An Experimental Study on Development of Critical Thinking Dispositions of English Majors through Peer Feedback in EFL Writing

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2022.06.010

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on the theory of critical thinking dispositions, this study explored the impact of peer feedback in English writing teaching on the development of critical thinking dispositions among English majors. The study utilized an experimental design with 37 participants in the experimental group and 40 participants in the control group. Critical thinking disposition inventory was used to test students’ critical thinking dispositions. The results of pretest and posttest revealed that students in the experimental group showed an increasingly positive disposition toward critical thinking after one-year study of critical thinking-integrated English writing with peer feedback, esp. in critical thinking self-confidence, while students in the control group showed a tendency of decrease in critical thinking dispositions especially in analyticity and cognitive maturity. The posttest results showed a significant difference between the experimental group and the control group in open-mindedness, analyticity, systematicity, inquisitiveness, cognitive maturity as well as the general critical thinking dispositions while no significant difference was found in truth-seeking and critical thinking self-confidence. This study indicated that integrating peer feedback into English writing could contribute to the development of critical thinking among English majors. To synchronize the development of students’ critical thinking with the acquisition of language competence, teachers should facilitate students’ engagement in peer feedback by addressing their affective experience and scaffolding their feedback.

Key words: English majors, English writing, peer feedback, critical thinking dispositions

CLC Number:

H319

LI Yan, LI Tao. An Experimental Study on Development of Critical Thinking Dispositions of English Majors through Peer Feedback in EFL Writing[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(6): 76-85.

Figures/Tables 4

References 22

[1]	Dewey J. 1933. Why Reflective Thinking Must Be an Educational Aim: How We Think[M]. Boston: Heath.
[2]	Evans K. 2019. Revision from multiple feedback sources: The attitudes and behaviors of three multilingual student writers[J]. Research in the Teaching of English 54(2): 131-160.
[3]	Facione P. A. 1990. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction[M]. Millbrae: California Academic Press.
[4]	Fan Y. & J. Xu. 2020. Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 50:1-13.
[5]	Gao Y., C. D. D. Schunn & Q. Yu. 2019. The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44(2): 294-308.
[6]	Johnson D. W. & R. T. Johnson. 2005. New developments in social interdependence theory [J]. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs 131(4): 285-358.
[7]	Min H. 2005. Training students to become successful peer reviewers[J]. System 33(2): 293-308. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003 URL
[8]	Min H. 2016. Effect of teacher modeling and feedback on EFL students’ peer review skills in peer review training[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 31: 43-57. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.004 URL
[9]	Paul R. & L. Elder. 2008. The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools[M]. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
[10]	Sato M. 2017. Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-cognitive Model[J]. Language Learning 67(2): 249-283. doi: 10.1111/lang.12214 URL
[11]	Wang S. & D Zhang. 2019. Student-centered teaching, deep learning and self-reported ability improvement in higher education: Evidence from Mainland China[J]. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 56(5): 581-593. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2018.1490662 URL
[12]	Yu S. & G. Hu. 2017. Understanding university students’peer feedback practices in EFL writing: Insights from a case study[J]. Assessing Writing 33: 25-35. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2017.03.004 URL
[13]	范玉梅、徐锦芬. 2021. 同伴熟悉度对同伴互动中学习者投入的影响研究[J]. 外语与外语教学 (2): 82-91.
[14]	顾钧仪、杨冬玲、、林秋萍. 2022. 英语写作同伴反馈中学业情绪及调节策略研究——基于反馈提供者和反馈接收者视角[J]. 外语电化教学 (4): 71-79.
[15]	李莉文、刘雪卉. 2018. 教师反馈与思辨能力培养的个案研究——以英语专业本科毕业论文为例[J]. 外语界(6): 20-27.
[16]	彭美慈、汪国成、陈基乐, 等. 2004. 批判性思维能力测量表的信效度测试研究[J]. 中华护理杂志 (9): 644-647.
[17]	沈霞娟、胡航、张宝辉, 等. 2021. 大学生批判性思维与学习方式的发展现状及关系探究[J]. 现代教育技术 (2): 48-57.
[18]	孙有中. 2019a. 思辨英语教学原则[J]. 外语教学与研究 (6): 825-837.
[19]	孙有中. 2019b. 振兴发展外国语言文学类本科专业:成就、挑战与对策[J]. 外语界(1): 2-7.
[20]	文秋芳、王建卿、赵彩然, 等. 2009. 构建我国外语类大学生思辨能力量具的理论框架[J]. 外语界(1): 37-43.
[21]	文秋芳、孙旻. 2015. 评述高校外语教学中思辨力培养存在的问题[J]. 外语教学理论与实践(3): 6-12.
[22]	周季鸣、束定芳. 2019. 同伴互评中的教师实践与学生认识互动研究[J]. 外语界(5): 64-71.

