory of the Role of Language in Intellectual Development: A Comment on DeVries's Account of Piaget's Social Theory. Educational Researcher, 30(6), 22-23.

Bejarano, Y. (1987). A Cooperative Small-Group Methodology in the Language Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3).

Belcher, D. (1995). Writing critically across the curriculum. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 135-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Bellanca, J., & Fogarty, R. (1991). Blueprints for Thinking in the Co-operative Classroom (Revised in Australia by Joan Dalton ed.): Skylight Publishing, Inc.

Benesch, S. (1993). Critical thinking: a learning process for democracy. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 545-547.

Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (December 2002). Knowledge Forum as a Catalyst for Fostering Knowledge-Building Communities. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference in Computers in Education, Auckland, New Zealand.

Black, M. (1952). Critical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bloch, J. (2004). Second Language cyber rhetoric: A Study of Chinese L2 Writers in an Online Usernet Group. Language Learning and Technology, 8(3), 66-82.

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: Allen & Unwin.

Boomer, G. (1999). Pragmatic-Radical Teaching and Disadvantaged Schools Program. In B. Green (Ed.), Designs on learning (pp. 49-58). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association INC.

Boswood, T. (1997). New Ways of Using Computers in Language Teaching. Bloomington, Illinois: TESOL.

Boud, D. (2001). Introduction: Making the Move to Peer Learning. In a. S. David Boud, J (Ed.), Peer Learning in Higher Education. Sterling VA: Kogan Page.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cornwall: Polity Press.

Bouveresse, J. (1999). Rules, Dispositions, and the Habitus. In R. Shuterman (Ed.), Bourdieu: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

Brabazon, T. (2002). Digital Hemlock: Internet Education and the Poisoning of Teaching. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Bragg, M. (2003). The Adventure of English: The Biography of a Language. London: Hodder Headline.

Briggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Brook, G. (2004). Foreign Correspondence. Sydney: NSW: ABC Audio Book.

Brown, D. (2003). Feed or Feedback: Agriculture, Population Dynamics and the State of the Planet: International Books.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (3 ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, J., & Rodgers, T. (2002). Doing Second Language Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bruffee, K. (1993). Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brumfit, C. (1988). Applied Linguistics and Communicative Language Teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 8, 3-31.

Brumfit, C., & Mitchell, R. (1990). The Language Classroom as a Focus for Research. In C. Brumfit & R. Mitchell (Eds.), Researcher in the Language Classroom (pp. 3-15). Devon: Modern English publications and The British Council.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1985). Vygotsky: a historical and conceptual perspective. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burbules, C. N., & Ruperk, R. (1999). Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: Relations, Differences, and Limits. In S. Thomas, Popkewitz & F. Lynn (Eds.), Critical Theories in Education. New York: Routledge.

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Byram, M. (2004). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge.

Cambage, S. (2004, 28-30 October). Cooking up a storm: A recipe for computer-supported cooperative learning. Paper presented at the 17th EA Education Conference, Adelaide.

Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Approaches to communicative competence. Singapore: Regional Language Centre.

Caplan, M. R. (1987). Exploring the Concept of Mind: An Introduction. In M. R. Caplan (Ed.), Exploring the Concept of Mind. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

Cardenas, M. (2003). Classroom Research by In-Service Teachers: Which characteristics? Which concerns? In A. Pulverness (Ed.), IATEFL 2003 Brighton Conference Selections (pp. 109-111). Canterbury, Kent: IATEFL.

Carnarajah, A. S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2004). If you ever hear a native speaker, please let us know! In A. Pulverness (Ed.), IATEFL 2003 Brighton Conference Selections (pp. 116-123). Canterbury, Kent: IATEFL.

Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2000). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chamot, A. U. (October/November 1995). Creating a community of thinkers in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESOL Matters, 5(5).

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, M. J. (1996). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Chan, M. (1996). No talking, please, just chatting: Collaborative writing with computers. Paper presented at the Community Colleges Online Conference: Innovative Instructional Practices, Kapiolani Community College, Honolulu.

Chapelle, A. C. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chapman, D. (1997). A comparison of oral and e-mail discourse in Japanese as a second language. On-Call, 11(2), 31-39.

