international journal of language learning and applied ... · pdf filethis paper focuses on...

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)

Volume 6 (3), July 2014; 96-‐108 Sibing Xu EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org

96

INFUSING HIGHER-ORDER QUESTIONS INTO SPEAKING ACTIVITY:

A CASE STUDY OF L2 LEARNER’S SPEAKING PROFICIENCY AND HIGHER-ORDER THINKING

Sibing Xu

Department of Foreign Languages, HKU SPACE Global College Suzhou Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT For the teaching of speaking in classroom, there are various teaching methods, from the Audio-Lingual Method to Communicative Language Teaching Method (CLT), even the recent Task-Based Learning Approach (TBLT), all emphasize the spoken language (Cook, 2001). In China, English speaking ability has been regarded as a problematic issue in L2 learning. This paper focuses on infusing thinking skills into L2 speaking development. More research has begun to investigate a number of thinking frameworks and their relation to learning speaking. In order to examine the application of higher-order questioning (HOQ), an empirical study has been designed to explain its impact on L2 learners’ oral abilities and thinking. The literature review involves three aspects: thinking skills in L2 classroom, Bloom’s taxonomy, and higher-order questions and spoken output. The main research question is: will higher-order question (HOQ) develop L2 learner’s speaking proficiency and higher-order thinking? Methodologically, this paper deals with six Newcastle University students coming from China as participants, their speaking ability, the process of the speaking test activity and interview as well as the data analysis. The findings indicate that in respect of length of utterance, participants answering HOQ can talk longer, and produce longer sentences. As for speaking proficiency, with the help of HOQ, participants show an effective thinking process, become more active and produce sentence naturally and coherently, and more, they can use better grammatical complexity with some flexibility. When L2 learners’ own initiative is aroused by HOQ, it is a solid step towards fruitful speaking development. KEYWORDS: Higher-order Thinking, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Higher-order Questions, L2 Learner, Speaking Proficiency, Case Study INTRODUCTION Teaching second languages more effectively is an important task for the twenty-first century. One assumption is that the basis for teaching is the spoken, not the written language. Perhaps many linguists claimed that speaking is the primary form of language, and writing depends on speaking. Shedding light on the teaching of speaking in classroom, there are various teaching methods, from the Audio-Lingual Method to Communicative Language Teaching Method (CLT), even the recent Task-Based Learning Approach (TBLT), all emphasize the spoken language (Cook, 2001). However, in China, English speaking ability has been regarded as a problematic



97

issue in L2 learning. Chinese students have often been subjected to sharp criticism for not having acquired a high level competence in spoken English, and the term dumb English has been used to describe the English taught in China (Jigang, 2002). Even university graduates were found to be highly competent in writing and grammar, but poorly in speaking and listening (Tsui, 2007). It is influenced by many factors involved in L2 learning process, such as low learning motivation, a lack of adequate authentic materials, classroom settings and so on (Dörnyei, 2001; Shou, 1995; Schweers, 1999). Among numerous reasons for this issue, this paper focuses on infusing thinking skills into L2 speaking development. While most research has examined the link between speaking and thinking, and it has long been the concern in the field of philosophy, psychology, and linguistics (Dipper et al., 2005). More research has begun to investigate a number of thinking frameworks and their relation to learning speaking. In order to examine the application of higher-order questioning (HOQ), an empirical study has been designed to explain its impact on L2 learners’ oral abilities and thinking. In the rest of this paper, the literature review will be provided in the next section with the research questions briefly outlined. Afterwards, the methodology adopted in the research will be introduced in section three, and followed by the results and discussions in section four. Finally, the conclusion part provides an overview of the limitations and significance of the study and makes some suggestions for future research. LITERATURE REVIEW Thinking Skills in L2 Classroom First of all, what exactly are thinking skills in education? And can they be taught or not? According to Moseley (2004), it refers to pedagogic approaches used in a controlled and conscious process, through which specific strategies and procedures may be taught or learned to make learning more effective. It is a kind of mental activity, which requires learners to think and learn under the help of taxonomies and frameworks. However, there are some studies which have been conducted on the topic of whether ‘teaching thinking’ or ‘teaching thinking skills’ is applicable in classroom or not. It was confirmed that around 55 thinking skills frameworks dealing with different purposes are available from the Learning and Skills Research Center (LSRC). Among those, researchers have found that many thinking skills approaches can be very effective in classroom setting, and thinking can be improved with explicit practice particularly under teacher’s instructions. Thus, on one side, teachers need to select an appropriate framework, on the basis of objective assessment, to plan suitable thinking tasks in order to facilitate learning. On the other side, learners have to develop a understanding of thinking and learning, especially the essence of the thinking framework. However, the debate over learners with a low level of language proficiency can learn thinking or not is of great concerns for teachers (Mei, 2011). It was argued that teachers do not control the brain to process information, but thinking skills can be taught at all levels, and improve achievements across major subjects (Moseley, 2005; Sousa, 2001). In addtion to the specific issue of L2 speaking, Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain (1956) has been widely adopted to formulate activites and higher-order questions in L2 classroom (Water, 2006), therefore this study has used it as a guide in differentiating questions. The next part will discuss Bloom’s taxonomy and higher-order questions in details.



