名古屋外国語大学論集

第9号

2021年7月

ArticleCritical Thinking in EFL Classrooms:
Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief
Wan Jung Amy LIN

Abstract
Whether or not to teach critical thinking skills in language classrooms has long
been discussed among language educators. Some educators may think criticalthinking (CT) imposes Western cultural practice on English learners and overlooks
learners’ respective cultural backgrounds. However, from a postcolonial andpoststructuralist view that deconstructs taken-for-granted ideas between the Eastand West, many argue critical pedagogy can benefit Japanese learners of English.
This paper further examines a previous study by the author which inspected how
learners think about critical thinking after a series of routine activities carefully
designed to cultivate critical thinking in content-based language classrooms (Lin,2021). Student feedback indicates that when exploring different topics in English,
critical thinking motivates them and encourages learner autonomy and curiosity.
Further, critical thinking skills also promote active listening and reading, improved
comprehension, better conversation skills, and English production.
Keywords: Second Language Acquisition, Learner Motivation, Critical Think­ing, Learner Autonomy, Multiculturalism137

In the conversation about ESL or EFL education, it is merely impossible to
avoid discussing what to include when teaching a language. Can educators teachthe thought process of the L2 community? Should the L2 culture and ways ofthinking be taught in language classrooms? Discussions have taken place aroundand within the author throughout her language learning and teaching experiences.
How far can language educators teach beyond language forms, and how far do
language learners learn beyond language forms?
Traditionally, the field of second language acquisition (SLA) has centeredon the process of language acquisition and language learner factors (LarsenFreeman, 1991). However, SLA studies have taken “the social turn” (Baynham,
2006, p. 25), and the emphases have turned from linguistic and psychologicalfactors to social and cultural factors, which have greatly affected the second
language (L2) learners acquiring their L2. SLA is, then, not merely consideredlearning a set of linguistic rules but as discovering a way to think, know, socialize, participate, live, and express. As Hall concludes, when someone learns asecond language, they also acquire a second social setting (2002).
However, teaching language learners ways of thinking in the L2 has drawn
some discussions over the years (Elder & Paul, 1994; Atkinson, 1997; Davidson,
1998; Kubota, 1999; Brown, 2004). Whether or not to teach critical thinking(CT) in language classrooms has raged among educators. This paper will review
some discussions on the position of critical thinking in language classrooms inJapan. Serving as a follow-up paper on incorporating critical thinking in language classrooms (Lin, 2021), the author will inspect how the students consider
critical thinking after routine activities that cultivate critical thinking in English
classes in Japan.

Critical Thinking in Language Learning
Atkinson (1997) published an article calling for educators’ attention on teaching critical thinking. He argued that language educators needed to be cautious138

Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■about teaching critical thinking skills, presuming culturally specific values toWestern cultures as individualistic and self-expressive. Critical thinking wasthen a social practice, and by teaching critical thinking skills, educators might
have imposed values that do not align with learners’ cultural values. He supposed that Asian cultures emphasized contextualization and relations with what
were around, which impeded analytical skills in Western standards. Of course,
by saying this, Atkinson did not indicate Asians did not have thinking skills;
rather, Asians had unique ways of thinking. It might not align with the Western
norms, and language educators needed to recognize them. Forcing Asian learners
to decontextualize and be objective might draw potential concerns. Therefore,
Atkinson called educators to be cautious while incorporating critical thinking
into curriculums in a foreign context.
Though Atkinson had a clear perspective in reasoning where language educators should position critical thinking in language teaching by looking at it from acultural perspective, it drew more debates from postcolonial and poststructuralist
views. Kubota (1999) examined the cultural labels established in history where
Westerners were analytical, rational, decontextualizing, individualistic, and selfexpressive and Asians were group-oriented, vague, indirect, ambiguous, polite,
and absent of critical thinking. She suggested that these labels were merely
products of this East-West dichotomy. Under that discussion, some educators
might believe that it gave the Westerners more legitimacy to be critical thinkers,
not the Easterners, or that educators should not teach critical thinking to alignwith learners’ cultural backgrounds. However, Kubota reviewed studies to showthat the Western educational institutes were not necessarily teaching criticalthinking (1999).
Furthermore, a project conducted by Stevenson and Stigler (1992) observed
elementary school mathematics teachers in Japan, China, Taiwan, and the
US. They found out that teachers in Japan encouraged students to reflect, ask
questions, find alternative approaches to solve problems, and explain in their139

languages more than teachers in the US. However, the American teachers
experienced the curriculum pressure that they needed to cover many more mathematics problems in a single lesson. In contrast, in Japan and Taiwan, teachers
focused more intensively on only a few problems to grant students time to think.
Stevenson and Stigler (1992) found the following:
[In the United States,] the emphasis is on doing rather than thinking… In
the United States, the purpose of a question is to get an answer. In Japan,
teachers pose questions to stimulate thought. A Japanese teacher considers aquestion to be a poor one if it elicits an immediate answer, for this indicatesthat students were not challenged to think. (pp. 194–195)
Also, in their observations, the Japanese teacher took errors as teaching moments
and even expected errors to provide discussion and explanation opportunities.
In contrast, the American teacher tended to ignore errors and waited for the
students’ correct answers.
From the postcolonial aspect, Kubota continued to argue how essential it
was for the Japanese to be critical in their thinking to find their voice (1999).
Considering Japanese context and history, she explored how Japanese people
have struggled with their identity and voice in the world ever since Meiji
Restoration. She argued that the voice, “a site of struggle” (p. 21), would notoccur without carefully and critically examining history, economy, and power
relations. Critical thinking was thus not distant and irrelevant from Asian cultures
or students. On the contrary, Asian people needed critical thinking skills to findtheir voice in the postcolonial world.

