Home Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking in Second Language Writing: An Infusion Approach
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking in Second Language Writing: An Infusion Approach

  • Dong Yanning

    Dong Yanning holds a PhD from the University of British Columbia. She is currently vice president of Higher English Education Publishing at Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Her research focuses on teaching English as a second language, second language writing and critical thinking.

     EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: December 7, 2017
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Author Information
Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics
From the journal Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics Volume 40 Issue 4

Abstract

Recent calls for promoting students’ critical thinking (CT) abilities leave second language (L2) teachers wondering how to integrate CT into their existing agenda. Framed by Paul and Elder’s (2001) CT model, the study explores how CT could be effectively taught in L2 writing as a way to improve students’ CT skills and L2 writing performance. In this study, an infusion approach was developed and implemented in actual classroom teaching. Mixed methods were employed to investigate: (1) the effectiveness of the infusion approach on improving students’ CT and L2 writing scores; (2) the relationship between students’ CT and L2 writing scores; and (3) the effects of the infusion approach on students’ learning of CT and L2 writing. The results of the statistical analyses indicate that the infusion approach has effectively improved students’ CT and L2 writing scores and that there was a significant positive relationship (r=0.893, p<0.01) between students’ CT and L2 writing scores. The results of the post-study interview illustrate that the infusion approach has beneficial effects on students’ learning of CT and L2 writing by bridging the abstract CT theories and interactive writing activities and by integrating the instruction and practice of CT into those of L2 writing.

Keywords: critical thinking; L2 writing; infusion approach; mixed methods; critical thinking assessment

About the author

Dong Yanning

Dong Yanning holds a PhD from the University of British Columbia. She is currently vice president of Higher English Education Publishing at Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Her research focuses on teaching English as a second language, second language writing and critical thinking.

References

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102-1134.10.3102/0034654308326084Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Bailin, S., & Siegel, H. (2003). Critical thinking. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 181-193). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

Beyer, B. K. (2008). How to teach thinking skills in social studies and history. The Social Studies, 99(5), 196-201.10.3200/TSSS.99.5.196-201Search in Google Scholar

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Committee of college and university examiners: Handbook 1 cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Cambridge ESOL. (2011). Cambridge IELTS 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Case, R. (2005). Moving critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada, 45(2), 45-49.Search in Google Scholar

Çavdar, G., & Doe, S. (2012). Learning through writing: Teaching critical thinking skills in writing assignments. PS: Political Science and Politics, 45(2), 298-306.10.1017/S1049096511002137Search in Google Scholar

Coe, C. D. (2011). Scaffolded writing as a tool for critical thinking: Teaching beginning students how to write arguments. Teaching Philosophy, 34(1), 33.10.5840/teachphil20113413Search in Google Scholar

Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4-10.10.3102/0013189X018003004Search in Google Scholar

Ennis, R. H. (2003). Critical thinking assessment. In D. Fasko (Ed.), Critical thinking and reasoning (pp. 293–310). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Search in Google Scholar

Facione, P. A. (1990a). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Santa Clara, CA: The California Academic.Search in Google Scholar

Facione, P. A. (1990b). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781410607201Search in Google Scholar

Franklin, D., Weinberg, J., & Reifler, J. (2014). Teaching writing and critical thinking in large political science classes. Journal of Political Science Education, 10(2), 155-165.10.1080/15512169.2014.892431Search in Google Scholar

Hatcher, D. L. (1999). Why critical thinking should be combined with written composition. Informal Logic, 19(2&3), 171-183.10.22329/il.v19i2.2326Search in Google Scholar

IELTS Writing Task 2 Band Descriptors. (n.d.). IELTS. Retrieved March 25, 2013 from http://www.ielts.org/researchers/score_processing_and_reporting.aspx#WritingSearch in Google Scholar

Jacobson, J. & Lapp, D. (2010). Revisiting Bloom’s taxonomy: A framework for modeling writing and critical thinking skills. The California Reader, 43(3), 32-47.Search in Google Scholar

Li, L. W. (2011).&英语写作中的读者意识与思辨能力培养——基于教学行动研究的探讨[An action research on how to increase reader awareness and critical thinking]. Foreign Language in China, 8(3), 66-73.Search in Google Scholar

Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 1-13.10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002Search in Google Scholar

McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical thinking and education. Oxford: M. Robertson.Search in Google Scholar

Min, H. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308.10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003Search in Google Scholar

Min, H. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on L2 students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118-141.10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003Search in Google Scholar

Moghaddam, M. M., & Malekzadeh, S. (2011). Improving L2 writing ability in the light of critical thinking. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(7), 789-797.10.4304/tpls.1.7.789-797Search in Google Scholar

Mulnix, J. W., Mulnix, M. J. (2010). Using a writing portfolio project to teach critical thinking skills. Teaching Philosophy, 33(1), 27.10.5840/teachphil20103313Search in Google Scholar

Norris, S. P. (2003). The meaning of critical thinking test performance: The effects of abilities and dispositions on scores. In D. Fasko (Ed.), Critical thinking and reasoning: Current research, theory and practice. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Search in Google Scholar

Nosich, G. M. (2005). Problems with two standard models for teaching critical thinking. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2005(130), 59-67.10.1002/cc.196Search in Google Scholar

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Petress, K. (2004). Critical thinking: An extended definition. Education, 124(3), 461-466.Search in Google Scholar

Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal, 61(2), 100-106.10.1093/elt/ccm002Search in Google Scholar

Richards, J. (1990). New trends in the teaching of writing in ESL/L2. In Z. Wang (Ed.), ELT in China: Papers presented at the International Symposium on Teaching English in the Chinese context. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar

Shi, L. (1998). Effects of prewriting discussions on adult ESL students’ compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 319-345.10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90020-0Search in Google Scholar

Silva, E. (2008). Measuring skills for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Education Sector.Search in Google Scholar

Tiruneh, D. T., Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2014). Effectiveness of critical thinking instruction in higher education: A systematic review of intervention studies. Higher Education Studies, 4(1), 1.10.5539/hes.v4n1p1Search in Google Scholar

Tsui, L. (1999). Courses and instruction affecting critical thinking. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 185-200.10.1023/A:1018734630124Search in Google Scholar

Understand how to calculate your IELTS scores. (2014). Retrieved March 21, 2014, from http://takeielts.britishcouncil.org/find-out-about-results/understand-your-ielts-scores.Search in Google Scholar

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal. Cleveland, OH: Psychological Corporation.Search in Google Scholar

Zeng, M. R. (2012).论英语议论文写作与思辨能力培养[Argumentative writing and the cultivation of critical thinking ability]. Education Teaching Forum, 23, 67-70.Search in Google Scholar

Appendices: Appendix A

CT-oriented Brainstorming Worksheet for the Experimental Group

ElementsQuestionsAnswers
PurposeWhat is the purpose of writing the essay?
Question at issueWhat is the major question that needs to be addressed in the essay?
ConceptsWhat is the main concept to be addressed?
Point of viewGiven the situation, what are the possible viewpoints?
AssumptionsWhat is the most fundamental assumption of your viewpoint?
InformationWhat is the most important information that needs to be considered to support your viewpoint?
Interpretation and inferenceGiven all the information, what is the best possible conclusion?
Implications and consequencesWhat are the most significant implications you expect from this essay?

Appendix B

CT-oriented Peer-review Checklist

No.StandardsExplanationsGuiding questions
1ClarityUnderstandable, the meaning can be grasped; free from confusion or ambiguity, without obscurities.Q1: Could you elaborate further?
Q2: Could you give an example?
Q3: Could you illustrate what you mean?
2AccuracyFree from errors, mistakes or distortions; true; correct.Q4: How could you check on that?
Q5: How could you find out if that is true?
Q6: How could you verify or test that?
3PrecisionExact to the necessary level of detail; specific.Q7: Could you be more specific?
Q8: Could you give me more details?
Q9: Could you be more exact?
4RelevanceBearing upon or relating to the matter at hand.Q10: How does that relate to the problem?
Q11: How does that bear on the question?
Q12: How does that help you with the issue?
5DepthContaining complexities and multiple interrelationships, implying thoroughness in thinking.Q13: What factors make this a difficult problem?
Q14: What are some of the complexities of this question?
Q15: What are some of the difficulties you need to deal with?
6BreadthEncompassing multiple viewpoints, comprehensive in view, wide-ranging and broadminded in perspective.Q16: Do you need to look at this from another perspective?
Q17: Do you need to consider another point of view?
Q18: Do you need to look at this in other ways?
7LogicThe parts make sense together, without contradictions; in keeping with the principles of sound judgement and reasonability.Q19: Do all these make sense together?
Q20: Does your first paragraph fit in with your last?
Q21: Does what you say follow from the evidence?
8SignificanceHaving importance, being of consequence; having considerable or substantial meaning.Q22: Is this the most important problem to consider?
Q23: Is this the central idea to focus on?
Q24: Which of these facts are most important?
9FairnessFree from bias, dishonesty, favoritism, selfish-interest, deception or injustice.Q25: Is there any biased viewpoints in dealing with this issue?
Q26: Do you sympathetically represent the viewpoints of others?