98

Bloom’s Taxonomy Bloom’s taxonomy consists of six categories, including knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, which are arranged in a hierarchical and logical order (Bloom et al., 1956). Ennis (1987) informs us, “Bloom’s top three levels (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) are the higher order thinking skills”, while the remaining three categories belong to lower-order thinking. Higher-order thinking is distinct from lower-order thinking, the former involves the mental processes of analysis, evaluation and synthesis while the latter do not produce information, but simply recall data from memory. Rowan (1999) argues that learning is seen as sequential and hierarchical. Thus, the advantage of conducting activity using Bloom’s taxonomy is gradually moving from the most basic level to the complex level. However, a contradiction between educational theory and practice is that teachers rarely give higher-order thinking instructions (Raudenbush et al., 1993). Complex understanding occurred only by the accumulation of basic, pre-requisite learning (Gagné and Medsker, 1996), sometimes learners never achieve the level where they can engage in critical, evaluative thinking. Higher-order Questions (HOQ) and Spoken Output Fisher (1998) reported that higher-order thinking can be promoted through the use of questions. However, the literature about HOQ in L2 classroom is rather limited. Through a study which examined the use of HOQ in a group classroom discussion for non-native participants, Alcón (1993) was the first to confirm that HOQ can develop the kind of verbal interaction which facilitates comprehension and written production in L2 learning (Alcón, 1993). Later on, many researchers found that spoken output was also much better improved in response to HOQ than lower-order question. An empirical study showed that not only the length of speaker’s utterance was much longer, but also the content of their utterance was much more complicated (Godfrey, 2001). These findings matter because HOQ can stimulate learner’s deep thinking, and lead them to talk more with higher grammatical complexity. 5Ws was adopted to design the higher-order thinking task in the present study. It was based on Butterworth and O’Conner (2005)’s work to activate learner’s higher-order thinking, especially higher level of analysis and evaluation by asking higher-order questions like ‘what’, ‘why’, ‘how’, etc. Chen (2010) used 5Ws to examine a Taiwanese University L2 classroom and confirmed the practicability of this approach. An example (skilful decision making) extracted from Butterworth’s book is shown below: Options: What could Hamlet have done? Based on the option taken, talk about: a) What would happen if he took this option? b) Why do you think that this consequence could have occurred? c) How important are the consequences? Why? (Butterworth and O'Conner 2005, p. 18) In the literature reviewed above, many studies proved that HOQ elaborated speaking and higher-order thinking. In addition to HOQ’s impact, some points should be noted. First, two studies of Hong Kong L2 classrooms showed that students feel anxiety to raise questions in a teacher-centered setting (Tsui, 1996). It was confirmed that students work together in small groups or in pairs not only increases interest among the participants but also promote critical thinking. Therefore, they have more opportunities to engage in discussion, take responsibility for group member’s learning as well as their own, and thus become critical thinkers (Totten, Sills, Digby, 1991). As Vygotsky (1978) argued communication is socially constructed, and group work can