Critical Multiculturalism and Pedagogy
In terms of pedagogical orientations, two positions remained strong inlanguage teaching and multiculturalism. On the one hand, the acculturation
model believed that mainstreaming language learners was the primary purposeof language education; the learners’ best performance was to be acculturated to140Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■the L2 world (Kubota, 1999). Their native cultural background was absent in
the learning. On the other extreme, the pluralist model encouraged educators
to recognize and respect learners’ individualism and background cultures.
However, this model “[did] not critically explore issues of the construction ofcertain cultural representations, nor [did] it examine how power comes intoplay in the distinction between dominant and subordinate forms of rhetoricalconventions” (Kubota, 1999, p. 27).
This liberal view of multiculturalism, or so-called color-blind or differenceblind multiculturalism (Kubota, 2004; Leong, 2017), neglected the cultural differences, the historical and political roots, and inequality in power and resources.
This liberal view of multiculturalists emphasized equality among all races andthe sameness in humanity (Kubota, 2004). However, saying “we are all the same”
closed any potential discussions on inequality in power and resources. Racism
seemed to be entirely denied because it was merely not articulated. Leong (2017),
from a Chinese American perspective, described this as an “I don’t see any color”
kind of colorblindness (p. 46) and further proposed a different type: “progressive
colorblindness” (p. 45). This group of people claimed that they loved cultural
diversity (e.g., they see the colors), but it was implied that diversity was valued
as long as the “appearance of multiculturalism doesn’t disturb the status quo ofthe dominant culture;” Leong called this “the multicultural potluck version ofdiversity” (p. 45).
However, critical multiculturalism provided a different perspective for
language learners. Critical multiculturalism not only stressed the recognition
and respect for cultural differences but also demanded a critical examinationof socially and culturally dictated heritage granted to learners. It encouraged
learners to critically examine challenging issues on gender, race, inequality,
politics of languages in multiculturalism conversations (Kanpol, 1997, as citedin Kubota, 1999; Kubota, 2004). In terms of curriculum design, Kubota stated:Critical multicultural education demands that curricula, materials, and daily141

instruction involve all students in critical inquiry into how taken-for-granted
knowledge, such as history, geography, and lives of other people, is produced,
legitimated, and contested in power struggles. (2004, p. 40)
Critical multiculturalism claimed, “all knowledge, not only ‘official knowledge,’
be taught critically” (Nieto, 1999, p. 207, as cited in Kubota, 2004, p. 37).
Learning the knowledge allowed learners to develop perspectives on where they
are in the relationship with the L2 reflectively.

Definition of Critical Thinking
In explaining critical thinking as a social practice, one evidence Atkinson
provided was the issue of the unclear definition (1997). He described scholars
took critical thinking as a concept on faith: educators and parents talked about it
and taught it without knowing what it referred to. Atkinson referred to Johnson’s
conclusion (1992, as cited in Atkinson, 1997) that critical thinking was aninterchangeable term for metacognition, higher order thinking skills, problemsolving, rationality, and reasoning. Responding to Atkinson, Davidson (1998)
also confirmed the definition issue and the cultural issue, stating that despite
various versions of different definitions in history, there was a prominent area ofoverlapping with little discrepancy, even considered as “paraphrases of the sameidea” (p. 120). However, Davidson did not think that critical thinking could beabsent in education because of the overlap among fields.
When reflecting and criticizing education trend, Elder and Paul (1994)
defined critical thinking as “the ability of thinkers to take charge of their own
thinking,” and it required that they “develop[ed] sound criteria and standards foranalyzing and assessing their own thinking and routinely use[d] those criteria
and standards to improve its quality” (p. 34). Doing so freed the teacher fromprofessing instructions and information, and the responsibility to simply cover
the content; instead, it gave students more responsibility to monitor and reflect
on their learning and thinking (Elder & Paul, 1994). This idea also resonated with142

Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■the research done by Stevenson and Stigler (1992) mentioned earlier.
It would probably be more evident at this point to look at critical thinking
from a historical view. Lai (2011) has compiled an excellent overview on defining how critical thinking was perceived throughout history. The philosophicalapproach of critical thinking described critical thinking as a particular quality
or standard of thinking rather than what critical thinkers believed, applied, andbehaved (Bailin, 2002, as cited in Lai, 2011). Later, the cognitive psychologists
tended to research how people think rather than how they should think. Therefore,
instead of having criteria and standards to judge “good” thinking, cognitive
psychologists focused more on specific behaviors or skills, for example, posing
good questions, analyzing, or interpreting. Finally, educators joined the discussion.
Blooms formulated a taxonomy for information processing, which was
widely applied by educators in teaching or assessing higher thinking skills. The
hierarchical diagram placed memory and understanding at the bottom, analysis
and application in the middle, and evaluation and creativity at the top of the
pyramid (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Bloom’s taxonomy on critical thinking (cited from Prism Reading 2,
by Baker & Westbrook, 2018. Copyright 2018 by Cambridge University Press)143

In the author’s curriculum designs, critical thinking was considered more ofa cognitive behavior to observe than content (e.g., logic) to teach. Therefore,
the author believed that educators should provide learners opportunities (also asafe place) to practice these skills rather than judge the thought process. Criticalthinking skills in EFL classrooms should be viewed as skill training (as well asother skills educators teach in language classrooms) and educators as coaches
in the language classrooms.