Chapman, D. (1997). Computer Mediated Communication and Japanese Immersion: investigating the potential. On-Call, 11.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1967). Review of Skinner's Verbal behavior. In L. A. Jakobovits & M. S. Miron (Eds.), Reading in the Psychology of Language (pp. 142-171). Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Chomsky, N. (1973). Linguistic Theory. In J. W. Oller & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Focus on the Learner: Pragmatic Perspectives for the Language Teacher (pp. 29-35). Rowly, Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Chomsky, N. (1987). The Chomsky Reader. In J. Peck (Ed.). New York: Patheon Books.

Chomsky, N. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.

Cicourel, A. V., & Boese, R. J. (1972). Sign Language Acquisition and the Teaching of Deaf Children. In C. B. Cazden, John, V P, and Hymes, D. (Ed.), Function of Language in the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Comley, N. R., Hamilton, D., Klaus, C. H., Scholes, R., & Sommers, N. (1998). Fields of reading: Motives for writing (5 ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Corder, S. P. (1978). Language-Learner language. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Understanding Second & Foreign Langauge learning: Issues and Approaches (pp. 71-93). Rowly: MASS.: Newsbury House.

Coyle, D. (2001). Paradoxes of Prosperity: Why the New Capitalism Benefits All. New York: Thomson Texere.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (2 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 1:81-141.

Cumming, A. (2002). If I had known twelve things. In L. L. Blanton & B. Kroll (Eds.), ESL composition tales: Reflections on teaching (pp. 123-134). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Cummins, J. (1986). Cultures in contact: using classroom microcomputers for cultures intercultural interchange and reinforcement. TESL, 3(2), 13-31.

Curtis, S. J., & Boultwood, M. E. A. (1964). An introductory History of English Education Since 1800. London: University Tutorial Press Ltd.

Cusworth, R. (1994). What is a functional model of language? Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association of NSW.

Davidson, B. (1998). Comments on "A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in the English Language Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 119-123.

Day, R. (2003). Teaching Critical Thinking and Discussion. Paper presented at the The 23rd Annual Thailand TESOL Conference, Bangkok, Thailand.

Dearn, J. (2003). Making reflective learning real. the Monitor, 14(13).

Dearn, J. (March 2004). Engaging with the world through education. The Monitor, 14(3).

Deikman, A. J. (1996). "I" = Awareness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 350-356.

Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. Boston: Health and Company.

Doughlas, D. (2000). Assessing Languages for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Drake-Brockman, P. (May, 1976). Developing the migrant's confidence in speaking English. TEFL/TESL Newsletter, 2(1), 18-20.

Dudeney, G. (2000). The Internet & the language classroom: A Practical Guide for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Edwards, E. (1989). Issues & Arguments. Melbourne: MacMillan Australia.

Eggen, P. (1999). Educational Psychology. New Jersey: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Elder, L., & Paul, R.Universal Intellectual Standards. Retrieved 14/01, 2004, from http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/unistan.html

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (Fall 1994). Critical Thinking: Why we must transform our teaching. Journal of Developmental Education, 18(1), 34-35.

Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to Learn English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ennis, R., Millman, J., & Tomko, N. T. (1985). Cornell critical thinking tests: Level X and Level Z- Manual (3 ed.): Midwest Publications.

Ennis, R. H. (1962). A Concept of Critical Thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32(1), 81-111.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice (pp. 9-26). New York: W. H. Freeman & Company.

Ericsson, A. K., & Simon, A. H. (1984). Protocal analysis: Verbal Report as Data. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.

Fasold, R. (1990). The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fedderholdt, K. (2001). An email exchange project between non-native speakers of English’. ELT Journal, 55(3), 273-280.

Finocchiaro, M. (1969). Teaching English as a Second Language. New York: Harper & Row.

Fisher, A. (2001). Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana, IL: National council of Teachers of English.

Frank, C., Rinvolucri, M., & Berer, M. (1982). Challenge To Think. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies' programs debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: A Journal of Australian TESOL, 11, 7-16.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

Furedy, C., & Furedy, J. (1985). Critical Thinking: Towards research and Dialogue. In Donald & Sullivan (Eds.), Using research to improve teaching (Vol. 23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gajdusek, L., & Van Dommelen, D. (1993). Literature and critical thinking in the composition classroom. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 197-217). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Gamut, L. T. F. (1991). Logic, language and meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Gandhi, M. K. (1927). An Autobiography. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.

Garett, K., & Wulf, K. (1978). The relationship of a measure of critical thinking ability to personality variables and to indicators of academic achievement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38(4), 1181-1187.