99

achieve better speaking performance. Second, Chinese participants were found to be less likely to ask higher-order questions, due to concerns about authority and face (Ho and Crookall, 1995). Third, according to a recent study, lower-order thinking is basic and essential for students to activate their schemata, then higher-order thinking can be operated (Chen, 2010). Therefore, this study will seek to adopt Bloom’s taxonomy as a theoretical framework to formulate both lower and higher-order questions, in order to explain whether they stimulate speaking and higher-order thinking. And it will be carried out in a collaborative group work with social content materials to answer the following research questions. RECEARCH QUESTIONS The main question is: Will higher-order question (HOQ) develop L2 learner’s speaking proficiency and higher-order thinking? The sub-questions are: How does HOQ impact on L2 learner’s speaking activity? How does HOQ impact on L2 learner’s higher-order thinking skills? What’s L2 learner’s attitude towards HOQ? METHODOLOGY Based on the literature review, theoretical framework and research questions, the methodological framework and research design will be outlined. It will focus on participants and their speaking ability, the process of conducting the speaking activity, and finally the data analysis will be presented. Participants There were totally six participants, all Newcastle University students coming from China. Participants were females, all L2 speakers of English, and Chinese was their L1 language. They were my schoolmates pursuing their MA or PhDs degree in different fields, such as Finance, TESOL and Biology. In order to produce objective estimates of participant’s speaking ability, their IELTS speaking scores were required before the task. Their average level was from score 6.0 to score 6.5, so the six participants were regarded as of equal English speaking proficiency. At the same time, it was revealed that their speaking as well as writing scores was not as good as listening and reading. By the way, Chinese candidates’ mean score in Academic and General Test provided by IELTS official website was: listening 5.8, reading 5.9, writing 5.2 and speaking 5.3, perhaps it was a common issue of L2 learners, so investigation into speaking was worth noticing. I, as an instructor, who was a postgraduate student in applied linguistics and TESOL, organized and operated the whole process. According to Sousa (2001), fast learners can respond well to complex task, while slow learners may not be able to deal with complex processing. Results show that 45% of the teachers believe that higher-order thinking is inappropriate for low-achieving students (Zohar et al., 2001). Participants in this study were viewed as prepared to handle more complex learning tasks, so this design aimed to increase the thinking complexity rather than difficulty in evaluating HOQ’s efficiency in oral production.



100

Procedure a) Speaking Task In the process of data collection, I applied a mixed research method: the speaking test activity and interview, which were conducted on the same day in a common room at Newcastle University, and recording data was used for further analysis. For the part of speaking test, it was a comparative study consisted of two groups, group A (lower-order questions) and group B (higher-order questions). First of all, six participants were divided into two small groups, each group had three participants. The speaking activity’s topic for the two groups was the same: an ideal mate, which had been selected from Chen’s delayed post-test task (2010) based on the related content in the textbook, and slightly modified as well. Girls were considered to be interested in this aspect, so this topic was chosen with interest and familiarity for them. The most important stage is planning the task, and it is the teacher’s work to develop an effective way to facilitate learning (Franke et al., 1998). Thus I adopted Bloom’s taxonomy to scaffold speaking and thinking, as it was a useful tool to distinguish lower-order thinking and higher-order thinking. Table 1 below illustrates the framework of conducting the speaking activity.

Table 1: The framework of conducting the speaking activity

INC

RE

ASIN

G C

OM

PLE

XIT

Y

BLOOM’S LEVEL Activity for Each Stage KNOWLEDGE *Group A

Label: First look at a sheet (10 pictures about criteria for your ideal mate extracted from Appendix 1), then label each picture. Recall: Which standard matters to you when choosing an ideal mate?

COMPREHENSION *Group A

Summarize: Read the explanation of each character and discuss about it. Summarize a list of criteria in your own words. Discuss: Discuss your ideas with your partner. Explain: State your reasons to support your choices.

APPLICATION *Group B

Apply: Think of at least three related situations, such as good character of your friend, colleague and parents.

ANALYSIS *Group B

Analyze: Ask your partner some higher-order questions like, “How to choose an ideal mate?” “Why the other criteria are important or less important to you?” Contrast: “Which criterion is less important?” Compare and contrast your argument.

SYNTHESIS *Group B

Synthesis: Discuss in pairs, and organize your partner’s points of view. Infer: Formulate a reason that might explain your partner’s reason for choosing her criteria.

EVALUATION *Group B

Judge: Compare the results and defend your reasons. Finally, try to persuade your partner in order to reach an agreement within each group.