The Need of Teaching Critical Thinking in JapanAs discussed earlier, Western education did not necessarily demonstrate
more critical thinking skills than Asian educational institutions (see Stevenson
and Stigler, 1992). According to the TALIS Report (the Teaching and Learning
International Survey, NIER, 2019b), the committee surveyed educators among
48 countries on assigning problems that required critical thinking skills. Westerncountries ranked comparatively higher, yet it did not indicate that Asian countries
ranked low and demonstrate the absence of critical thinking. Nevertheless, on
assigning problems that required critical thinking skills in junior high schools,
the average score was 61% among 48 OECD countries, Singapore responded
54.1%, Taiwan 48.8%, Korea 44.8%. Unfortunately, Japan scored 12.6% (11.6%
among elementary school teachers, NIER, 2019b). Additionally, TALIS also
surveyed educators if they assigned problems that did not yet have solutions, andwith an average of 37.5% from the 48 countries, Japan reported 16.1% (NIER,
2019b). The author was unsure if the Japanese education system dropped critical thinking after 1992 (as described in Stevenson & Sigler’s study earlier thatJapanese teachers encouraged critical thinking more than American teachers),
or if critical thinking was primarily applied to mathematic classes as Japan stillranked first place in mathematics in PISA Report 2018 (NIER, 2019a).
In criticizing the phenomenon of panic-buying and hoarding of gargling
medicine in Osaka, Kubota (2020), a news commentator, indicated the problem
144

Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■behind it seemed to be the Japanese people’s comfortable belief and the lack of
critical thinking skills in the Japanese education system. Kubota criticized thehighly-valued notion in the society that sunaona iiko (Japanese for “obedient andgood kids”) grew up to be sunaona otona (obedient adults). Most people in theJapanese society tended to be weak-willed to authorities, assuming everything
the authorities said was true, and there was no need to question or examine.
Going back to the discussion about English education in Japan, the Japanese
Ministry of Education (MEXT, 2011 & 2013, as cited in Mineshima, 2014)
implemented new Courses of Study for high school English education andemphasized the importance and necessity to foster students’ ability to evaluate
information, form opinions from various perspectives, and communicate throughreasoning. However, as Mineshima and Chino (2013, as cited in Mineshima,2015) examined textbooks from Japan, Korea, and Finland, they found out thatJapan has placed “much greater emphasis on information access and retrieval
skills than other countries, and suggestions were made to provide Japaneselearners with more opportunities to respond as individual thinkers” (p. 460).
Besides, in the 2015 study, Mineshima also concluded that the high school
English textbooks in Japan had inadequate critical thinking questions; he further
criticized the unbalanced distributed critical thinking questions were very likely
to be skipped towards the end of the school year.
Nevertheless, MEXT (2018) continued the emphasis on helping learners toread and listen to information, evaluate, and reason in their communications.
English education should aim to foster independent learners in their ability tothink, express, judge, and respond to unknown situations. High school educators
should provide an environment for their students to learn independently (orproactively), interactively, and deeply to solve problems in English. Therefore,
it would be assumed that, with the continuum of critical thinking throughout
high school, university teachers should continue fostering students’ ability tothink critically in their L2.
145

Elder and Paul (1994) also reflected the current trend in education of beinglacking critical thinking skills. The world needed people who could continually
think and resist the world’s current trends: the trend of relativism, convenience,and didactic teaching. The trends could no longer help us and our students tovoice and cope. Elder and Paul argued,In society, dogmatism, relativism, and uncritical thinking are dominant at
all levels. In schools, didactic teaching ensures that students will continue
to graduate as undisciplined thinkers — and hence as poor readers, writers,
speakers, and listeners — and that students will not learn to reason scientifically, mathematically, historically, or morally (or in any other important way,
for that matter). (p. 34)
The author took this statement as an encouragement to include critical thinking
to train better English speakers, readers, writers, and listeners in education acrossthe borders.

Question Asking
Questions stimulated thinking, involved answers, and elicited information.
Research about teachers’ questions and students’ questions has shown thatquestioning benefits educational achievements (Gall, 1970; Aitken & Neer,
1993; Watson, 2018). Good teacher questions initiated and guided students inclassrooms, yet Gall (1970) found out that “about 60% of teachers’ questions
require[d] students to recall facts; about 20% require[d] students to think; theremaining 20% [were] procedural” (p. 713). Even among the questions thatassisted students in thinking, students might tend to answer with rote recalling
techniques without careful attention. Thus, Gall proposed that teachers’ followup questions were necessary to help students learn and think.
In regard to teaching active comprehension in reading, Singer (1978) indicated that teacher-posed questions were, of course, necessary in teaching reading
comprehension, but they aimed at memory in most cases (e.g., “What was the146Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■article about?”). Similarly, the author regarded textbook questions as serving thesame purpose. Even if the questions were carefully designed to help students
think, as Gall described above, students might tend to recall information from thepassage. Therefore, moving away from memory recall and turning to thinking
about the topics required teachers’ sequential follow-up questions.
Another way to view posing questions in language education was to see thebenefits of students guiding themselves in thinking through the questioning
process. After examining benefits of skillful teacher questions, Watson (2018),
in a literature review, agreed that educating students to ask good-quality questions frequently further led to better information retention, improved cognitive
development, classroom engagement, and problem solving (para. 16). It was
clearly shown that student-generated questions guided them to think and promotecritical thinking skills and motivation.
Further, when students learned to ask questions, it moved from teachercentered instruction to student-centered instruction and promoted class participation and student curiosity in English. Encouraging students to pose their own
questions while reading directed their own thought process and curiosity. Singer
proposed that the process “stress[ed] reading for the purpose of satisfying thereader’s curiosity” (p. 907). While reading, students could take the initiatives tocome up with questions actively and be the center of their learning.
Questions-asking activities can be encouraged in listening as well. Drawing
from Ferrett (1997, cited in Clark, 2019), careful and active listening and simultaneously thinking of good responses or questions to ask was essential for criticalthinkers. Eventually, critical thinkers communicated well and use questions
effectively to elicit information in communication, which also corresponded to
Elder and Paul’s arguments (1994) that critical thinking trained better speakers
and listeners, as discussed above.
On a larger scale, promoting students’ questions also helped multiculturalism— providing a space where learners could resolve ideas that were constructed147

