Literacies WEB Journal, 6 (1). (2009)11

ArticleDiscussion on the concept of ‘Criticality’

Yamada, Etsuko*
Abstract
This study investigates the concept of ‘criticality’ from two perspectives: an empirical study conductedin beginners’ Japanese language courses at a British University and a theoretical study based on Critical
Pedagogy and Critical Thinking. Skepticism was identiﬁed as a fundamental nature of criticality and it canbe developed to some extent in the grammar based courses. It is implied that beginners’ language studies
can be located under the roof of higher education aiming at criticality development.
Key words: beginners’ language studies, criticality, educational aims, higher education, skepticism

1. Introductionof criticality in a whole foreign language studies degree

The general tendency of higher education in the UK

course, based on the claim by Barnett. They found thatnowadays inclines towards practical skills leading to aacademic content subjects such as history and literature

value as a vocational qualiﬁcation rather than academic

and the ‘content’ element of the intermediate andstudies. The past model of the single academic disciplineadvanced level language courses can make a signiﬁcantcannot be sustained any longer. Universities nowadays

contribution to the development of criticality (Brumﬁt,offer a wide range of choices and combinations ofMyles, Mitchell, Johnston, & Ford, 2005). Then,

subjects meeting the requirements of the students.

questions arise. ‘Is it also possible to develop criticality

On the other hand, the diversity also hinders a degreein the current beginners’ language studies?’ and ‘Where

programme from having collective aims and there areare beginners’ language studies located in higher

warnings against the current tendency of focusing on

education, which is aiming at criticality development?’

demand-led skills leading to the lack of general aims

There is a need to investigate the concept of ‘criticality’of education. The one by Barnett (1997) claimed thedeveloped in the original theories and how theimportance of establishing educational aims in higher

philosophies can work in the practice. Therefore, thiseducation, developing ‘criticality’ for fostering critical

study examines it from two perspectives: a literature

citizens with independent thought and action.

review of Critical Pedagogy and Critical Thinking andWhat kind of implication does it have for the language

an empirical study conducted in beginners’ Japanesestudies? The Criticality Project at the University oflanguage courses of a British University. Then, theSouthampton in the UK investigated the development

two approaches are compared in order to highlight thefundamental concept of ‘criticality’ and its potential in* Faculty of Liberal Arts, Sophia University
kaisersw91@ymail.com

language studies.

12

Discussion on the concept of ‘Criticality’. Yamada, Etsuko

community of the classroom is ‘action (practice) in the

2. Criticality in theories

world’. Theory cannot become real theory without

This literature review is based on Critical Pedagogy

action (practice) and vice versa. Giroux argues that,and Critical Thinking theories in order to draw the‘knowledge becomes fertilized by practice and practicecommon fundamental concept of ‘criticality’ and theiris guided by knowledge; theory and practice bothdifferences, as well. It mainly focuses on the basic

change their nature once they cease to be separate’

features which are related to language teaching.

(Fromm, 1968, p.173 in Giroux, 1988, p.50). It is also

2.1. Critical Pedagogy compared with Criticalmade explicit in the discussion of reading, which is

Thinking

not just understanding literally what is in the texts:

The distinct difference between Critical Pedagogy‘Reading the world always precedes reading the word’

and Critical Thinking stems from the difference of the(Freire & Macedo, 1987, p.35). In Critical Pedagogy,

concepts of ‘pedagogy’ and ‘skills’.

the change is ultimately to be in the world (society).

Critical Pedagogy entails the whole environment

Its education is to foster critical citizens who canand living beyond the classroom, expanding to theactively engage in transformative action for democraticoutside community as ‘We do not do critical pedagogy;societies. Therefore, it originally has a political mission.

we live it. Critical pedagogy is not a method; it is a

Its practice in the classroom leads towards this ultimate

way of life’ (Jasso & Jasso, 1995 in Wink, 2000, p.119).

goal. It is a collective process based on institutions such

In addition to this scale and reach, Critical Pedagogy

as schools and universities and it extends to the outside

requires continuing dialogue towards understanding,world,

which needs long-term commitment rather than just a

On the other hand, the domain of Critical Thinking‘snap-shot’ of teaching. Therefore, it is understood as

is in an area of study in the classroom. It is usually‘process’ and ‘duration’ which involve a certain length

built upon other existing thoughts and ideas. So, theof time. McLaren (1995, p.34) regards pedagogy as

background knowledge in the particular area is an‘the process by which teachers and students negotiate

important prerequisite for critical thinking to take place

and produce meaning’. These characteristics are also

(Bailin, Case, Coombs & Daniels, 1999a, b). In Criticalemphasised by Freire who says ‘education is permanent

