4.5 Article

Assessing the critical thinking skills of English language learners in a first year psychology course

期刊

THINKING SKILLS AND CREATIVITY
卷 43, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101004

关键词

Critical thinking; English language learners; Psychology-specific critical thinking; assessment; Language Proficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the critical thinking skills of undergraduate students in a psychology course and explored the impact of language ability on their performance in different tests. The findings showed that international students were able to improve their performance in subject-specific tests after a year of course, but still had challenges in general critical thinking tests.
Research on critical thinking (CT) has developed over the last several decades to encompass both general CT ability and subject-specific CT, but a paucity of research exists on how this relates to English Language Learners (ELLs). This study examined the CT skills of undergraduate students enrolled in a first-year psychology course at a Canadian university. It examined the extent to which language ability played a role in student performance on standardized CT tests, subjectspecific CT tests, and students' own perspectives on reading self-assessment. In total, 721 students participated in the study, divided into three groups: those with English as a first language (L1), those with English as an additional language but four years of English learning in a Canadian high school (L2c), and those who had English as an additional language who were taught internationally (L2i). Findings from this study showed that L2i students performed lower on Form A of Psychology Specific Critical Thinking Assessment (PS-CTA), but by the end of the yearlong course, they were able to make PS-CTA improvements, allowing them to demonstrate at the same level as their peers. However, L2i students still had significant problems with general CT as measured by the Watson-Glaser Practice Test (WG-PT).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据