Gates, B. (1995). The Road Ahead. New York: Penguin.

Gee, J. (1991). Socio-cultural approaches to lieracy (literacies). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 12(31-48).

Gieve, S. (1997). Comments on Dwight Atkinson’s “A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 123 129.

Gilbert, M. (1997). Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1994). Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology (2 ed.). Boston: Simon & Chuster.

Gokhale, A. (1995). Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1 Fall).

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

Gray, B., & Christie, F. (1990). Sucessful Negotiation in the Classroom: A Social Process. Paper presented at the the 15th Australian Reading Asoociation Confrence, Canberra.

Gray, B., & Cowey, W. (2000, 6-7th, April). Notes on Scaffolding Literacy in Early Childhood Settings. Paper presented at the The Association of Child Care Directors' Conference "Passing the Batton', Canberra.

Gray, R., & Stockwell, G. (1998). Using computer mediated communication for language and cuture acquisition. On-Call, 12(3).

Green, L. (2001). technoculture --- from alphabet to cybersex. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and unwin.

Groarke, L. (2002). Informal Logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter ed.).

Hall, E. T. (1973). The Silent Language. New York: A Double Anchor Book.

Halliday, M. (1978). Is learning a second language like learning a first language all over again? In D. E. Ingram & T. J. Quinn (Eds.), Language Learning in Australian Society (pp. 3-19). Sydney: Australia International Press.

Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.

Hamilton, D., Klaus, C., Scholes, R., & Sommers, N. Motives for Writing. In Fields of Reading (5 ed., pp. 539-550). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Hammond, J. (2001). Scaffolding and Language. In J. Hammond (Ed.), Scaffolding: teaching and learning in language and literacy education. Newtown, NSW: Primary School English Teacher Association.

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). What is Scaffolding? In J. Hammond (Ed.), Scaffolding: teaching and learning in language and literacy education. Newtown, NSW: Primary School English Teacher Association.

Hammond, J., & Macken-Horarik, M. (1999). Critical Literacy: Challenges and Questions for ESL Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3).

Hanson-Smith, E. (2001). Computer-assisted language learning. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 107-113).

Haugen, E. (1971). The ecology of language. In A. S. Dil (Ed.), The Ecology of Language–Essays by Einar Haugen (pp. 325-339). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hawkins, M. R. (1997). Apprenticing Nonnative Speakers to New Discourse Communities. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 129-132.

Hawkins, M. R., & Leger, L. L. (2004). Reflections of the Impact of Teacher-Researcher Collaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 339-343.

Hemmert, A., & Pelstring, T. (2003). Involving Adult English Language Learners in Reducing Campus Waste. Paper presented at the Catesol 2003, Pasadena, CA.

Henri, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Henry, J. (1992). Teaching Through Projects. London: Kogan Page.

Higgins, J., & Johns, T. (1984). Computers in Language Learning. London: Collins Educational.

Ho, C. M. L. (December, 2000). Developing Intercultural Awareness and Writing Skills Through Email Exchange. The Internet TESL Journal, 6 VI, No. 12,(12).

Hoffmann, B. (1967). Albert Einstein: The Man and His Achievement. In G. H. Whitrow (Ed.), (pp. 75). New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.

Holton, G. (1996). Einstein, History, and Other Passions: The Rebellion Against Science at the End of the Twentieth Century: Perseus Books.

Hongladarom, S. (1998, May 3-6). Asian Philosophy and Critical Thinking: Divergence or Convergence? Paper presented at the the Second APPEND Conference at Chulalongkorn University, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Hood, S., & Joyce, H. (1995). Reading in Adult ESL Curriculum and Classroom. Prospect, 10(2), 52-64.

Hornby, A. S., Cowie, A. P., & Gimson, A. C. (1987). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hume, D. (1975). Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hymes, D. (1964). Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row.

Hymes, D. (1967). Model of Interaction of Language and Social Setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 8-28.

Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hymes, D. (1979). On communicative competence. In C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ingram, D. E. (1978). Learning through use: a project community based course for tertiary students of French. In D. E. Ingram & T. J. Quinn (Eds.), Language Learning in Australian Society (pp. 117-125). Sydney: Australia International Press.