Thinking, the change is in the body of knowledge. It isonly in the sense of duration. In this case “permanent”

more focused on the individual and their development

does not mean the permanence of values, but theas thinking beings. So it does not have an ultimate goal

permanence of the educational process’ (Freire, 1973,

beyond the institutions.

p.155).
On the other hand, Critical Thinking is regarded

The difference is found in the comprehensions ofknowledge, as well.

as a ‘skill’ as in McPeck, ‘to the extent that critical

Critical Pedagogy forms knowledge in thethinking is a skill, it is teachable in much the same way

process of dialogue and inquiry and there is nothat other skills are teachable, namely through drills,

concept of completed and established knowledge. Bothexercises or problem solving in an area’ (McPeck,teachers and learners cooperate and share the process

1981, p.18). It aims to foster critical thinking skills forof education and generate new knowledge together

persuasion and justiﬁcation of one’s claim. It is smaller(Freire, 1998a, b). The one-sided transmission of thescale and limited in the learning within the institutions.

‘completed’ knowledge from the teachers to the learners,

However, not all the differences between the two

which Freire (1972, 1998a) calls ‘banking education’,

stem from the term ‘pedagogy’ and ‘skills’ themselves.

is strongly denied. In Giroux’s words, ‘Knowledge isFirst, their domains are different.

not the end of thinking, as Freire claims, but rather the

The domain of Critical Pedagogy is not only inmediating link between students and teachers’ (Giroux,

the classroom but extends towards the outside world.

1988, p.63). This concept is embodied by ‘dialogue’. It

It seeks for the connection between theory and practice

is a continuing process without an end being stimulated

and the ﬁnal step of critical engagement with the outside

by learners’ curiosities and involved at a social level.

Literacies WEB Journal, 6 (1). (2009)13

In contrast, Critical Thinking builds on thewhich an experience occurs and learning from it.

completed knowledge and attempts to make use of

In contrast, reﬂective learning is the process ofexisting knowledge in the process of reasoning. It aims

being critical. This can mean thinking about theto support assertion with reasoning skills, so assertion

situation (and / or what is presented) and thenis a kind of end point. Siegel explains it:

deciding to accept or seek to change the situation.

When assessing claims, making judgements,

It can also involve accepting or seeking to change

evaluating procedures, or contemplating alternative

the information which has been presented. (Jarvis

actions, the critical thinker seeks reasons on which

et al., 2003, p.70)

to base her assessments, judgements, and actions.

In Critical Pedagogy, ‘curiosity of the learners’(Siegel, 1988, p.33).

is an important driving force of inquiry. Continuing

It is also stated in Foundation for Critical‘dialogue’ is stimulated by inquiry. Teachers can also

Thinking (2009) ‘A well cultivated thinker (…) gathers

guide ‘dialogue’ by inquiry, being facilitators ‘toand assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas

stimulate questions and critical reﬂection about theto interpret it effectively, comes to well-reasoned

questions, asking what is meant by this or that question.’conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant(Freire, 1998a, p.80).

criteria and standards ....’ (Foundation for Critical

It can be inferred based on the above analysis ofThinking, 2009, p.2). Therefore, in order to establish

Critical Pedagogy and Critical Thinking theories thata justiﬁcation in one’s claim, the person needs to makeskepticism is the common concern between the two anduse of the knowledge in the relevant ﬁeld (McPeck,to be found as a fundamental concept of ‘criticality’.