For group A, each participant was given a piece of material A (Appendix I ). The design aimed at the first two stages of Bloom’s Taxonomy: knowledge and comprehension. Participants need to



101

follow the instructions and ask and answer the lower-order questions listed on the handout to conduct the discussion, such as “Is family background an important factor when you choose your ideal mate?”, which just recalled their previous basic knowledge or experience. When they finished it, each participant was required to talk on the topic individually. For group B, each participant was given a piece of material B (Appendix II). It mainly focused on guiding students to use higher-order questions (application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation). Participants need to answer the higher-order questions listed on the handout and encouraged to formulate and ask higher-order questions of their own. In addition to Bloom’s work, 5Ws task was used to encourage HOQ, let students reach a consensus within a group through reason and argue. Examples of such questions like, “Why hobby matters you when you choose your ideal mate?” “How does occupation affect you when you decide your ideal mate?” Participants were required to take turns in raising HOQ, for example, one learner post a HOQ, the other two group members providing answers, commenting on other’s opinions. I also participated in Group B’s discussion as an instructor to encourage members to be more active. After 15 minutes discussion, they need to reach an agreement and then talked to me individually. b) Interview In terms of the interview, the use of the eight prepared questions complements learners’ speaking test, in order to provide in-depth perceptions. Here is the question list. (Q1) What do you think of your spoken English? (Q2) I found that your speaking score is lower than other scores; could you explain the reasons

behind? (Q3) Have you heard of thinking skills before? (Q4) Do you like this kind of speaking activity? (Q5) Is there any impact on your speaking? (Q6) Nowadays, we do have some practicable thinking skills framework, for instance, Bloom’s

Taxonomy, and in the meantime some effective ways in teaching and learning English speaking, for example, 5Ws, Odd One Out, Make Up a Story and Guess What I Say, have you ever heard about it?

(Q7) What do you think of 5Ws-based thinking task? (Q8) Is there any impact on your thinking? I conducted the interview with five participants, and they took turn to answer questions. The design of the questions was in fact very open, a detailed transcript was provided in Appendix III. Data Analysis The speaking data were analyzed based on a comparison between group A and group B. In order to make comparison easier, some tools were used for evaluating speaking outcomes. First of all, the length of utterance can easily be calculated by timing. Second, IELTS Speaking Band Description provides a distinct guideline to assess speaking proficiency, including fluency and coherence, lexical resource, grammatical range and accuracy.



102

(https://www.teachers.cambridgeesol.org/ts/digitalAssets/114292_IELTS_Speaking_Band_Descriptors.pdf ) In addition to the speaking data, the interview data collected in Chinese for the convenience was transcribed into English. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The Effects on Speaking a) Length of Utterance The most obvious difference between Group A’s audio data and Group B’s was the length of utterance improved considerably. The total time of each participant’s recording from Group A was 57s, 1m26s and 1m55s respectively, while it increased to 2m45s, 3m12s and 3m36s from Group B’s data. Moreover, it seems that learners in Group B produce longer sentences. In addition to speaking data, interview also revealed some findings.

‘I have to use short sentence and pause for several times.’ (Q7) ‘Those questions let me to think more deeply, thus when talking on this topic; I can talk

longer and elaborate more ideas.’ (Q4)

The first episode from Group B’s answer indicated that answering HOQ can talk longer, compared against the second claim, her utterance was relatively shorter and limited. b) Speaking Proficiency Fluency and Coherence According to the IELTS speaking bands descriptor, Group B’s coherence was much better, and tends to use a range of connectives appropriately. For example, in L5’s (Group B) utterance, some signposts were used effectively, such as linking words and phrases, ‘the first of all is…, and second factor I would consider…, also, and thirdly…, there are the other factors…, in conclusion…’In addition to the clear connections between arguments, fewer fluency problems appeared in Group B’s recording. An example extracted from L1’s (Group A) utterance, ‘I want {him} him to be (3.0) {to… er… to} (1.0) loyalty.’ ‘{I would like…er…he} he could be (1.0) {a man…er} a handsome man.’ Inside brackets were repetitions, self-correction, and hesitation, which occurred much frequently, compared with Group B’s samples. Evidence from the interview data provided learner’s perceptions toward this aspect.

‘My spoken English is just so-so.’ (Q1) ‘When I talk freely about my ideal mate, I feel that sentences are rather incoherent.’(Q7) ‘There is some change when I follow the thinking task. My thinking becomes more active

because when partner asks me questions, I have to find an answer.’ (Q7)



103

From the episodes above, L2 speakers realized the level of their L1 speaking proficiency (just so-so), so they had anxiety and less confidence to speak L2. With the help of HOQ, their thinking became more active and produced sentence naturally and coherently. Lexical Resource This part of comparison between two groups is not obvious, perhaps because participants all have a good command of vocabulary. Although some inappropriate choices of words, such as simple and isolated vocabulary occurred sometimes, the overall meaning is clear and effective. According to the interview, one participant stated that she used some vague expressions like ‘I want’, ‘everything’, ‘some points’, because elaborated ideas were insufficient to convey precise meaning. Grammatical Range and Accuracy The data suggested that with higher-order questions, Group B students can use better grammatical complexity with some flexibility. For example, two sentences were compared below:

Group A: I would like him to be romantic, loyalty and hard-working. Group B: The third factor I would take into consideration {that} would be the occupation, {er…} as I study {the} Finance, I would like this guy to {be} work in an {investmenting}investment bank, so we maybe have the same topics and may have many conversations, maybe he could help with my work.

