scholarly journals Validity Study on the Test Paper of the Academic English Reading and Writing Course

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
GUO Sisi ◽  
CHEN Zheng
2021 ◽  
pp. 195-236
Author(s):  
James Dunn ◽  

Critical thinking has gained popularity in the English as a foreign language (EFL) educational arena of late in Japan due to the Ministry of Education (MEXT) updating its requirements of English education to include logical thinking. This has caused the need for educators in Japan to quickly adapt to the inclusion of logical thinking, and by extension, critical thinking in their curriculum (MEXT, 2011) from 2013. Even though MEXT has required critical thinking to be included in the classroom, it seems very little has been done to include true critical thinking into textbooks and institutions’ curriculum designs. One crucial component of the language teaching curriculum is the ability to think rationally, objectively, and deeply about a topic, or in other words, to think critically. Critical thinking has been shown to foster students’ abilities to analyze, evaluate, and judge the value of the information presented to them both inside, and outside, the classroom (Lund, 2016). Critical thinking also helps students to make their own decisions related to their academic, and future employment, success (Nold, 2017). In a university-level reading and writing course in Japan, for example, students must create manuscripts at beginner to advanced levels that somewhat adhere to the expectations of academic English communities (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010) when it comes to topic development and utilizing source information. In order to reflect on, and thereby judge the veracity of, the information presented to them either by their textbook in the classroom or by external sources, critical thinking skills allow students to deconstruct, reflect upon, and assign value to information sources. This also allows them to construct their own content on two levels, one, projecting their creativity as independent thinkers, and two, linguistically as writers who can think about a topic more deeply. The purpose of this paper is to share the planning, design, and implementation of a critical thinking reading and writing project which was introduced into the second-year EFL reading and writing focused courses at Tokai University from the spring and fall semesters of 2019. The reading and writing course, named Academic English (AE), was split into three levels depending upon the students’ performance in their first-year English courses. Each level of the AE course had a project book that was individualized for their corresponding textbook and level. The project’s focus, for all levels, was to develop critical thinking skills through the introduction of reflective thinking, logical fallacies, and research skills. At the end of the project, students were asked to apply their critical thinking skills to their textbook and research the veracity of the information presented to them in one of their required readings during the course. The overall reception of the project by the students was positive and results of a post-project questionnaire showed that students felt they had gained some mastery over critical thinking on subjects both in the classroom and in their lives. The project has seen success in allowing students to become learners who are more independent in their thinking, more critical in their reception to information provided to them, and better writers who are able to think on a topic more deeply and logically.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ning Du ◽  
Jianhua Chen ◽  
Meihua Liu

<p>The present study examined how undergraduate students from a prestigious Chinese university perceived the teaching and learning of English for general academic purposes (EGAP) reading and writing courses. Analyses of 951 questionnaires revealed that most participants generally (strongly) believed that learning general academic English was closely related to their major study, reported being motivated to learn general academic English, and expected to improve their academic English reading, writing, listening and speaking skills from EGAP courses. The study also showed that they had consensus about the requirements and teaching and learning foci of general academic English in spite of their concerns about academic English, and that students of more demanding and more academic EGAP courses tended to have a better understanding of general academic English. Based on the findings, some suggestions are discussed.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 342-358
Author(s):  
Hao Chen

AbstractIt is noticeable that the academic papers written by Chinese English learners are lacking in academic features largely due to their poor ability to use nominalization. Therefore, the instruction of nominalization in an academic English writing course is badly needed. The author conducted one-semester-long instruction of nominalization to 90 non-English majors under the guidance of the production-oriented approach (POA). This research demonstrated how to apply POA, specifically, the enabling procedure to the teaching of nominalization. By triangulating the data of students’ interviews, learning journals and written output, and the data of 4 teachers’ class observations and interviews, this study found that the accurate application of the three criteria of effective enabling contributed to the improvement of the quantity and quality of nominalization in academic writing.


2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nattapong Jinajai ◽  
Saowalak Rattanavich

<p>This research aims to study the development of ninth grade students’ reading and writing abilities and interests in learning English taught through computer-assisted instruction (CAI) based on the top-level structure (TLS) method. An experimental group time series design was used, and the data was analyzed by multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with repeated measures as well as basic statistical and line graphs. The results demonstrate that the experimental group attained significantly higher development in English reading and writing at the .001 level and registered significantly higher interests at the .01 level.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document