historically and politically, especially those that could impede their communication with the L2 community. Kubota (2004) explained, “Critical multicultural
education demands that curricula, materials, and daily instruction involve all
students in critical inquiry into how take-for-granted knowledge, such as history,geography, and lives of other people, in produced, legitimated, and contested in
power struggles” (p. 40).
Therefore, inspiring students to always ask questions while using their L2 (oreven L1) was desired and probably the first step in critical thinking. In examining
myths in Japan, Kawamoto (2014) stated bluntly that “myths [took] hold whenpeople abandon[ed] critical thinking” (para. 12) and suggested that we neededto adopt a healthy attitude of skepticism and question everything to avoid disillusion. Even though Kawamoto said this towards examining economic issues,
the author agreed that with the consideration of teaching English in the CLIL
approach (Content and Language Integrated Learning), it was essential to adopt
a similar attitude to help students in learning English.
In classroom practice, Aitken and Neer (1993) discovered that students werereluctant to ask questions on motivational problems more than apprehension.
Learners’ motivation to succeed on a task probably surpassed their fear of asking questions. Even if they were anxious, their motivation to learn and succeed
helped them move forward and ask questions in class. Aitken and Neer thensuggested that, to reduce learners’ apprehension, making question-asking a taskrather than a social interaction might help learners feel more comfortable inclassroom communication and hope to extend to a more in-depth conversation
on various topics. This kind of task could also help low-motivation students toinitiate “non-personal, non-threatening questions” (p. 79). For example, in theauthor’s classes (details in Lin, 2021), students read, annotated, asked questions,and then shared them in pairs. They did not need to move to a discussion unlessthey felt comfortable doing so.

148

Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■Previous StudyIn the previous paper (Lin, 2021), the author introduced some activity ideasthat incorporate critical thinking in language classrooms. Due to the COVID-19
outbreak, the activities were conducted repeatedly online in integrated-skill
English courses the author taught in 2020. See Table 1 for brief descriptions of
the activities (more details in Lin, 2021). A short questionnaire was conductedin July 2020, after the spring semester, to second and third-year students (n=46),
concluding positively on how learner motivation had improved throughout
the semester. From the survey results, the responses showed challenges inasking questions after reading and listening, yet it helped respondents to think
deeply, critically, and objectively from various perspectives. They also noticed
the importance of examining the information they received rather than taking
everything for granted. Further, researching their self-proposed questions was
enjoyable and exposed respondents to a variety of vocabulary words that were
exclusive to them, which again fostered their motivation.
It was also implied that, for many respondents, it was their first-time having
explicit instructions to think critically, and they could use the skills to reflect
on themselves and improve their actions and quality of life. However, whensome respondents reflected on themselves or social issues from the critical
approach, they possibly could be tearing down what was taken for granted fortheir whole lives. This act might have aroused their insecurity or even past pain
in life. Therefore, it was then suggested that the instructor and the class community were responsible for providing a safe place for learners to confidently
and comfortably disagree with others. Sometimes after class follow-up support
might be necessary.

149

Table 1
Routine activity ideas to incorporate critical thinking
Student behaviors
Reading- and • Identify newly learned information.
writing-related • Ask questions about the reading passage.
• Choose one question from above and research.
• Answer one reflection question (involving students toanalyze, evaluate, and apply class materials)• Share their questions in pairs.
Listening- and • Discuss teacher-posed questions (involving students toanalyze, apply, evaluate, and create information).
speaking• Listen actively to all student presentations and ask
relatedquestions connecting to the content.
• (For presenters) Answer questions• Debate casually in pairs on teacher-proposed topics.
• Roleplay in groups in debating or negotiating on aprovided issue (only for the second-year course).

Present Study
Based on the previous study, the author continued exploring how criticalthinking helped language learning and, this time, focused explicitly on how
asking questions helped active learning and presenter motivation. The author
continued using the above activities for the Fall semester to examine students’beliefs about critical thinking and how it affected their own learning. The
research questions were (the first two questions were repeated from the previous
study):
1. Did critical thinking help language learners in language learning? In whatway?
2. Did critical thinking help language learners to be more confident and motivated in communication?
3. Did asking questions promote learner curiosity, and did it help language
learners to listen more carefully and actively during presentations?
150

Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■4. Did learner-generated discussions after presentations help both presenters andaudience communicate confidently?
5. What did learners believe in themselves when they think critically?
Activities and Course Breakdown. All courses were CLIL oriented English
courses for non-English major university students (see Table 2 for a brief breakdown for the courses, including the frequency of their question-asking habits).
All remained online due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Due to different textbook
selections, the introduction of critical thinking was done verbally with Bloom’s
taxonomy (shown in Figure 1) with the emphasis on especially remembering,understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. All discussion questions were designed carefully to engage students with the skills. Prism Reading
2 included the taxonomy on pp. 12–13, and students could always refer backto their textbooks. Reading for Today 3 also included critical thinking sections
in all chapters to “help students interact with the real world as many exercises
require students to go outside the classroom to collect specific information” (p.
xv). Core English did not explicitly reinforce critical thinking, and the author
added a number of follow-up questions into class discussion. Therefore, students
Table 2
Course information for Fall 2020.
CourseClass time