Participants in Group A use a large number of simple sentence, rarely providing compound sentence or complex sentence. It shows that after the practice of HOQ, learners can talk more with a mix of simple and complex structures, though some grammatical mistakes persist. The Effects on Thinking Data from Group B’s discussion help to explain HOQ’s effects on thinking. Unlike Group A’s data, Group B showed an effective thinking process. Three participants organized an effective group discussion: one student raised a higher-order question in turns; the others provided answers after deep thinking and debate. Not only did they refer to the questions listed on the handout, but also formulated their own higher-order questions, some were interesting; “Why do you think character is more important than the others?’’ “How important is education to you? Why?” “What it would happen if your ideal mate is a nice person but looks ugly?” In addition to the HOQ itself, thinking process occurred in the activity became more active; participants can respond faster and process information logically and clearly. Some participant’s voices can be found in the interview:

‘Higher-order thinking let me think more deeply, thus I have more ideas to express, and it was useful for me to construct a logical framework.’ (Q5)

‘This activity requires me to produce more higher-order questions, so I have to think from a different angle.’ (Q8)



104

CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study is to examine the application of higher-order questioning (HOQ), specifically, a feasibility research on infusing higher-order questions into speaking activity. Based on Bloom’s taxonomy as a theoretical framework, this study formulates both lower and higher-order questions to explain whether they stimulate speaking and higher-order thinking. An empirical study has been designed to explain its impact on L2 learners’ oral abilities and thinking, and carried out in the ways of speaking task and interview. The findings indicate that, in respect of length of utterance, participants answering HOQ can talk longer, and produce longer sentences. As for speaking proficiency, with the help of HOQ, participants show an effective thinking process, become more active and produce sentence naturally and coherently, and more, they can use better grammatical complexity with some flexibility. Implications To conclude, higher-order question plays a vital role in encouraging L2 learner’s speaking proficiency. While raising HOQ by students and teachers is one way to improve L2 in thinking speaking tasks, teachers need better familiarize themselves with the categories of Bloom’s Taxonomy, and handle it properly between each level according to different situation. And teachers need to provide more opportunities for the purpose of helping L2 learner’s speaking through HOQ, such as group discussion, online TV programs and active listening activities. Other than these suggestions for teachers, L2 learners need to adapt to higher-order thinking. To think at a relatively high level is not an easy work, L2 learners need to be mindful of not only express ideas clearly, but also listen effectively to other’s opinions. In such communicative environment, when L2 learners’ own initiative is aroused by HOQ, it is a solid step towards fruitful speaking development. Limitations of the Study To understand the practicability of Bloom’s Taxonomy and HOQ helping L2 learners’ speaking and higher-order thinking, the previous research has been designed and implemented through speaking test activities and interview, which have shown many notable impacts on L2 learners. The findings from this study showed that not only might HOQ impact L2 learners’ speaking, but also their thinking which took place in the group setting. There are mainly four limitations to this research. First limitation lies in the data collection as involving one instructor and six learners was inconvincible. The number of participants should have increased instead of only 6 students in speaking test activities, because the more participants surveyed, the more data collected, the better evaluation of the extent to which the research activities could optimize L2 learners’ speaking. In addition to that, participants were selected from various majors, if they had been from the same major, it would have been easier to draw comparisons. Additionally, the analyzing tools, especially for coding participant’s speaking might not professional.



