How does language affect critical thinking

Sep 5, 2019 | 0 comments

Sep 5, 2019 | Essays | 0 comments

 

How does language affect critical thinking?

Critical analysis of “How might language affect critical thinking performance?”

 

Table of contents

Introduction 3

Critical Analysis 3

Critical Evaluation 5

Conclusion 7

Reference 8

Introduction

The critical analysis mainly examines the article or others’ work of the researcher to determine how effective the piece is at making a point or argument. It helps to express the opinions of the writer and in the evaluation of the respective text. The analysis is mainly meant to break down and study the necessary parts present in the article or other work of the researcher. For writing a critical analysis, the researcher needs to do two tasks such as critical writing and critical reading. The critical analysis helps to point out the necessary decisions to what extent a finding or statement in the respective research paper. The pipeline of school to prison. Ecenbarger (2012) believes that that evidence is being taken from various sources that both contradict and agree with the argument. As said by Manalo and Sheppard (2016), in this research, the research will do both critical analysis and evaluation of the article and the name of the article is “How might language affect the critical thinking performance?”

Critical Analysis

In the chosen article, the author mainly examines language proficiency and the structure of language that could affect the ability for critical thinking among the students. For studying the critical thinking performance the author had divided the study into two groups. The first one is the structural limitation in non-native students’ first language and the second one is language proficiency. The researcher mainly focuses on analyzing two studies. In the case of the first study, the authors had taken about 100 Japanese. The students who were selected for the first studies were second-year Japanese students and these students had received guidelines in case of the academic expatriate for critical evaluation. They did not face any kind of difficulties speaking their native language that is Japanese. However, the language has more indirect structure and therefore, critical evaluation is very difficult for them. As said by Manalo and Sheppard (2016), language proficiency between the Japanese and English was found to correlate that could affect the use of critical evaluation. In the case of Study 2, the same task was being provided but among 43 students who are from the first year.

The first-year students did not receive any kind of instruction from the author for using critical evaluation statement in the report for the language L2 that is English. The analysis had provided the same pattern in the written word. However, it was being provided at the lower level. As said by Dwyer et al. (2014), the evidence provided by the first-year survey by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, in average a pharmacy student borrows an average of 0,000. Most students does not provide any kind of correlations between their evaluative statement production and language proficiency scores. The aim of the research that the researcher had found out was to find out if the additional guidelines provided to the stud makes any difference or not. For this reason, the author has taken one group of students who are being provided on the production of evaluative language and the other group was not provided with any kind of knowledge.

Study 1 mainly focuses on two hypotheses; the first hypothesis is “evaluative statements were being provided in both English and Japanese that could differ” and the second hypothesis is “student’s proficiency in a respective language”. The first the participants who are being selected are 110 Japanese students from the second year. These students are mainly focusing on the English communication skills development course. It has been found the first group was being provided with class textbooks, instruction, examples, explanation, and proper practice in the use of proper languages for critical evaluation. The students were also provided with single page translation in the textbook to understand how to provide valid arguments. The students were being given two consecutive 90 minutes class in Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and Titanic. The students were being asked to write two reports explaining the important causes of each disaster. The author has scored and counted in the written work of students. As said by Kettler (2014), language proficiency was being measured with the help student’s ‘TOEIC-IP scores’ and also the complexity of sentences for students. It had been produced in Japanese and English. TOEIC (The Test of English for International Communication) had provided great help for the author to analyze the report written by the respective students. The verbs are easy to compare the Japanese and English language. As said by Chukwuyenum (2013), the good use of verbs is a good indicator of the structure of the complex sentence. The data has been calculated with the help of means with their respective standard deviation provided in brackets.

The correlation coefficients between second-year writing complexity and TOEIC scores are also provided in the result. The result in Study 1 shows that about 3.46 mean values of students have able to evaluate in English from a total mean value of 20.31. In the case of the Japanese language, about 3.75 mean values is being evaluative from the total number of mean which was equal to 18.68. The correlation was equal to the proportions of sentences that had been evaluated and produced by students in case of Japanese and English, r =0.72 and p<0.0001, R to the power 2 = 0.518. This means students who were being evaluated more critically in a single language and it also provides great demonstration greater amount of critical evaluation in more foreign languages. Study 2 mainly analyses three hypotheses. For the first hypothesis, it would obvious the lower use for targeting the language for evaluation of the students who are from the second year. The second hypothesis provides the distinction in evaluative language that is consistent between the language Japanese and English. It was evident that the students from the first year would have greater use of the Japanese language than the English language. For the first language proficiency test the author Martherthe ked Japanese language as L1 and for the English language, the author had marked it as L2. For Study 2, 43 first-year Japanese students were being chosen. The students have been provided with the same homework to write two reports on two related topics that had been provided to Study 1. The report of both the group is being studied and measures with the help of ANOVA. As said by Pitt et al. (2015), ANOVA is the very useful research tool that had helped the author with thorough research about the language structure and proficiency between in the students of the first year and second year.