Content and Activities

1st-yearcourse90 minutes, twice 4 units, 8 readings,
a week, 15 weeks 4 presentations

Textbooks
Core English

Prism Reading 2
2nd-year 90 minutes, twice 4 units, 8 readings,
coursea week, 15 weeks 2 presentations*,
3 group roleplay debates
3rd-year 90 minutes, once 4 chapters, 4 readings,
coursea week, 15 weeks 2 presentations

Reading for Today
3: Issues

Note. *The 2nd-year course had four presentation days, yet students only needed
to present twice, meaning students had more opportunities to ask questions thantake questions.
151were provided with plenty of opportunities to engage in critical thinking skills.
Participants. All participants were university students in Japan, non-English
majors. Due to enrollment and department requirements, participants in the Fallsemester were slightly different from the previous semester, causing some newparticipants to join in the Fall semester. See Table 3 for participants’ details on
the length of instructions from the author. Routine instructions stayed the same
online in the Spring and the Fall semesters of 2020, yet lessons in 2019 wereslightly simpler for trial in physical classrooms. This applied to a few participants
who took the author’s courses for 2 semesters (one in 2019, one in 2020) or 4
semesters (two in 2019, two in 2020). It was also clear that participation in thequestionnaire was entirely voluntary and would not affect participants’ grades
nor relationship with the author.
Table 3
Participant details on the length of instruction by January 2021
Courses

1 semester 2 semesters 3 semesters 4 semesters Total

1st-year course
2nd-year course

—
1

28
11

—
—

—
15

28
27

3rd-year course

15

13

—

—

28

Grand Total

83

Data Collection.
Questionnaire. The present study focused more on asking questions after
reading and presentations and how it affected student motivation and language
learning. Since some participants did not answer the previous survey, 22 questions given in January 2021 consisted of 10 repeated questions from the previous
study and 12 new questions (Appendix A). The previous questions focusedmore on asking questions and researching after reading, while the newly-added
questions provided more information about asking questions after presentations
and learner motivation and autonomy. The first 17 questions were statements
152

Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■based on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree),followed by five open-ended questions to explore participants’ beliefs about
themselves, critical thinking, and general feedback on activities. All questions
were given in English and Japanese. Both English and Japanese responses were
accepted, and Japanese responses were translated to English by the author.
Participants could also choose to skip questions if they’d like.
Class observation and presentation reflections. The author observed learners
in all courses and took notes on interesting student behaviors throughout the Fallsemester of 2020. Respondents’ answers on their presentation reflections werealso brought into the discussion to understand participants’ perceptions andbehaviors throughout the process.

Results and Discussions
Table 4 shows the statistical results from the Liker-scale items.
Posing questions during reading and presentations. It was still somewhat
difficult for students to ask questions during reading (M=2.711, SD=0.863). The
results did not indicate much if asking questions after presentations was difficult
or not (M=2.530, SD=0.888). Yet, more respondents responded that it was
hard to ask questions closely connected to the presentation content (M=2.398,
SD=0.840). Nevertheless, regardless of reading or listening, participants felt
more curious while posing questions; furthermore, getting to know more about
the topic had brought positive effects on language learning (see items 2, 3, 4,
5, 11).
While observing student behaviors, one class caught the author’s attention.
With the emphasis on the importance of posing questions, this class performed
very well on asking questions during reading. However, this group was reluctant
to ask questions after presentations. Instead of asking questions, the students preferred commenting on the topic or the presenters’ skills. Further, one student inthis class has said multiple times, “I have no questions because your presentation
153

Table 4
Survey results
1

Count
2
3

4

M

SD

PR*

9
1
0
0

19
2
2
5

42
29
24
36

13
51
57
42

2.711
3.566
3.663
3.446

0.863
0.609
0.524
0.610

33%
96%
98%
94%

4

28

26

25

2.867 0.908 61%

10
10
1
2

31
39
9
6

30
25
20
27

12
9
53
48

2.530
2.398
3.506
3.458

2
1

1
8

24
31

56
43

3.614 0.641 96%
3.398 0.715 89%

2

6

20

55

3.542 0.738 90%

2
1
4
2
1

13
13
22
16
15

42
47
38
46
44

26
22
19
19
23

3.108
3.084
2.867
2.988
3.072

Reading- and writing-related
1. Difficult asking questions.
2. Asking questions helps curiosity.
3. Asking questions deepens understanding.
4. Researching self-posed questions isinteresting.
5. Researching self-posed questions is hard.
Speaking- and listening-related
6. Easy to ask questions after presentations.
7. Questions always based on content.
8. Thinking about questions while listening.
9. Better focus when listening topresentations.
10. Listening more actively.
11. Having questions indicating curiosity
about presentation content.
12. Feeling good when receiving questions
because of peer curiosity.

0.888
0.840
0.739
0.738

51%
41%
88%
90%

Motivation and learner autonomy through CT
13. Using more variety of English words.
14. More responsible for own learning.
15. More motivated.
16. More confident.
17. More prepared to discuss.