维度	实验组(N=37)		对照组(N=40)		t(df)	p
维度	M	SD	M	SD	t(df)	p
求真性	39.00	5.07	38.98	5.88	-0.020 (75)	0.984
思维开放度	45.41	4.80	43.40	4.71	1.850 (75)	0.068
分析能力	44.30	4.38	44.73	6.07	-0.352 (75)	0.726
系统化能力	38.86	5.39	36.96	4.09	1.741 (75)	0.086
思辨自信心	39.46	4.78	38.48	7.88	0.656 (75)	0.514
探究性	47.62	5.86	42.25	7.54	3.471 (75)	0.001
认知成熟度	46.27	6.22	43.98	6.28	1.609 (75)	0.112
思辨倾向	300.92	25.83	288.78	28.73	1.945 (75)	0.056

维度	组别	前测		后测		t(df)	p
维度	组别	M	SD	M	SD	t(df)	p
求真性	实验组	39.00	5.07	40.00	6.67	1.211(72)	0.234
	对照组	38.98	5.88	37.95	7.72	-0.728(78)	0.471
思维开放度	实验组	45.41	4.80	46.16	6.70	0.949(72)	0.349
	对照组	43.40	4.71	41.75	6.38	-1.464(78)	0.151
分析能力	实验组	44.30	4.38	45.35	5.01	1.306(72)	0.200
	对照组	44.73	6.07	42.90	4.47	-2.176(78)	0.036
系统化能力	实验组	38.86	5.39	39.97	4.96	1.477(72)	0.148
	对照组	36.96	4.09	36.55	5.52	-0.463(78)	0.646
思辨自信心	实验组	39.46	4.78	41.00	5.76	2.217(72)	0.033
	对照组	38.48	7.88	38.98	5.93	0.481(78)	0.633
探究性	实验组	47.62	5.86	48.73	6.63	1.345(72)	0.187
	对照组	42.25	7.54	43.43	5.56	0.968(78)	0.339
认知成熟度	实验组	46.27	6.22	44.73	6.94	-1.704(72)	0.097
	对照组	43.98	6.28	40.85	7.42	-2.831(78)	0.007
思辨倾向	实验组	300.92	25.83	305.95	31.90	1.576 (72)	0.124
	对照组	288.78	28.73	282.40	27.18	-1.434(78)	0.159

维度	实验组(N=37)		对照组(N=40)		t(df)	P	d
维度	M	SD	M	SD	t(df)	P	d
求真性	40.00	6.67	37.95	7.72	1.242 (75)	0.218
思维开放度	46.16	6.70	41.75	6.38	2.958 (75)	0.004	0.68
分析能力	45.35	5.01	42.90	4.47	2.271 (75)	0.026	0.52
系统化能力	39.97	4.96	36.55	5.52	2.852 (75)	0.006	0.65
思辨自信心	41.00	5.76	38.98	5.93	1.518 (75)	0.133
探究性	48.73	6.63	43.43	5.56	3.815 (75)	0.000	0.87
认知成熟度	44.73	6.94	40.85	7.42	2.365 (75)	0.021	0.54
思辨倾向	305.95	31.90	282.40	27.18	3.495 (75)	0.001	0.79