1981).
Basically the two have different formations: thestarting point, how they developed and the ultimate
goals. Burbles and Berk (1999) point out that the

3. Empirical study
3.1 Beginners’ level language studies in UK
higher education

literatures of Critical Pedagogy and Critical Thinking

In addition to the general trend towards skills in higher

hardly discuss one another, and therefore, the two

education, the change in language teaching methods

disciplines have been developed separately and in

has also had a large impact on the nature of language

different directions. Besides these differences discussed

studies. Until the late 1960s, when ‘single honours

in the above, what both Critical Pedagogy and Criticaldegree’ was the major style of degree programmes,

Thinking share is to be skeptical towards commonly

the grammar translation method was the naturalaccepted truisms (Burbles & Berk, 1999). ‘Skepticism’choice for higher education language studies whichis to stop and to raise inquiries on what is presented.

promoted ‘academic’ analysis based on original texts

Dewey deﬁnes it as suspended judgement:(Coleman, 2004). Since the 1970s, the development

The essence of critical thinking is suspendedof communicative language teaching (CLT) quickly

judgment; and the essence of this suspense is

and widely attracted the language teaching profession

inquiry to determine the nature of the problem

because of existing needs for more practical use of the

before proceeding to attempts at its solution.

language at that time (Savignon, 2004).

(Dewey, 1997, p.74)

These changes affected language courses in

The result of questioning ‘does not necessarily

general, but the most striking feature of beginners’

entail disagreement with, rejection of or deviation fromlevel language classes, distinguishing them from higher

accepted norms’ (McPeck, 1981, p.13). The following

levels, is the steady introduction of new grammaticalquote from Jarvis, Holford & Grifﬁn (2003) also

structures in a cumulative process sequenced according

argues:to the difﬁculty and complexity of the structures. In

Non-reﬂective learning is just the process ofintermediate and advanced levels, the clear cumulative

accepting what is being presented and memorizing

and progressive presentation of linguistic structuresor repeating it, or accepting a situation withinfades away and is replaced by the introduction of more

14

Discussion on the concept of ‘Criticality’. Yamada, Etsuko

advanced linguistic expression and vocabulary based

Textbook 1: for lower beginners’ level and textbook

on topics (Klapper, 2006). With some simpliﬁcation,

2: for upper beginners’ level), which are grammaticalthe beginners’ level focuses on ‘usage of linguistic

structure based, with the four skills integrated and withform’ while the upper levels focus more on ‘content’.

communicative activities. 49 research participants took

Focus on content makes the nature of study closer topart in the study.

an academic discipline, while focus on usage makes it

Qualitative data collected from the students—

more like the acquisition of practical and instrumentalgroup interviews and post-lesson questionnaires—are

skills. CLT has captured this point and further intensiﬁed

the sources for analysis to search for the indications of

this instrumental nature of beginners’ level language

criticality.

studies.

3.2.1. Data 1: student group interview

Besides the necessity of teaching grammar, theThe group interviews were conducted at the end of thelimitation of dealing with abstract topics is anotheracademic year. Six groups ranging from two to ﬁvecharacteristic of beginners’ language studies, which

participants were formed, and the duration of interviewsmeans that the teaching cannot be based on text,

ranged from 20 to 60 minutes. All the interviews wereand has instead to emphasize practical skills in oral

conducted in English. The interviews were semi-

communicative activities. Intermediate and advanced

structured, although the topics and issues to be covered

levels language studies, meanwhile, using texts dealing

were speciﬁed in advance, the sequence and wordingwith a wider range of abstract thought and content, areof questions were decided by the interviewer (author)

able to share a common discipline with the academic

in the course of the interview, following the direction

content subjects such as history and literature and thus

taken spontaneously by the participants (Cohen, Manion

retain their identity as ‘academic studies’.

& Morrison, 2000, p.271). So ﬁxed probes and question

What was alerted with reference to all higher

patterns were not used but the interviewer directededucation, is particularly evident in beginners’

the conversation intentionally towards the issues oflanguage studies: over-emphasis on skills and the lacklanguage (grammatical structures and scripts), cultureof ‘content’ leading to criticality, which are related to

and what they particularly gained from the lessons, if

the lack of educational aims. Then, the question arises.

they did not naturally appear in the discussion.

‘Is it possible to ﬁnd the indications of developing

3.2.2. Data 2: post-lesson questionnaire‘criticality’ in the current beginners’ language studies,

The written post-lesson questionnaire was conductedwhich incline to instrumental purposes of practicalafter randomly selected lessons. On each occasion,

skills?’ﬁve volunteer participants were asked to ﬁll in the

3.2 Empirical data

questionnaire. A total of 65 were collected. The questions

This empirical study was conducted prior to theare open-ended to gain participants’ spontaneous andexamination of existing theoretical deﬁnitions in theexpressive response (Oppenheim, 1992, p.114).

literature on criticality, since the empirical study aimed

3.3 Data analysis and findings

to purely illustrate the possibility of criticality grounded

The validity and reliability of the qualitative data werein the empirical data ﬁrst without any inﬂuence of

taken into consideration by ensuring a ‘natural setting’existing criticality concepts in literature.

(LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Miles & Huberman,

The research ﬁeld of this study was the two1994) by planning the research to ﬁt into the existingstages of lower and upper beginners’ levels courses

teaching

framework.

The

data

were

carefully

in four-year Japanese degree programmes of a British

examined following a qualitative data analysis method

university. In the courses, four 50 minutes-lessons(LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Miles & Huberman,

were offered per week. There were 11 teaching weeks

1994) and grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

each for two semesters, therefore the total teaching

The interview transcripts were examined as closely

hours for one academic year were 88. The course

as possible to describe the ‘reality’, following thesyllabus was based on textbooks (Genki.: Japan Times.

deﬁnition of grounded theory: ‘theory (…) derived from

Literacies WEB Journal, 6 (1). (2009)15

Figure 1 Students’ original theory building model from the empirical datadata, systematically gathered and analyzed through thethe encounter with different points of view and otherresearch process’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 12). The

opinions later. The ‘theories (hypotheses)’ meant inpatterns which were most noticeable in the data were

this study are differentiated from personal feelings

focused on ﬁrst as ‘the ﬁrst categories to emerge fromexpressed in terms such as ‘interesting’ and ‘exciting’the data generally are those that occur most frequently’

and from simpliﬁed inferences without a rationale.

(LeCompte & Preissle, 1993, p.242). What was most

These kinds of feelings and simpliﬁed inferences dosalient in the transcripts was the participants’ thoughts

not demonstrate the process of thinking and how theand their theory building process related to Japaneseparticipants reached their theories, the analysis stage

language learning, and these were formulated and(Figure 1). Therefore theories (hypotheses) which didlabelled as ‘students’ original theories (hypotheses)’.

not appear with the analysis stage were not considered

The indications that students are developing theirin this study.

own original theories (students’ hypotheses) related to

The two stages in the above Figure 1, analysis

Japanese language learning were found in the empiricalstage and conclusion stage, were found in group

data. As Figure 1 shows, a pattern of the students’ owninterview data. After that, inquiry stage was foundtheory building model was established from the datain post-lesson questionnaire data. The followings

analysis.

are examples from group interview data1. Original

There are three stages in the process starting

Theory (Students’ Hypothesis) A, was drawn from thewith inquiry and ending with conclusion and thissequence can be repeated cyclically. The original
theories (students’ hypotheses) that students ﬁrst build
up are not an absolute terminal point of the theory
building process, as the theories can be challenged by

Period, comma and the capital at the beginning of thesentence were not used in the transcript because they are
not always suitable for spoken discourse. Omissions are
expressed by (...), special terms and Japanese words, ‘ ’,and inaudible words, [ ].
1

16Discussion on the concept of ‘Criticality’. Yamada, Etsuko

Gothic part in the data below, which is the third stage,

Student 2: I think there is a perception that asthe conclusion stage of the students’ theory building

soon as you tell [process. The italicized part is the second stage, the– they just think that it’s impossible thing to do –analysis stage of the theory building process. This partbut I think we are learning that it’s not that hardindicates that students try to justify and to explain theirand I think that speaking and listening parts aretheories (hypotheses) in the conclusion stage.

a lot easier than reading and writing (Interview

Original Theory A: Japanese language has more

4: 137-140)] you are studying Japanese

obvious systematic code-switching in politeness

In Original Theory B above, the participant reasoned

than European languages.

that the general assumption that Japanese is a difﬁcult

Student 1: it’s even just the levels of language

language to learn is attributable to people who have– like plain form – ‘masu-form’ – honoriﬁc andnever studied Japanese. The generally accepted

polite forms and so on – I mean obviously thatassumption was questioned and tested against theexists in French and English – but it’s not like whole

student’s own experience of learning Japanese.

new verb ending – it’s a sort of like if I’m talking

The theories (hypotheses) developed by theso important – I’ll – I don’t know – I’ll speak in a

students were grouped into three thematic categories:

certain way and [] talk with my friends – I’ll

language (6 theories), culture (3) and learning process

be more casual – but it doesn’t really change the(7). In this article, the above Original Theory A

language structure or anything – even the verbs

represents ‘language’ category. And Original Theory

or anything – wouldn’t change those – whereas

B represents ‘learning process’ category. These three

in Japanese – it’s such a clear difference – it’scategories suggest therefore that criticality development

such a – like if we are using ‘keigo’ – then it’sappeared in this study is related to language awareness,so clear that wanting to be very very polite

cultural awareness and learning process.