0.749
0.684
0.823
0.724
0.712

82%
83%
69%
78%
81%

Note. *PR = positive response, representing the percentage of respondents who answered 3
and 4 on each item (except for item 1 with answers on 1 and 2, meaning asking questions
was not difficult).

was good.” From responses specifically from this class (n=13), all scores werecomparatively lower on speaking and listening related survey items, especiallyon if it was easy to ask questions (M=2.154, SD=0.899) and if the questions werebased on presentation content (M=1.923, SD=0.760).
The author supposes that even if the learners felt curious, the reluctance154

Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■of asking questions may involve cultural or social norms in Japan. Students
may have assumed that the teachers are the knowers in traditional language
classrooms, and they ask questions for students to answer (discussed in Korst,1997). Granting the questioning power to the students can be confusing andintimidating, thus requiring long-term training.
Also, when it comes to students asking their peers questions, it may involve
face-saving or face-threatening acts in the Japanese culture. Learners do not want
to bring embarrassment to their peers. Some responses from the presentationreflection surveys the author collected showed that participants felt guilty asking
difficult questions to the presenters, which may cause their colleagues to lose
face. Nevertheless, they also felt a sense of achievement when they knew they
had asked good questions. Therefore, Aitken and Neer (1993) suggested that educators needed to be aware of the cultural differences in practicing both teacher
questions and student questions. In other cases, respondents also responded thatthey were unsure if the presenters already covered their questions, so the anxiety
level was raised.
There seemed to be quite some fears before they ask questions. To empower
students when they ask questions, especially after presentations (because it
requires prompt responses), the author believes that teaching them necessary
language frames in L2 helps lower their anxiety and feel more comfortableposing questions rather than offending or threatening their colleagues. Some
examples are:• “You probably have mentioned this in your presentations already, but…”• “I am not sure if this is part of your research, and…”• “Your presentation is fascinating, and that makes me wonder…”
Learning the academic L2 frames to answer questions will lower learneranxiety in asking questions as well. When the presenters do not know the answer
to the questions, there are also useful L2 frames to express that appropriately. It
is also an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that presenters are not necessarily
155the knower, which releases some stress. Some examples are:• “That is an interesting question. I did not research it, and now I am curious
too.”• “Thank you for your question. I researched it, but I couldn’t include it in mypresentation due to the time limit. According to …”
Effects on content-based language learning. On the effect of whether
learning to think critically and ask questions constantly contributed to language
learning, the responses showed positive results on actively listening, better
comprehension, improved discussion skills, and vocabulary learning.
Actively listening was one of the specific areas the author was curious about,and a few items were included in the questionnaire. The scores for items 8, 9,
and 10 were significantly high, indicating that most participants listened topresentations with a higher concentration (M=3.458, SD=0.738), more actively(M=3.614, SD=0.641), and constructing questions constantly while listening(M=3.506, SD=0.739). On answering the areas participants learned the most(item 18), some commented on learning to listen more critically, seriously, andcarefully. On the other hand, the author was concerned if the post-presentation
discussion would benefit presenters or not. The score on this (item 12) was
significantly high (M=3.542, SD=0.738), showing that, after explicit training,when presenters received questions from the audience, they felt excited andpleased because they had engaged their audience’s curiosity.
Better comprehension and vocabulary learning were also two areas that areconnected to language learning. Responses from item 18 showed respondent’s
awareness of the improved understanding overall and better guess unknown
words from context that brings to comprehension. In terms of vocabulary learning, item 13 on vocabulary also showed a significantly high score (M=3.108,
SD=0.749), implying more exposure to distinct vocabulary when practicing CT.
Overall, on what participants improved the most on an open-ended question(item 21), the top three responses were their speaking skills, critical thinking
156

Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■skills, enhanced content knowledge on the world and social issues (84% total);other answered presentation skills (especially on how to organize and selectinformation and persuade the audience), listening skill, writing skills, vocabulary, and study style. Interestingly, the speaking skills were the most impacted
through the critical thinking activities, and learners can directly and promptly
experience their improvement. Responses on the most enjoyable activity (item22, open-ended question) also corresponded to this: conversations and discussions, presentations, debates (87% total); some answered stations (anotheractivity where participants chose which task to do) and asking questions. Using
stations biweekly was one way for the author to recognize different preferences
learners had and give them more control in their learning, and usually there
were 4 stations out of 6 that required speaking (conversation, discussion, debate,
and critical incident). From the results, we could see that when practicing CT,
learners probably recognized more immediate rewards in speaking activities
because of the interactive nature of the speaking activities. When they asked
questions or expressed opinions, they could receive immediate feedback and asense of achievement. Even with presentations, the questions asked after eachpresentation provided a sense of accomplishment straightaway.
Besides, because of the nature of CT, there are no predetermined right orwrong answers that are taken for granted; it allows learners to construct ideas
through negotiation as well as allowing disagreement to occur more frequently
than the harmonious Japanese community. One respondent from item 21 (onwhat improved significantly) further expressed how uncomfortable it could beto debate with their seniors in Japanese, but critical thinking activities offered
opportunities to express their disagreement in confidence in English. This
cultural view also provides positive respect in teaching critical thinking to allow
learner empowerment to speak in their L2 more than in L1.
– “I gained the ability to debate with senior students in English. In Japanese, we
speak to our seniors with honorifics, but English doesn’t have them, so I felt a157