105

Thirdly, due to the researcher identity, higher-order thinking instruction offered and interpretation of the research evidence might influence the process. Finally, the time constraints led to not enough higher-order thinking training. It might require a longer time (several weeks or longer), after it, the test of its effectiveness on speaking might be more accurate and objective. Suggestions for Future Research Further research could address the above limitations. Moreover, research could evaluate other aspects between speaking and HOQ. For instance, the comparison which participants produce HOQ with and without instruction, as for the sake of convenience, this study has given learner’s handout with HOQ. More investigation could focus on participant’s perceptions, like speaking anxiety, interest in the topic, the relation between HOQ and class settings, etc. In terms of future research on the application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in L2 speaking learning, the relation between lower order thinking and higher-order thinking relating to the Bloom’s Taxonomy framework should be well balanced. It is known that lower order thinking has always received much attention while higher-order thinking applied in L2 speaking is not explored greatly. When the approach of higher-order thinking skills is used, care must be taken to its proportion in the whole teaching process, its relation with syllabus, more realistically, its influence on specific exam to take, which is students’ primary concern. Undoubtedly, teachers should encourage all the students, fast learners or slow learners, in their application of various higher-order thinking skills, which, however, seem to be harder for slow learners. A point worth emphasizing is that slow learners will gain broader development space of their speaking if they are willing to have a try, and at the same time, should explore the effectiveness of different methods in light of their own conditions. In brief, higher order thinking has provided a new perspective on L2 speaking advancement, and in fact, it applies to both in-class and after-class with a clear purpose of helping L2 learners ask high-quality questions and learn autonomously. There are many ways of oral training after class, on the one hand, it is necessary to enhance the listening training, for example, watching English TV programs, and on the other hand, the network can be used to communicate with others in English. REFERENCES ALCóN, E. G. (1993). High Cognitive Questions in Nns Group Classroom Discussion: Do They

Facilitate Comprehension and Production of the Foreign Language? RELC Journal, 24, 73-85.

BLOOM, B. S., ENGELHART, M., FURST, E. J., HILL, W. H., & KRATHWOHL, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay, 19, 56.



106

BUTTERWORTH, M., O'CONNOR, M., KNIGHT, J., KINGTON, C., STEVENS, J., & LORD, C. (2005). Thinking through English, Chris Kington Publishing.

CHEN, M. H. (2010). Infusing thinking skills into an L2 classroom: a case study of an innovation in a Taiwanese university. PhD's Thesis, Newcastle University.

COOK, V. J. (2001). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching, Hodder Arnold. DIPPER, L. T., BLACK, M., & BRYAN, K. L. (2005). Thinking for speaking and thinking for

listening: The interaction of thought and language in typical and non-fluent comprehension and production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 417-441.

DÖRNYEI, Z. (2001). Motivation and Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 23. University of Hawaii Press.

ENNIS, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. S. Sternberg (Eds.). Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: W. H. Freeman, 9-26.

FISHER, R. (1998). Teaching thinking: Philosophical enquiry in the classroom, Cassell London. FRANKE, M. L., CARPENTER, T., FENNEMA, E., ANSELL, E. & BEHREND, J. (1998).

Understanding teachers' self-sustaining, generative change in the context of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 67-80.

GAGN , R. M. & MEDSKER, K. (1996). The conditions of learning. Training Applications: ASTD.

GODFREY, K. A. (2001). Teacher Questioning Techniques, Student Responses and Critical Thinking. Master's Thesis, Portland State University.

HO, J. & CROOKALL, D. (1995). Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learner autonomy in English language teaching. System, 23, 235-243.

JIGANG, C. (2002). On the evaluation of college student's English speaking ability. Foreign Language World, 1, 12.

LIN, M. (2011). Teaching thinking skills in foreign language learning, in House, S. (ed), English: Investigation, Innovation and Best Practice - Teacher Development. Vol. 3. Barcelona: Grao Ediciones, 79-100.

RAUDENBUSH, S. W., ROWAN, B. & CHEONG, Y. F. (1993). Higher order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher, and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 523-553.

SCHWEERS JR, C. W. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. In English Teaching Forum, Vol. 37 (2), 6-9.

SOUSA, D. A. (2001). How the brain learns: a classroom teacher's guide. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Crowin.

TOTTEN, S., SILLS, T., DIGBY, A., & RUSS, P. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. New York: Garland.

TSUI, A. (2007). Complexities of identity formation: A narrative inquiry of an EFL teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 657-680.

TSUI, A. B. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. Voices from the language classroom, 145-167.

WATERS, A. (2006). Thinking and language -learning. ELT Journal [online], 60 (4). ZOHAR, A., DEGANI, A., & VAAKNIN, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving

students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 469-485.



107

Appendix I. Thinking Task Used in the Speaking Activity (Group A) Topic: An Ideal Mate 1. Look at these pictures about criteria for your ideal mate, and then guess what the criterion is.