Ingram, D. E. (2002, 29-30 April). Methodology to Enhance Proficiency and Foster Positive Attitudes. Paper presented at the Post RELC Seminar, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

IRCE. (1999). National Education Act of 1999. Retrieved February 2003, from http://www.moe.go.th/English/edu-act.htm

Jacobs, G. (1996). The appropriacy of group activities: Views from some Southeast Asian second language educators. RELC Journal, 27, 103-120.

Jacobs, G., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2003). Understanding and implemating the communicative teaching paradigm. RELC Journal, 34(1), 5-30.

Jacobs, G. M. (1998). Review of the Book: CSCL: Theory and Practice for an Emerging Paradigm. System, 26, 431-435.

Jacobs, G. M. (2000). Another meaning of Teacher-Centered. Bamboo Forum, 3(1), 2-3.

Jacobs, G. M. (2001). Cooperative learning in the thinking classroom: Research and Theoretical Perspectives. Retrieved June 15, 2001, from http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/1650/coopthk.html

Jacobs, G. M., & Cates, K. (1999). Global education in second language teaching. Kata, 1, 44-56.

Jacobs, G. M., & Goatly, A. (2000). The treatment of ecological issues in ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal, 54, 256-264.

Jacobs, G. M., Goatly, A., & Ming, J. (1995). Language and the environment. PASAA, 25, 54-63.

Jacobs, G. M., & Hall, S. (2002). Implementing Cooperative Learning. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, G. M., Ward, C. S., & Gallo, P. B. (1997). The Dynamic of Digital groups: Cooperative Learning in IT-Based Language Instruction. Teaching of English Language and Literature, 13(2), 5-8.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperative and Competitive: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, J. (1986). Circle of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individual learning (4 ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (1998). Communicative methodology. In K. Johnson & H. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (pp. 68-73). Oxford: Blackwell.

Johnston, B. (2003). Values in Language Teaching. London: Lawrence.

Johnstone, R. (1995). Research on language learning and teaching: 1994. Language Teaching, 28(3), 131-147.

Johnstone, R. (2002). Research on language teaching and learning: 2001. Language Teaching, 3(5), 157-181.

Jones, J. (2001). CALL and the Teacher's Role in Promoting Learner Autonomy. CALL-EJ Online, 3(1).

Jordan, B. (January, 2004, 21-23 January 2004). Co-construction in communities: Empowering children and teachers. Paper presented at the the 12th Annual Conference of the Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, Monash University.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7 User Reference Guide. Chicago: Scientific Software, Inc.

Joyce, W. N., & Spector-Cohen, E. (2002). Exploring Culture From a Distance: A U.S./Israeli E-mail Exchange Project. TESOL Journal, 11(4).

Jung, C. (1964). Man and His Symbols. London: Aldus Books.

Kachru, Y. (1997). Cultural meaning and contrastive rhetoric in English Education. World English,, 16(3), 337-350.

Kagan, S. (1990). The Structural Approach to Cooperative Learning. Educational leadership, 47(4), 12-15.

Kagan, S. (2004). Cooperative Learning and Brain-Friendly Teaching. IASCE Newsletter, 23(2).

Kagan, S., Gardner, H., & R., S. (2002, Fall). Trialogue: Brain Localization of Intelligences. Kagan Online Magazine.

Kalilan, M. k. (2001). Creative and Critical Thinking in Classrooms. The Internet TESL Journal.

Kalilan, M. K. (2001). Creative and Critical Thinking in Classrooms. The Internet TESL Journal.

Kanpol, B. (1990). Political Applied Linguistics and Postmodernism: Towards an Engagement of Similarity within Difference: A Reply to Penneycook. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 1, 238-250.

Kant, E. (1973). Critique of Pure Reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.). London: MacMillan.

Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Retrieved June 2002, from http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/

Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annuals, 25(5), 441-454.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1969). Foundations of behavioral research: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.

Kerr, A. (June, 1977). Communicative competence as an emphasis in language teaching. TEFL/TESL Newsletter, 2-7.

Khyat, S. (February, 1977). How to foster communicative competence. TEFL/TESL Newsletter, 2(3), 1-14.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2003). Teachers as Researchers (2 ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Kinginger, C. (2002). Defining the Zone of Proximal Development in US Foreign Language Education. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 240-261.

Kingry-Westergaard, C., & Kelly, J. (2000). A Contextualist Epistemology for Ecological Research. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok & L. Jason (Eds.), Research Community Psychology: Issues of Theory and Methods. Washington: American Psychological Association.

Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinary: History, Theory and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Kosaki, J. (2004). Promoting language awareness in students' L1 and L2 through exchange between an Australian secondary school and a Japanese high school. Unpublished sub-thesis submitted for the subject Dissertation in TESOL & FLT PG, University of Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Koschman, T. (1996). CSCL: Theory and Practice in an Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kramsch, C. (2002). Language Acquisition and Language Socialization. New York: Continuum.

Krashen, S. (1981). Aptitude and Attitude in Relation to Second Language Acquisition and Learning. In K. Diller (Ed.), Individual Differences & Universal in Language Learning Aptitude. London: Newbury House.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krebs, J. C. (2001). Ecology (5 ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley.

Kress, G. (1990). Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 84-99.

Krishnamurti, J. (1973). The Second Penguin Krishnamurti Reader (Lutyens, M ed.). Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching: Yale University Press.

Lado, R. (1964). Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Leahey, H. T. (1997). A History of Psychology: Main Currents in Psychological Thought (4 ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997, Spring). Completely different worlds: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 39-67.

Lepper, M., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D., & Gurtner, J. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert  human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lewis, R. (2000). Human Activity in Learning Societies. Paper presented at the The International Conference on Computer in Education ICCEICCAI, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.

Lewis, R. (December 2002). Learning Communities: Old and New. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference in Computers in Education, Auckland, New Zealand.

Lian, A. P. (1993). Awareness, Autonomy, and Achievement. In A.-P. Lian, Hoven, D. L. and Hudson, T. J. (Ed.), Audio-Video Computer Enhanced Language Learning and the Development of Listening Comprehension Skills (Australian Second Language Learning Project ed., pp. 25-41).

Linder, D. (2004). The Internet in every classroom? Using outside computers. ELT Journal, 58(1), 10-16.

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education (2 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. (1997). Group work in the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language. English Language Teaching Journal, 31(4), 285-291.

Long, M. (2002, July 6-7). Second Language Acquisition and language Teaching. Paper presented at the Languages---the new millennium, Sydney.

Long, M., Adams, P., McLean, M., & Castanos, F. (1976). Doing things with words: verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In R. Crymes & J. Fanslow (Eds.), On TESOL '76. Washington DC: TESOL.

Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, Interlanguage talk, and Second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228.

Luke, A. (August, 2004). At last. Research in the Teaching of English, 39, 85-95.

Luria, A. R. (1971). Towards the problem of the historical nature of phychological processes. International Journal of Psychology, 6, 259-272.

Luria, A. R. (1982). Language and cognition. New York: Wiley.

Luria, A. R., & Yudovich, F. I. (1971). Speech and the development of mental processes in the child : an experimental investigation (O. Kovasc & J. Simon, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Lutyens, M. (Ed.). (1973). The Second Penguin Krishnamurti Reader. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Maley, A. (2001, 15-26 October). Thinking Critical about Critical Thinking. Paper presented at the Critical Thinking in the Language Classroom, American University Alumni Language Center, Bangkok, Thailand.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (1988). Engineering as social experimentation. In A. Flores (Ed.), Professional Ideals. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Litton Educational Publishing.

Matsuda, P. K., Canagarajahb, A. S., Harklauc, L., Hylandd, H., & Warschauere, M. (2003). Changing currents in second language writing research: A colloquium. Journal of Second Language Writing, 151–179.

Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J. L., Davidson, N., & Hawkes, P. (1995). Building bridges between cooperative and collaborative learning. Change: The magazine of higher learning(July-August), 34-39.

McArthur, T. (2003). Oxford Guide to World English. London: Oxford University Press.

McCarthy, M. (2001). Issues in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McConnell, D. (1995, October 17-20, 1995). A Methodology for Designing Post Graduate Professional Development Distant Learning CSCL Programmes. Paper presented at the CSCL'95 The First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Indiana University, Bloomington Indiana, USA.

McConnell, D. (1995, October 17-20). A Methodology for Designing Post Graduate Professional Development Distant Learning CSCL Programmes. Paper presented at the CSCL'95 The First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Indiana University, Bloomington Indiana, USA.

McCrone, J. (2002). how the brain works. London: Dorling Kindersley.

McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McLuhan, M. (1996). Understanding Media.

McNeill, D. (1970). The acquisition of language: the study of developmental psycholinguistics. New York: Harper & Row.

McNeill, D. (1970). The acquisition of language: the study of developmental psycholinguistics. New York: Harper & Row.

McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McPherson, P., & Murray, E. D. (2003). Communicating on the Net. Sydney: Mcquarie University.

Meara, P. (1995). The importance of an early emphasis on L2 vocabulary. The Language Teacher, 19(2), 8-10.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: a qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moham, B., & Van Naerssen, M. (1996). Thinking skills first, then language --- in EAP. Paper presented at the the 30th Annual TESOL Convention, Chicago, IL.

Mok, A. (1997). Student Empowerment in an English Language Enrichment Programme: An Action Research Project in Hong Kong. Educational Action Research, 5(2), 305-320.

Murray, E. D. (June/July 1996). Editorial. TESOL Matters.

Nattinger, J. (1988). Some current trends in vocabulary teaching. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Nelson, H. (May, 1980). EFL students at the university. TEFL/TESL Newsletter, 5(1), 1-9.

Niall, B., & Thompson, J. (1998). Oxford Book of Australian Letters. Melbourne: Oxford University Press Australia.

Nicholas, C., Burbules,  and Rupert, Berk. (1999). Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: Relations, Differences, and Limits. In S. Thomas, Popkewitz,  and Lynn, Fendler (Ed.), Critical Theories in Education. New York: Routledge.

Norris, S. P. (May 1985). Synthesis of Research on Critical Thinking. Educational Leadership, 42(8), 40-45.

NRC. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Method in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1992). Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2002, July 6-7). Classroom Research. Paper presented at the Languages---the new millennium, Sydney.

Nunan, D. (May, 1981). The use of dialoques in the communicative English class. TEFL/TESL Newsletter, 5(4), 21-27.

Nutta, J. W., & Spector-Cohen, E. (2002). Exploring Culture From a Distance: A U.S./Israeli E-mail Exchange Project. TESOL Journal, 11(4), 21-26.

O'Connor, A., & Sharkey, J. (2004). Teacher-Researcher Collaboration in TESOL: Defining the Process of Teacher-Researcher Collaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 335-339.

OECD. (2001). Environmental Outlook to 2020. Retrieved 21/04/04, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/6/2088589.pdf

O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Orna, E., & Stevens, G. (1995). Managing Information for Research. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Passmore, J. (1974). Man’s Responsibility for Nature. London: Duckworth.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional Life. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Penneycook, A. (1997). Critical Applied Linguistics and Education. In R. Wodak, and Corson, D (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (Vol. 1, pp. 23-31). Dordrencht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Pennycook, A. (1996). The Cultural Politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.

Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 2:201-230.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Piaget, J. (2002). The Language and Thought of the Child (M. a. R. Gabian, Trans.). London: Routledge Classics.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Quilici, F. (1972). Primitive Societies. New York: Collins Publishers.

Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45-75.

Rappaport, J. (2000). Research methods and the empowerment social agenda. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok & L. Jason (Eds.), Research Community Psychology: Issues of Theory and Methods. Washington: American Psychological Association.

Reason, P. (1987). Human Enquiry in Action: Development in New Paradigm Research. London: Sage.

Reber, A. (1995). Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (3 ed.): Penguin.

Richards, J. C. (1990). Beyond Training: Approaches to teacher education in language teaching. Language Teacher, 14(2), 3-8.

Richards, J. C. (1992). Error Analysis: Perspective on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman.

Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics (2 ed.). Harloe, Essex: Longman.

Richards, J. C., & Rogers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Ripley, D. (December 2002). Using technology to foster critical thinking and reflection in distance and classroom instruction: the R9 process. Paper presented at the the International Conference in Computers in Education, Auckland, New Zealand.

River, W. M. (1964). The Psychologist and the Foreign Language Teacher. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

River, W. M. (1981). Teaching Foreign-Language Skills (2 ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rogers, C. (1951). Client Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton: Mifflin Company.

Rogers, C. (1978). Carl Rogers on Personal Power. London: Contable.

Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the Eighties. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Rousseau, J. J. (1712-1778). Emile (B. Foxley, Trans.). London: Everyman's Library.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the 'Good Language Learner' can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.

Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria: VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria: VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sakar, A. (2001). The cross-cultural effects of electronic mail exchange on the Turkish University students of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). CALL-EJ Online, 3(1).