– and speaking up to someone – in English or

Three different patterns were found in the second

French – it’s much more individual thing – howstage, the analysis stage, of the theory building process– how you’d be polite to someone is – (...)

before reaching the conclusion stage:

Student 1: yeah – I think in English – it’s even if –I thought I was speaking English [] to you – you

might actually think – that wasn’t very respectful– it’s much more er – er – open to interpretation– (...) – whereas in Japanese if I use ‘keigo’– it’s clear to me and you that I’ve been polite- analysis by investigating (observation, studying,reviewing)- analysis by comparison (categorization, contrasting): Original Theory A- analysis by linking (connecting, relating withother theories): Original Theory B

and you can’t accidentally think that I’ve not

The analysis by investigating is simply to observe andbeen polite if I’m using ‘keigo’ – whereas in

to investigate the details of the phenomenon, ideas

English – I might think I’ve been polite and you

and opinions, etc. they have spotted in search of themight interpret in a different way because howanswer to the question which has occurred to them.

vary everything can be – [I ] think (Interview 5:

This investigation is sometimes developed to further

475-529, 485-518 & 522-524 omitted)

analysis of two types. One is analysis by comparison,

The comparative linguistic analysis by Student 1

categorization and contrasting between two or moreseen above is about the difference between systems

languages or cultures and also reﬂecting on their own

for expressing politeness. The datum shows that thelanguage and culture. The analysis by comparison iscontrastive difference between English and Japanese

represented by Original Theory A above. The second

language in terms of politeness made students engage

one is analysis by linking, represented by Originalin this comparative analysis.

Theory B, in which the students are developing their

Original Theory B: The existing common image ofthoughts through making links with their knowledge

Japanese as a difﬁcult language is not correct.

from sources other than the learning in the JapaneseLiteracies WEB Journal, 6 (1). (2009)17

language course and with already existing ideas andthat any theory building process has the ‘inquiry stage’opinions.

as a starting point, even if it is not visible in the data,

Secondly, another students’ data, the post-lesson

and the inquiry stage is a crucial point for the ﬂow ofquestionnaire answers, were studied in relation to

the theory building by students and can be visualized as

the above group interview data analysis. The student

the ﬁrst stepping stone as Figure 1 above shows.

group interview data revealed the two stages oftheory building: analysis and conclusion, but how the

4. Discussion

analysis stage is initiated is not evident from these

4.1 Criticality in the empirical study compareddata. However, there were elements of post-lesson

with criticality in theories

questionnaire answers which indicate that the students

The literature review on Critical Pedagogy and Criticalare in the middle of inquiry, with expressions such as ‘I

Thinking revealed differences in the understanding

wonder...’ and ‘why’. These data show that the studentsof ‘criticality’ between the two. The ultimate goal of

have not yet moved into the analysis stage but are

Critical Pedagogy is ‘action in the world’, and education

not ignorant of certain phenomena, either. They haveis to foster critical citizens who can actively engage inspotted something and started inquiring.

transformative action for democratic societies. On the

The following cases are answers to open-ended

other hand, the goal of Critical Thinking is to foster

questions in the post-lesson questionnaire. The two

criticality within what is dealt with in the teaching andcases below are answers for Question 3 ‘Please tell melearning. It aims to foster critical thinking skills forabout your thoughts on Japan during the lesson.’ The

persuasion and justiﬁcation of one’s claims. It does notﬁrst one is from a lesson about grammatical structure

have an ultimate goal beyond the school or university.

describing direction and location, with the structureThus, Critical Pedagogy is a collective process basedin Japanese being quite different from English. The

on institutions such as schools and universities and it

second one, which shows another student beginning toextends to the outside world, while Critical Thinking iswonder about the language itself:

more focused on the individual and their development

I wondered why Japanese language developed

as thinking begins. Besides these differences, whatin this way, if that was for any particular cultural

was inferred from the review is that skepticism is thereason. (Post-lesson Questionnaire: 11-25-Fri-13-

fundamental concept of ‘criticality’.