Example questions: What criteria for an ideal mate does this picture show? Can you label each criterion below the picture?

2. Ask and answer the following questions:

Is education (family background, character, appearance…) an important factor when you choose your boyfriend? Which criteria matters to you when choosing an ideal mate? Write down at least three.

3. Read a list of criteria. The following are some criteria when looking for an ideal mate. ● Appearance: good looking, handsome ● Character: responsible, caring, understanding, funny, high EQ ● High education: someone with a master or phd degree ● Family background: someone from a rich family or poor farmer’s family, big family ● Occupation: lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc ● Hobbies: mountain climbing, travelling, etc. ● Health condition ● Soulmate ● Nationality: Chinese, foreigner

4. Can you summarize those criteria in your own words? 5. Can you explain to your group member about your choice?

Appendix II. Thinking Task Used in the Speaking Activity (Group B) Topic: An Ideal Mate The following are some criteria when looking for an ideal mate. ● Appearance: good looking, handsome ● Character: responsible, caring, understanding, funny, high EQ ● High education: someone with a master or phd degree ● Family background: someone from a rich family or poor farmer’s family, big family ● Occupation: lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc ● Hobbies: mountain climbing, travelling, etc. ● Health condition ● Soulmate ● Nationality: Chinese, foreigner

Finish the following tasks by asking and anwering questions (Example questions are given). 1. Think of at least three related situations, such as friend, colleague and parents.

What is your criterion when choosing a good friend? What kind of colleague do you think is easy to work with?

2. Think about what criteria are the most important for you when choosing an ideal mate. Why hobbies matters you when you choose your boyfriend? How does character affect you when you decide your ideal mate?

3. Talk about the reasons why the other criteria are less important or not important. Why appearance is less important?



108

4. In your group, choose 3 most important criteria. You might have different opinion from your group members. You need to persuade them and to reach an agreement within your group.

Appendix III. Interview Transcription (Question 1) What do you think of your spoken English? Participant A: My spoken English is just so-so. In fact, I had not enough opportunities to speak English before I came to UK. Now I am currently studying for a Master in Finance at Newcastle University, English has become a tool during study, daily life and travelling. (Q2) I found that your speaking score is lower than other scores, could you explain the reasons behind? Participant A: Compared with the other three language skills, listening, reading as well as writing, my speaking proficiency is quite low. Teachers pay more attention to vocabulary and grammar teaching, a lack of speaking practice maybe is the problem. (Q3) Have you heard of thinking skills before? Participant B: I was a PhD student in medical school, and I haven’t heard of this approach before. Participant C: Yes, I took Thinking Skill as my module this semester, it was useful. (Q4) Do you like this kind of speaking activity? Participant D: I like it; I think it’s an effective way to practice our thinking. For example, those questions let me think more deeply, thus when talking on this topic; I can talk longer and elaborate more ideas. (Q5) Is there any impact on your speaking? Participant C: Yeah, to some extent, I think so. Higher-order thinking let me think more deeply, thus I have more ideas to express, and it was useful for me to construct a logical framework. (Q6) Nowadays, we do have some practicable thinking skills framework, for instance, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and in the meantime some effective ways in teaching and learning English speaking, for example, 5Ws, Odd One Out, Make Up a Story and Guess What I Say, have you ever heard about it? Participant E: Oh，so many! I heard of 5Ws, and as to Guess What I Say, I perhaps saw it from TV in Chinese entertainment program, not in English. (Q7) What do you think of 5Ws-based thinking task? Participant B: The thinking task is called 5Ws, isn’t it? When I talk freely about my ideal mate, I feel that sentences are rather incoherent, sometimes I even don’t know what to say for the next sentence. Maybe the anxiety is another problem, so it is difficult for me to speak coherently, and I have to use short sentence and pause for several times instead. Participant C: There is some change when I follow the thinking task. My thinking becomes more active because when my partner asks questions, I have to find an answer. (Q8) Is there any impact on your thinking? Participant E: Yes，I think so. This activity requires me to produce more higher-order questions, so I have to think from a different angle. Then I put forward questions and discuss with my partner, this process enables us to think more frequently. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Sibing Xu, English tutor of the Department of Foreign Languages at HKU SPACE Global College Suzhou. MA in Applied Linguistics and TESOL, University of Newcastle upon Tyne (2013).

international journal of language learning and applied ... · pdf filethis paper focuses on...

Documents