Sang, M. S. (2002). Some Characteristics of Online-Tutorial Discussions in Distance Education. Paper presented at the Information Technology and the Universities (ITUA) Conference, 3-6 April 2002, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Sang, M. S. (2002, 3-6 April). Some Characteristics of Online-Tutorial Discussions in Distance Education. Paper presented at the the Information Technology and the Universities (ITUA) Conference, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. London: Addison-Wesley.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm (pp. 249-268). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schneider, J., & Weiss, R. (2001). Cybersex Exposed: Recognizing the Obsession. Center City, Minnesota: Hazelden.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Schulz-Zander, R., Buchter, A., & Dalmer, R. (2002). The role of ICT as a promoter of students' cooperation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 438-448.

Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on Achievement, Attitudes, and Ethnic Relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-271.

Sharan, S. (1985). Cooperative learning and the multiethnic classroom. In S. S. Robert Slavin, Spencer Kagan, Rachel Hertz Lazarowitz, Clark Webb, and Richard Schmuck (Ed.), Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum Press.

Sharan, S., Bejarano, Y., Kussel, P., & Peleg, R. (1984). Achievement in English Language and in Literature. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative Learning in the Classroom: Research in Desegregated Schools. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Siegel, H. (1988). Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking and Education. New York: Routledge.

Siegel, H. (1990). McPeck, Informal Logic, and the Nature of Critical Thinking. In J. McPeck (Ed.), Teaching Critical Thinking. New York: Routledge.

Siegel, H. (1990). The Justification of Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal. In H. Siegel (Ed.), Educating Reason: Rationaltiy, Critical Thinking and Education (pp. 55-61). New York: Routledge.

Siegel, H. (1990). McPeck, Informal Logic, and the Nature of Critical Thinking. In J. McPeck (Ed.), Teaching Critical Thinking. New York: Routledge.

Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.

Skehan, P. (1985). Appendix: A Primer in CALL Teachnology. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), omputer in English Language Teaching: A View from the Classroom (pp. 121-136). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning (2 ed.). Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice (2 ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Slee, P. (1993). Child, Adolescent and Family Development. Marrickville, NSW: Harcourt Brace Javanovich Group.

Smith, B. (2004). Computer-Mediated Negotiated Interaction and Lexical Acquisition. SSLA, 26, 365-398.

Smith, F. (1992). To Think In Language, Learning and Education. London: Routledge.

Sofo, F. (2004). Open Your Mind: The 7 keys to thinking Critically. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Sotillo, S. (September 1991). Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum. Inquiry, 8, 10-13.

Sotillo, S. M. (May, 2000). Discourse Functions and Syntactic Complexity in Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119.

Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for Second language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New Ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stanford, C. (2001). Significant Others. New York: Basic Books.

Suzuki, D. (1990). Inventing the Future: Reflections on Science, Technology and Nature. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Swales, J. M. (1997). English as Tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes, 16(3), 373-382.

Tan, G., Gallo, P. B., Jacobs, G. M., & Kim-Eng Lee, C. (August, 1999). Using Cooperative Learning to Integrate Thinking and Information Technology in a Content-Based Writing Lesson. The Internet TESL Journal, 5(8).

Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Tella, S. (1992). The adoption of international communications networks and electronic mail into foreign language education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,, 36(4), 303-312.

TESOL. (2004). TESOLers for Social Responsibility Caucus (TSR). Retrieved November 12, 2004, from http://www2.tesol.org/mbr/caucuses/tsr.html

Thadphoothon, J. (2000). Effects of Perceived Organizational Support and Leader-Member Exchange on Employees' Reciprocity. Unpublished MA, Thammasat University, Bangkok.

Thadphoothon, J. (2000). Selected psychological and Behavioural Determinants of EFL Students Achievement: Perspectives and Analyses. Bamboo Forum, 3(1), 29-42.

Thadphoothon, J. (2002). The Day the Village was Empty. The Subterranean, 1, 13-16.

Thadphoothon, J. (2002, May 2002). ELT Today: A Reverse Genealogical Perspective. Paper presented at the ELT Trends, Dhurakijpundit University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Thadphoothon, J. (2002, October). The Relationship between Test Anxiety, Perceived English Ability, and the Speaking Test Scores. Paper presented at the The School of Languages Post Graduate Conference 2002: Incorporating Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, The University of Melbourne.

Thadphoothon, J. (2002, October). The Relationship between Test Anxiety, Perceive English Ability, and the Speaking Test Scores. Paper presented at the The School of Languages Post Graduate Conference 2002: Incorporating Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, University of Melbourne.