little self-conscious at first. But, in the end, I was able to speak in English on
equal terms with my seniors. Because seniors made it easy for me to talk tothem.” (S75)
Critical thinking on learner development. Another area of interest was how
critical thinking developed learners’ responsibility and confidence in their learning. Item 14 on learner autonomy (M=3.084, SD=0.684) indicated a somewhat
positive response. Item 15 on motivation (M=2.867, SD=0.823), item 16 on
confidence (M=2.988, SD=0.724), and item 17 on preparedness in presentation(M=3.072, SD=0.712) also illustrated somehow significance on positive effects
from critical thinking. On looking at the positive response rate on these items,
it was surprising that item 15 on motivation was the lowest (PR=69%). Criticalthinking helped learners build confidence, autonomy, preparedness significantly,
yet not as much on motivation comparatively.
Learning to be critical, drawn from item 18, helped participants to become
more objective, creative and filled with new ideas, curious, respectful withdifferent opinions. All of the above contribute to building a more trustful andwelcoming atmosphere in the language learning community. They also became
able to see things from diverse perspectives and in-depth, habitually applying
CT to their daily lives.
– “I got a habit (kuse) of observing things from various angles.” (S47, translation)– “I learned about that we have to use critical thinking skills every time when
we touch the news.” (S81)
On another note, many comments showed participants’ improved ability toreason, form opinions, discuss, and make better decisions. Some commented
that they learned to be more careful with the information they received andcautiously verify. Others commented on their lack of knowledge and the need toresearch more, indicating their hard work and care in evaluating and developing
their ideas.
158

Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■– “I learned to research once I have doubts about my own opinions. Dependingon various ideas, I need to change my opinion. I gain more confidence in myideas.” (S42, translation)– “I can now take a closer look at things and make better decision if that is theright or not.” (S64, translation)– “I think it’s very good to think deeply and take time for one thing without ending with half-hearted thinking. …and presentation will be more persuasive.”(S80)
Effects on student belief about themselves and CT. Respondents commented on how they thought about themselves had changed when they practiced
critical thinking, and many comments demonstrated a positive image about themselves. They experienced personal development and broaden horizon; they also
felt confident, intelligent and a sense of achievement in learning, knowledgeable
on various topics, mature, creative, interested and motivated to learn more, gladand happy. However, some participants expressed their self-image on criticalthinking performance did not always stay the same yet changed depending on
topics. On another note, some did not sense any difference about themselves,and some experienced pressure, difficulty, and self-ignorance.
Respondents also believed that critical thinking skills would be useful intheir future (97% among those who answered item 20). Some elaborated comments explained how participants pictured how critical thinking skills would
help them in the future at work and many situations: to know how to have deep
conversations, ask questions appropriately at the right moment, predict the flowin the conversation, explain ideas more logically, open up new opportunities,
evaluate Japanese social issues, eliminate bias, and deal with different opinions
around. One interesting comment expressed that the skills made it possible todo things in L2 that the respondent could have already done in L1. In a different
study, Floyd (2011) gave critical thinking test items to Chinese students. Halfparticipants took the first half in English and the second half in Chinese, and the159rest of the participants reversely. The results showed that language proficiency
was a significant influence on critical thinking performance. The results also
responded to what was discussed in the literature review that students in Asia
could perform CT tasks regardless of being Eastern. Learners simply needed
more opportunities in L2 to perform CT tasks. A few more responses from thepresent survey resonated:– “I feel that the ability to ask questions is a necessary skill.” (S35, translation)– “This skill was totally what I wanted.” (S39)– “I would like to improve that skill. I’m still not confident at thinking critically,
so I thought it would be great if I could improve it in classes like this.” (S64)
When commenting on item 21, those who commented on content also
expressed their ignorance and indifference on world issues. Critical thinking
stimulated and impacted them to care more about different issues in L2 andcontribute more as global members. One response stood out:
– “I lived in Japan for [many] years…but I felt that I didn’t know anything about
my country yet. Also, since we talked about only Japan but also the world, I
learned that there are still too many things I didn’t know. I learned both about
Japan and the world, and I was able to learn what kind of country Japan is,
and I thought there was a lot I needed to know more.” (S72, translation)
This probably responded to what Kubota (2004) described that critical pedagogy
could offer “new possibilities beyond their abilities in their native language
and culture, [and]… provide novel expressions and interpretations” (p. 48). In
this case, the respondent experienced this first in English and hopefully would
influence experiences in L1 in the future.
According to the author’s observation in Japan, more books written by
Japanese scholars (rather than translated books) have been published on the
topics of critical thinking and question asking (one example is the famous book
Shitsumonryoku [The ability to ask questions] by the best-selling author, Takashi
Saito). Consequently, it has drawn significant attention among people in Japan
160

Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■within the decade. This very likely affected how the participants viewed criticalthinking and question asking. It is more important for foreign language educators
to provide opportunities for learners to practice CT skills in their L2.

Conclusion
Despite the fact that different educators have different approaches to criticalthinking, Japanese learners demonstrate significantly positive feedback on learning or practicing the skills in their L2. Because of the nature of critical thinking,learners can feel empowered and confident when they express their thoughts
freely and openly without adhering to cultural discourse. Learners also consider
these skills necessary for the future, especially at work and in communication.
Besides, critical thinking stimulates language learners to see the world and theirown community with a critical approach, providing them opportunities to stepaway and investigate the taken-for-granted ideas inherited socially and culturally. However, while critical thinking opens up new avenues for conversation,
educators must be mindful of the negative feelings that learners can encounterdue to the process — they may feel ignorant and perplexed. Reinforcing the valueof a safe and trustful community in discussion and negotiation helps maintain asupportive atmosphere for the learners.
The author will continue designing activities that cultivate learners’ criticalthinking skills, connecting more with global and local issues that help them
become members of the world community. Future studies will focus on learner
identity and L2 self when they practice the skills.