Appendix C

The Criteria for Assessing CT in L2 Writing

Published Online: 2017-12-7
Published in Print: 2017-11-27

© 2017 FLTRP, Walter de Gruyter, Cultural and Education Section British Embassy

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Teacher Identity and Teacher Autonomy in Foreign Language Education
  3. “I Cannot Dance Upon My Toes”: A Case Study Into Teacher Learning Through Participating in an English Teaching Contest in China
  4. Teacher Identity and Teacher Autonomy in Foreign Language Education
  5. Exploring Researcher Identity Construction of University EFL Teachers in China
  6. Teacher Identity and Teacher Autonomy in Foreign Language Education
  7. When Teacher Autonomy Meets Management Autonomy to Enhance Learner Autonomy
  8. Teacher Identity and Teacher Autonomy in Foreign Language Education
  9. Autonomy in Scaffolding as Learning in Teacher-Student Negotiation of Meaning in a University EFL Classroom
  10. Language Teaching
  11. Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking in Second Language Writing: An Infusion Approach
  12. Viewpoints
  13. Appraisal of the Production-Oriented Approach: An Introduction
  14. Viewpoints
  15. The Production-Oriented Approach: Moving Forward
  16. Viewpoints
  17. Design and Directions for Research
  18. Viewpoints
  19. Reflections on the Production-Oriented Approach vis-à-vis Pre-service Teachers
  20. Viewpoints
  21. Some Thoughts on the Production Oriented Approach
  22. Viewpoints
  23. Chinese Abstracts
  24. Viewpoints
  25. The Inaugural Speech by CELEA President at the Closing Ceremony of the 8th International Conference on ELT in China
https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2017-0025
Keywords for this article
critical thinking; L2 writing; infusion approach; mixed methods; critical thinking assessment

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Teacher Identity and Teacher Autonomy in Foreign Language Education
  3. “I Cannot Dance Upon My Toes”: A Case Study Into Teacher Learning Through Participating in an English Teaching Contest in China
  4. Teacher Identity and Teacher Autonomy in Foreign Language Education
  5. Exploring Researcher Identity Construction of University EFL Teachers in China
  6. Teacher Identity and Teacher Autonomy in Foreign Language Education
  7. When Teacher Autonomy Meets Management Autonomy to Enhance Learner Autonomy
  8. Teacher Identity and Teacher Autonomy in Foreign Language Education
  9. Autonomy in Scaffolding as Learning in Teacher-Student Negotiation of Meaning in a University EFL Classroom
  10. Language Teaching
  11. Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking in Second Language Writing: An Infusion Approach
  12. Viewpoints
  13. Appraisal of the Production-Oriented Approach: An Introduction
  14. Viewpoints
  15. The Production-Oriented Approach: Moving Forward
  16. Viewpoints
  17. Design and Directions for Research
  18. Viewpoints
  19. Reflections on the Production-Oriented Approach vis-à-vis Pre-service Teachers
  20. Viewpoints
  21. Some Thoughts on the Production Oriented Approach
  22. Viewpoints
  23. Chinese Abstracts
  24. Viewpoints
  25. The Inaugural Speech by CELEA President at the Closing Ceremony of the 8th International Conference on ELT in China
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 28.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cjal-2017-0025/html
Scroll to top button