Thera, S. (1981). Kalama Sutta: The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society Inc.

Thompson, C. (2002). Teaching critical thinking in EAP courses in Australia. TESOL Journal, 11(4), 15-20.

Thorp, D. (2002, October 29, 2002). E-learning is still a toddler. The Australian.

Toyoda, E. (2001). Exercise of Learner Autonomy in Project-Oriented CALL. CALL-EJ Online, 2(2).

Tremblay, P. E., & Gardner, R. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 74(4), 505-520.

Trowbridge, L. W., Bybee, R. W., & Powell, J. C. (2000). Teaching secondary school science: strategies for developing scientific literacy (7 ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill.

Truss, L. (2004). Cutting a Dash: The Radio series that inspired the best selling book: Eats, Shoots & Leaves.: BBC Audio Book.

Underhill, N. (1987). Testing Spoken Language: A Handbook of Oral Testing Techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Valmont, W. (2003). Technology for Literacy Teaching and Learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company College Division.

Van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives. New York: Continum.

Vecchio, P. R., Hearn, G., & Southey, G. (1998). Organisational Behaviour: Life at work in Australia. Sydney: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Vilmi, R. (2003). Collaborative Writing Projects on the Internet: more than half a decade of experimentation. Retrieved May 28, 2003, 2003, from http://www.hut.fi/~rvilmi/Publication/baleap.html

Vygotsky, L. (1935). Mind in Society. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Wallace, P. (1999). The Psychology of the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wardhaugh, R. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (2 ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Warschauer, M. (1995). E-mail for English teaching: Bringing the Internet and computer learning networks into the language classroom. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7-26.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and Practice. Modern language Journal, 81(3), 470-481.

Warschauer, M. (1998). Online learning in sociocultural context. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(1), 68-88.

Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Warschauer, M. (2000). Does the Internet bring freedom? Information technology. Education and Society, 1(2).

Warschauer, M. (2001). Online communication. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 207-212). Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press.

Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2000). Network-based language teaching : concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Warschauer, M., & Lepeintre, S. (1997). Freire's Dream or Foucault's Nightmare: Teacher-Student Relations on An International Computer network. In R. Debski, Gassin, J, and Smith, M. (Ed.), Language Learning through Social Computing. Parkville, Australia: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.

Warschauer, M., & Meskill, C. (2000). Technology and second language learning. In J. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 303-318). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24, 1-14.

Warschauer, M., & Whitaker, P. F. (2002). The Internet for English Teaching: Guidelines for Teachers. In J. C. Richards, and Renandya, W A. (Ed.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wasanasomsithi, P. (2001, 15-26 October). Critical Thinking in a Reading Classroom. Paper presented at the Critical Thinking in the Language Classroom, American University Alumni Language Center, Bangkok, Thailand.

Watson, D. (2003). Death Sentence: The Decay of Public Language. Sydney: Vintage.

Webb, N. M., Farivar, S. H., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2002). Productive helping in collaborative groups. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 13-20.

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching English as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Review Article: The Theory and Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 136-151.

Wilson, K. (1998). The Note-Taking Practices of Non-Native Speaker Students in the Academic Writing Process. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of South Australia.

Wilson, K. (1998). Wording it up: Plagiarism in the Intercourse of International Students. Research and Development in Higher Education, 763-770.

Wirachai, N. (1994). Linear Structural Relation (LISREL): A Statistical analysis for Social and Behavioral Sciences. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.

Wong Hoi-Yee, G. (2002). Argumentative L2 Text in Context: An Exploratory Study in Australia and Hong Kong. Unpublished Ph D Thesis, University of Macquarie.

Wragg, E. C. (1994). An Introduction to Classroom Observation. London: Poutledge.

Wray, A. (October 1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32, 213-231.

Yager, R. E. (1990). The science/technology/society movement in the United states: Its origin, evolution, and rationale. Social Education, 54(4), 198-200.

Yi, Y. (2000). Linguistic Characteristics of ESL Writing in task-based email activities. System, 28, 229-245.

Yin, R. (1984). Case Study Research. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. (2003). Applications of Case Study Research (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Yin, R. (2003). Case Study: Design and Methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Yvonne, H. (October, 1980). An aspect of community involvement at Wiltona Hostel. TEFL/TESL Newsletter, 5(2), 1-8.