References
Aitken, J. E., & Neer, M. R. (1993). College student question-asking: The relationship of classroom
communication apprehension and motivation. The Southern Communication Journal, 59, 73–81.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1),
71–94.
Baker, L., & Westbrook, C. (2018). Prism reading 2. Cambridge University Press.

161

Baynham, M. (2006). Agency and contingency in the language learning of refugees and asylum
seekers. Linguistics and Education, 17, 24–39.
Bradley, N., Marceau, E., & Hirata, E. (2019). Core English (2nd ed.). Nagoya University of Foreign
Studies Press.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Some practical thoughts about student-sensitive critical pedagogy. The Language
Teacher, 28(7), 23–27.
Clark, G. (2019). Methods for developing expression of critical thinking in small group discussions.
Critical Thinking and Language Learning, 6(1), 1–20.
Davidson, B. W. (1998). Comments on Dwight Atkinson’s “A critical approach to critical thinking
in TESOL”: A case for critical thinking in the English language classroom. TESOL Quarterly,32(1), 119–123.
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (1994). Critical thinking: Why we must transform our teaching. Journal of
Developmental Education, 18(1), 34–35. Retrieved on August 28, 2020, from http://www.jstor.
org/stable/42775541
Floyd, C. B. (2011). Critical thinking in a second language. Higher Education Research &Development, 30(3), 289–302.
Gall, M. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40(5), 707–721.
Hall, J. K. (2002). Teaching and researching language and culture. Pearson Education.
Kawamoto, Y. (2014, January 13). Myth and reality in the Japanese economy. Nikkei Asia. Retrievedon February 11, 2021, from https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Myth-and-reality-in-the-Japaneseeconomy
Korst, T. J. (1997). Answer, please answer! A perspective on Japanese university students’ silent
response to questions. JALT Journal, 19, 279–291.
Kubota, M. (2020).「うがい薬買い占め」で露呈する、日本の学校教育の致命的欠陥 [A fatal flaw inJapanese school education exposed by “hoarding mouthwash”]. Retrieved on February 8, 2021,
from https://diamond.jp/articles/-/245187
Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics
research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9–35.
Kubota, R. (2004). Critical multiculturalism and second language education. In B. Norton & K. Toohey(Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge University Press.
Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson Education. Retrieved on January 20,
2021, from http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.
pdf
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: Staking out the territory. TESOL
Quarterly, 25(2), 315–345.
Leong, D. (2017). Race and place: How urban geography shapes the journey to reconciliation.
InterVarsity Press.
Lin, W. J. A. (2021). Incorporating critical thinking in language classrooms [Manuscript submitted
for publication]. 2021 NUFS Teacher Development Symposium Proceedings.
MEXT. (2018). 高等学校学習指導要領（平成30年告示）解説:外国語編.英語編 [Course of study in162Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms: Effects on Learner Motivation, Autonomy, and Belief ■Heisei 30 for high school foreign languages and English]. Retrieved on February 10, 2021, fromhttps://www.mext.go.jp/content/1407073_09_1_2.pdf
Mineshima, M. (2015). How critical thinking is taught in high school English textbooks. In P.
Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), JALT2014 Conference Proceedings. JALT.
NIER. (2019a). Key Features of OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 2018.
Retrieved on March 3, 2021, from https://www.nier.go.jp/kokusai/pisa/pdf/2018/01_point-eng.pdf
NIER. (2019b). 教員環境の国際比較：OECD国際教員指導環境調査（TALIS）2018報告書[International comparison on teaching environment: Teaching and Learning International Survey(TALIS 2018 Report)]. Retrieved on March 3, 2021, from https://www.nier.go.jp/kokusai/talis/
pdf/talis2018_summary.pdf
Singer, H. (1978). Active comprehension: From answering to asking questions. The Reading Teacher,31(8), 901–908.
Smith, L. C., & Mare, N. N. (2017). Reading for Today 3: Issues (5th ed.). National Geographic
Learning.
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what
we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. Summit Books.
Watson, L. (2018). Education for good questioning: a tool for intellectual virtues education. Acta Anal
33, 353–370. Retrieved on February 16, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-018-0350-y

163

Appendix A
Survey questions
Item 1

I think asking questions is difficult.

R*

Item 2

I think asking questions helps me to be curious.

R

Item 3R

Item 4

I think asking questions helps me to think and explore deeper indifferent topics.
I think researching the questions I make is interesting.

R

Item 5

I think researching the questions I make is hard.

R

Item 6

When I listen to presentations, I can come up with questions easily.

R

Item 7

It is easy to ask questions based on the presentation content.

Item 8

I was always thinking about what to ask while I was listening to thepresentations.
Item 9 Because I need to ask questions, it makes me focus when I listen to
my classmates’ presentations.
Item 10 I listen to presentations more actively.
Item 11 When I ask questions, it means I am really curious about thepresentation content.
Item 12 When my classmates ask me questions after I present, I feel good
because they are curious about my presentations.
Item 13 After learning how to think critically, I was challenged to use morevariety of English words.
Item 14 Because I need to ask questions and think critically, I feel more
responsible for my own learning.
Item 15 I feel more motivated when I think critically.
Item 16 I became more confident when I talked about these topics in English
after learning how to think critically.
Item 17 I became more prepared when I talked in English after learning how
to think critically.
Item 18 What did you learn the most from critical thinking skills?
Item 19 How do you feel about yourself when you can think deeper aboutcertain topics?
Item 20 Do you think these skills will help you in the future?
Item 21 What did you learn the most in this course? You can talk about theskills, the content, or anything else.
Item 22 We have tried many activities in class. Which activity helped you
develop English skills and why?
Note. *R as repeated questions from the previous study.
164

R

R

R
R