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.