For analyzing the relationship between the students’ proportion of evaluative language and language proficiency scores, the researcher has carried out correlation analysis. The result has been found that the students are very comfortable to provide a report in their native language or Japanese than the English language. The author has mentioned that the use of critical thinking helps to improve the non-native speaker when it comes to the English language. This will help to lower the perceived deficiencies in the case of people from Asian countries and other foreign student’s critical thinking. As said by Ghazivakili et al. (2014), the study also helps to indicate a proper instruction in the classroom that is important for the development of students’ abilities for demonstrating proper critical thinking competencies.

Critical Evaluation

The research provided by the author was a great success for them. They were able to compare the language proficiency and language structure of the students of both years. The main limitation that had been found in this study is that the author had only analyzed among the Japanese students and not other foreign students. As said by Chan (2013), the author needs to analyze this research among other non-native speakers to find better results. This is because there are more people with different languages, different critical thinking, and different cultures. The author requires more time for analyzing the research more thoroughly. The researcher must analyze the language structure and proficiency with the help of different written test and listening test.

The author must take debate, group discussion, process of all job related important information. It is a procedure by which duties, nature of jobs and people to be hired are determined. The information can be used in writing and listening skills among the students to gain more data about how language could affect the critical thinking performance. The two languages related explanation made an apparent difference in the critical thinking performance. It is mainly being manifested by students from different culture shock upon arriving in the United States. These students must understand the cultural backgrounds. The author can also take personal interview among the students. The author can take interviews with the help of two languages. As said by Kong (2014), the overall finding that had been found in English proficiency among the chosen students are mainly the potentially limiting factor. The use of critical thinking skills is needed to be highlighted more thoroughly for the improvement of the proficiency of the English language among the non-native speakers.

The strategies need to be implemented for reducing the perceived deficiencies among the foreign students. For this reason, more thorough research is important. The author must need to provide this analysis with other foreign students to understand their performance in critical thinking and evaluation. As said by Heijltjes et al. (2015), without receiving any kind of explicit instruction, majority of the students does not understand how the critical evaluation in the daily activities or work needs to be demonstrated. The literature review has highlighted the necessary principles and skills related to the critical evaluation of the research paper. However, the main problem that the researcher can face in further studies is taking more different language speaking natives for the implementation of the research.

The ANOVA test of the analysis of the variance is limited and very complex. Calculating and analyzing the data with the help of the analysis of variance or ANOVA is very time-consuming. Any small mistake in the data can provide a great problem for the author. Two studies are limited in case of the analysis of Variance. As said by Dwyer et al. (2015), for this reason, studying more groups will be a great problem for the author. There is also the limitation on the total investment and total time constraint of the research. F test will greatly help for studying the respective research. This is because the author can use the F statistic for comparing two variances, s2 and s1 by dividing them.

Conclusion

From this analysis, it has been found that the author was successful in measuring the critical evaluation performance among the 1st year and second-year students. The topic and the research study chosen by the authors are very important for all the non-native speakers. This research study will provide a great amount of improvement for all foreign students. The universities will able to learn the more new technique for improving the student’s critical evaluation performance.

Reference

Chan, Z. C. (2013). A systematic review of critical thinking in nursing education. Nurse Education Today33(3), 236-240.

Chukwuyenum, A. N. (2013). Impact of critical thinking on performance in mathematics among senior secondary school students in Lagos state. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education3(5), 18-25.

Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2015). The effects of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction on reflective judgement performance. Thinking skills and creativity16, 11-26.

Dwyer, C.P., Hogan, M.J. & Stewart, I., (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity12, 43-52.

Ghazivakili, Z., Nia, R. N., PANAHI, F., Karimi, M., Gholsorkhi, H., & Ahmadi, Z. (2014). The role of critical thinking skills and learning styles of university students in their academic performance. Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism2(3), 95.

Heijltjes, A., van Gog, T., Leppink, J., & Paas, F. (2015). Unravelling the effects of critical thinking instructions, practice, and self-explanation on students’ reasoning performance. Instructional Science43(4), 487-506.

Kettler, T., (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: Comparing identified gifted and general education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly58(2), 27-136.

Kong, S.C., (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practising flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education78, 160-173.

Manalo, E. & Sheppard, C., (2016). How might language affect critical thinking performance?. Thinking Skills and Creativity21, 41-49.

Pitt, V., Powis, D., Levett-Jones, T., & Hunter, S. (2015). The influence of critical thinking skills on performance and progression in a pre-registration nursing program. Nurse education today35(1), 125-131.