Language And Critical Thinking: A Study On Non-English Speaking Students

The Impact of Language Proficiency on Critical Thinking

Discuss about the Language Proficiency Influence Critical Thinking.

The purpose of this report is to analyse the process by which language might affect the critical thinking performance. Non-English speaking students might face issues while expressing their thoughts as they face difficulty while shaping their opinion considering the foreign language as a limitation. Critical thinkers must consider the language requirements before presenting their opinion in front of the audiences. The quality and the chances of acceptance increase with the correct implementation of vocabulary (Manalo & Sheppard, 2016). Based on a research over Japanese students who are studying abroad, the report will be prepared here. This study will evaluate the outcomes whatever have been derived from that research. Therefore, the following report is going to highlight a couple of language related issues; the first one is concerned with structural gaps in non- English speaking students’ first language since childhood and the second one deals with the efficiency in second language.

The research conducted by Bensley et al., (2016) also provides an insight about how the language influence critical thinking process of an individual. Two studies have been conducted in order to measure the intensity of language, shaping the critical thinking process of the students Two hypotheses have been taken on account at first. The students’ ability to produce evaluative narration in Japanese and in English would be different and another one is students’ efficiency in that particular language will be compared to their quality of evaluative narration. The first research has been conducted on 110 students of second year from an eminent Japanese university who are studying science and engineering. They were asked to enrol themselves for a course, which consisted of communication and written skills development programme to make them critically effective thinkers. Students were provided with necessary materials in both English and Japanese. Instructions were given in Japanese to avoid further confusions and as their homework; they were asked to prepare two write-ups to explain the causes of disaster in the case of Titanic and space shuttle challenger (Manalo & Sheppard, 2016).

The written report of the students were evaluated based on the proportion between their general sentences and critically evaluative sentences written as homework. Sentences, which carry the value of the given topic and the use of correct reference as well as comparison, can be considered as evaluative. On the other hand, use of simple adjectives and adverbs to express some issues or the use of general statements, which cannot be considered as expressive enough were not taken into account; these criteria had been kept in mind while analysing the write-ups.

Study 1: Structural Gaps in Non-English Speaking Students’ First Language

In order to check their efficiency in both the languages they were evaluated under the score of the Test of English for International Communication and the style of writing the reports. Both the accuracy and fluency in a particular language were the determining factors of proficiency. The test not only check their skills to use English in their academics but also in real life situations for English speakers who are not native. Use of verbs is taken as a positive indicator as far as the complexity of the narrative is concerned. However, the complexity of the narrative does not determine the fact that their write-ups are evaluative. Evaluative sentences can be less complicated too. Therefore, the score of the test plays a crucial role to find out the efficiency of the students in that particular language. These two parameters cannot be measured with quantitative calculations rather cultural background was taken under consideration while determining someone’s proficiency in foreign language, which eventually shapes critical thinking process as described in (Vezzali et al., 2016). The result clearly showed the fact that the Asian students are unable to express themselves up to the level of native English speaking students in the matter of presenting some information critically (Pérez-Fabello, Campos & Campos-Juanatey, 2016). However, with the help of general intelligence, capability to memorise the lessons and the communication skills are some factors, which can drive an Asian student as well towards better performance. The participants were given proper instruction and classes before conducting the research. According to Mullet et al., (2016), the relation between teachers and students plays a crucial role in understanding the instructions and carry out further operations.

The next study will focus on another hypothesis, which will provide different perspective on the same topic. This time forty-three first year students of a Japanese university were the participants and without any training or instructions on evaluative writing or oral communication the research will measure their capability to express themselves as a critical thinker, although they were provided with mandatory English communication and academic writing courses (Tang & Naumann, 2016). They were asked to develop brief reports consist of major reasons behind those disasters which are mentioned in the first study. The production of first year students were analysed in the same manner it was done earlier. Although, the instructions were same as before yet while evaluating one thing that was kept on mind that, they were not provided with class instructions and mock exercises before receiving the task (Dilekli & Tezci, 2016).

Study 2: Efficiency in Second Language

According to the obtained result, second year students wrote more evaluative sentences in Japanese than English language. This has been decided by counting the numbers of verbs yet the relationship between these two factors is not direct. Evaluative content can be less complicated as well. After all, a different dimension had been found in the respect of each student’s merit and cultural differences (Tang, Werner & Karwowski, 2016). In spite of receiving the training the students tend to write more evaluative content in Japanese, which is comparatively higher than English. This result distinctly indicates the capability of students’ critical thinking based on their knowledge of native and official languages. The relationship between the students’ ability to produce evaluative content and their language proficiency depends on cultural background, which directly affects their thinking process. The domination of other factors like the cultural aspects, communication skill, individual merit and memory over scores and evaluation comes in front repeatedly. As the students already went through a training process, therefore a question arises that how effective the training was. Here, the theory of other factors influencing critical thinking can be considered as basic.