1A-N-4/5-Q3)

The signiﬁcance of the inquiry stage from the

Wondered why some modern words use

empirical data can be related to the notion of skepticism

katakana rather than hiragana and why they needfrom the literature of Critical Pedagogy and Criticalto distinguish. (Post-lesson Questionnaire: 11-25-

Thinking. What is found from these investigations

Fri-13-1A-N-5/5-Q3)

from both the empirical study and the literature review

When the students are in the middle of the inquiry

is that the fundamental nature of ‘criticality’ is inquiry

stage, they are not conscious of it. This is why theand skepticism.

inquiry stage emerged without being evidently related

4.2. Factors contributing to the inquiry towards

to the analysis or conclusion stages. At the initial point

criticality development

when students encounter new phenomena and ideas

It is inferred from the three thematic categories indicatedand stop for inquiry, the process of ‘being critical’ hasin the student theories that criticality development isalready started. Even if they decide to agree with therelated to language awareness, cultural awareness andideas in the end, it is a different action from simply

learning process. The grammar-based lessons revealed

accepting the presented ideas without thinking. The

the possibility of criticality development as far as thesestudents’ original theories (hypotheses) generated arethree dimensions are concerned.

the products of stopping to raise questions about theOriginal Theory A in the empirical study shows

new knowledge encountered and seeking answers by

the students’ comparative linguistic analysis between

three types of analysis stages. Therefore it is assumed

the languages, and it was also evident in many other18

Discussion on the concept of ‘Criticality’. Yamada, Etsuko

data of this study that foreign languages learning as

are the results of stopping to raise questions about the

opposed to their mother tongue played an important role

new knowledge encountered and seeking for answers

in the development of criticality. It is inferred that theby analysis. From these two perspectives, it can be

encounter with ‘otherness’, which let them reﬂect andconcluded that the fundamental nature of criticality is

inquire of the taken-for-granted notions (Byram, 1997),

deﬁned as inquiry and skepticism.

stimulated the students to be engaged in the analysis

Literary deﬁnition of ‘critical’ in dictionaries

especially by comparing and contrasting between theirrepresents only a phase of the concepts of ‘critical’

own and Japanese language and culture.

in theories. Quoting again, ‘...accepting or seeking

Theorizing about the learning process appeared

to change (Jarvis, et al., 2003, p.70)’, and ‘does notin the student data related to the language learning

necessarily entail disagreement with, rejection of orprocess and strategies, as students engaged in criticaldeviation from accepted norms’ (McPeck, 1981, p.13),

reﬂection on their own language learning experience.

one may decide to accept and to agree to what was

For example, ‘Original Theory B: The existing common

presented, not only criticizes and rejects it, as a result

image of Japanese as a difﬁcult language is not correct.’of being critical. And ‘inquiry stage’ from the empirical

was produced by the students from their own language

study does not include the stage of making judgement,

learning experience.

either, as it is a ‘suspended judgement’ (Dewey, 1997,

The Criticality Project at the University ofp.74).

Southampton in the UK found that the ‘content’ element

From the analysis of the empirical data, theof the intermediate and advanced level language courses

thematic categories of students’ theories (hypotheses)

can make a signiﬁcant contribution to the development

present three dimensions of criticality: languageof criticality (Brumﬁt et al., 2005) but raised a questionawareness, cultural awareness and learning process.

of ‘the precise role of the language element itself

The current grammar based beginners’ level language(Brumﬁt et al., 2005, p.160)’.

courses have the potential to develop criticality, as far

On the other hand, this empirical study shows thatas these three dimensions are concerned. The study

factors contributing to the development which are notalso presented some implications and future agenda:

related to the content element of the course were also

how to organize the curriculum instead of letting

important. It is inferred that the language learning at

criticality develop randomly in the course, how boththe beginners’ level itself, even if it is in the grammar-

instrumental and educational aims can be compatible

based framework, has a possibility of developing

within the beginners’ level language courses, and whatcriticality. Furthermore, two dimensions which are not

the responsibilities of the teachers are, etc.

based on ‘content’ i.e. reference to Japanese culture,

Lastly, the impetus of this study originated inin the course – theorizing about language awarenessthe author’s simple inquiries as a Japanese language

and the learning process – have a speciﬁc value to theteacher, such as, ‘What is the ultimate goal of thecriticality development. This can be an answer to thelearners other than proﬁciency?’ and ‘What is theabove question by the Criticality Project.

signiﬁcance of consolidating communicative simulation
patterns at the shops in Japan in the UK?’. Returning

5. Conclusions

to the present condition of the language studies in the

The literature review based on Critical Pedagogy andUK, without clarifying the ultimate goal of higher

Critical Thinking theories identiﬁed the fundamental

education, language studies can easily lose theirconcept of criticality as ‘skepticism’. The empiricaldirection. Considering what the collective educational

study found three stages of theory building process

aims of education - the large roof - should precede theof the students: inquiry, analysis (by investigation, by

designing of an individual component (subject) undercomparison, and by linking), and conclusion stages.

the roof. As Sato (2005) suggests, Japanese language

It also indicated the signiﬁcance of ‘inquiry stage’ as

education needs to be discussed in relation to a larger

the students’ original theories (hypotheses) generated

framework, ‘education’.

Literacies WEB Journal, 6 (1). (2009)19

Freire, P. (1998b). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters

References

to those who dare teach. Oxford: Westview

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B.

Press.

(1999a). Common misconceptions of criticalFreire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading thethinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (3),word & the world. London: Routledge and Kegan

269-283.

Paul.

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L.B.

Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward(1999b). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Jour-a critical pedagogy of learning. Westport, CA:

nal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (3), 285-302.

Bergin and Garvey Publishers.

Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A criticalbusiness. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Brumﬁt, C., Myles, F, Mitchell, R., Johnston, B.,

Jarvis, P., Holford, J., & Grifﬁn, C. (2003). The theory
and practice of learning (2nd edition). London:
Kogan Page.

& Ford, P. (2005). Language study in higher

Klapper, J. (2006). Understanding and developing goodeducation and the development of criticality.

practice: Language teaching in higher education.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15

London: CILT.
LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and(2), 145-168.
Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking
and critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, andqualitative design in educational research (2ndedition). San Diego: Academic Press.

limits. in T. S. Popkewitz, & L. Fendler (Eds.),

McLaren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory

Critical theories in education: Changing terrainsculture: Oppositional politics in a postmodernof knowledge and politics (pp.45-66). New York:era. London: Routledge.
McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education.

Routledge.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing interculturalcommunicative competence. Clevedon: Multi-

Oxford: Martin Robertson & company.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative
data analysis:

lingual Matters.

An expanded sourcebook (2nd

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000).

edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Research methods in education (5th edition).

Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design:
Interviewing and attitude measurement. London:

London: Routledge Falmer.
Coleman, J. A. (2004). Modern languages in British
universities: Past and present. Arts and Humanities
in Higher Education, 3 (2), 147-62.
Publications.
for

Critical Thinking

Sato, S. (2005). Critical pedagogy and Japanese
language education. Literacies 1 (pp.95-104).

Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. New York: DoverFoundation

Pinter Publishers.

(2009).

CA:

Kuroshio Publishers.（佐藤慎司（2005）．クリティカルペダゴジーと日本語教育

リテラシー

ズ研究会（編）『リテラシーズ

1―ことば・

Critical Thinking Community. http://www.

社会・文化の日本語教育へ』（pp.95-104）くろcriticalthinking.org/aboutCT/

しお出版．）(accessed 11th Apr., 2009)
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London:
Sheed and Ward.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness.
New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1998a). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics,
democracy, and civic courage. Maryland, MD:
Rowan & Littleﬁeld Publishes.

Savignon, S. J. (2004). Communicative language
teaching (CLT). in M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge
encyclopedia of language teaching and learning(pp.124-129). London: Routledge.
Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality,
critical thinking, and education. New York:
Routledge.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures

20

Discussion on the concept of ‘Criticality’. Yamada, Etsuko

for developing grounded theory (2nd edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
UniversityofSouthampton,

Criticality

Project.

http//www.critical.soton.ac.uk(accessed 15th Sept, 2008)
Wink, J. (2000). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the realworld (2nd edition). Addison-Wesley Longman.
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my gratitude to the students of
beginners’ Japanese language modules of the Universityof Newcastle upon Tyne for their cooperation during
the data collection.