While evaluating the second group of students a crucial aspect has been kept on mind that they were asked to take part without providing prior instructions. The results of the assessment demonstrate that the production of first year students is not of high quality compared to the production of second year students. Even the number of evaluative statements are lesser than second year students. Like the first evaluation, this evaluation also indicates that the students tend to use more verbs in Japanese than in English, which means they are not yet capable of presenting critical thought in English. Although, it is not necessary to write evaluative content in a complex manner yet the first year students lack the skills of language, which is required to present a critical thought (Yang & Yang, 2016). Therefore, it has been decided that without proper instruction and training students’ knowledge in both the languages did not really help them to produce an evaluative content (Zohar & Cohen, 2016).

It can be said after observing both the cases that proper training on the process of using language to deliver critical thought of the individuals is necessary and effective as well. The training, which was provided to the second year students, helped throughout to improve abilities to implement critical evaluation in their written account concerning the main reasons of disasters. The entire training process was conducted in English yet the result came in the favour of Japanese language. This proves that there are limitations to adopt English language as far as critical evaluation of information is concerned (Benedek et al., 2016). However, the fact cannot be denied that if they were not proficient in English they could not be able to manifest their though in Japanese either because all the instructions were in English. Hence, the decision can be taken that students’ knowledge on some language does not determine the ability to express the thought always, in most of the cases a demand of proper set of instructions on the specific language forms and structures helps on a large scale (Gabriel et al., 2016).

Discussion and Conclusion

On the other hand, the evaluation process shows some areas of future research which are not clearly understood after this initiative. The outcome of the study provides some evidence that for Japanese students, there is nothing wrong to present their evaluative content in Japanese after receiving the instructions in English. Proficiency is not questionable here yet inability to express themselves in a foreign language has been considered as disadvantage. How Japanese students responded to same task in English that is different from the approach of native English speaking students. The future research question arises from this level that students who are bi-lingual in Japanese and English, how they are going to respond if provided with same course and the task.

Conclusion

Therefore, it can be concluded that language proficiency has a great impact on the production of critical content based on information. Lack of efficiency in English language can work as a limitation to express critical thought of an individual. The findings also suggests the importance of classroom directions to develop the skill of critical thinking among the students. First year students could not execute the task properly as they were not provided with proper instructions and it has been proved that if students are not demonstrated how to produce critical evaluative content with the help of the known languages, the desired result cannot be achieved.  However, along with the effective instructions, a student must possess detail knowledge on a particular language in order to present some critical note with the help of the same.

Reference

Benedek, M., Nordtvedt, N., Jauk, E., Koschmieder, C., Pretsch, J., Krammer, G., & Neubauer, A. C. (2016). Assessment of creativity evaluation skills: A psychometric investigation in prospective teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 75-84.

Bensley, D. A., Rainey, C., Murtagh, M. P., Flinn, J. A., Maschiocchi, C., Bernhardt, P. C., & Kuehne, S. (2016). Closing the assessment loop on critical thinking: The challenges of multidimensional testing and low test-taking motivation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 158-168.

Dilekli, Y., & Tezci, E. (2016). The relationship among teachers’ classroom practices for teaching thinking skills, teachers’ self-efficacy towards teaching thinking skills and teachers’ teaching styles. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 144-151.

Gabriel, A., Monticolo, D., Camargo, M., & Bourgault, M. (2016). Creativity support systems: A systematic mapping study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 109-122.

Manalo, E., & Sheppard, C. (2016). How might language affect critical thinking performance?. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 41-49.

Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., Lamb, K. N., & Kettler, T. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9-30.

Pérez-Fabello, M. J., Campos, A., & Campos-Juanatey, D. (2016). Is object imagery central to artistic performance?. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 67-74.

Tang, C., & Naumann, S. E. (2016). The impact of three kinds of identity on research and development employees’ incremental and radical creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 123-131.

Tang, M., Werner, C., & Karwowski, M. (2016). Differences in creative mindset between Germany and Poland: The mediating effect of individualism and collectivism. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 31-40.

Vezzali, L., Goc?owska, M. A., Crisp, R. J., & Stathi, S. (2016). On the relationship between cultural diversity and creativity in education: The moderating role of communal versus divisional mindset. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 152-157.

Yang, H., & Yang, S. (2016). Sympathy fuels creativity: The beneficial effects of sympathy on originality. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 132-143.

Zohar, A., & Cohen, A. (2016). Large scale implementation of higher order thinking (HOT) in civic education: The interplay of policy, politics, pedagogical leadership and detailed pedagogical planning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 85-96.