Critical

Thinking
and language learning ctll

volume 111, issue 1, november 2016

www.jaltcriticalthinking.org
VANESSA ARMAND WAYNE DEVITTE JAMES DUNN
GREG GOODMACHER HIROSHI NAKAGAWA
SHAUN ODWYER JAMES OWENS

ISSN 2432-4949

Critical Thinking in Language Learning CTTL

The Journal of the jalt Critical Thinking sig ct sig

The Japan Association for Language Teaching jalt
Volume 111, Issue 1, November 2016.
Find out more at:
http://www.jaltcriticalthinking.org.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
ISSN 2432-4949

Journal Staff
Editor: Carey Finn-Maeda
Assistant Editor: Roza Carvalho
Reviewers & Proofreaders: david gann, james dunn,
wayne malcolm, fergus hann, yosuke ishii, kiyoshi shiori,
roehl sybing
Cover Design & Layout: james d. dunn

About the Authors

Vanessa A rmand has taught in France and the US, and is currently
a Global Teaching Fellow at Tokyo International University, where
she teaches a range of English language levels and skills to Japanese
and international students. Her research interests include critical
thinking, motivation, and promoting educator-led research and
professional development. Email: armand.vanessa@gmail.com
Wayne Devitte is a Masters Degree student at Sophia University.
As a graduate student in Linguistics, he is presently studying the
practical applications of discourse and conversation analysis for
learners and the development of EFL learner social networks.
Email: wdevitte@outlook.com
James D. Dunn is a Junior Associate Professor at Tokai Universitys
International Education Center. His research interests include
higher-order thinking skills for learning and measuring brain
engagement during traditional learning activities through utilizing
portable EEG machines. He loves to challenge students to better
both their mental and interpersonal skills.
Email: james.d.dunn@outlook.com
Greg Goodmacher is both a professor at Keiwa College and a
textbook author. His research interests include content-based
EFL/ESL education and materials development. He has just finished
revising Stimulating Conversation, a textbook that focuses on
facilitating critical and creative thinking in language classrooms.

Promoting Critical Thinking, Listening,

Responding and Reflecting with Fishbate
Discussions
VANESSA ARMAND
TOKYO INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Abstract: For over a decade, the Japanese government has mandated the teaching
of critical thinking (CT) skills and English communicative competence, not only
for the success of the individual students but also for the future competitiveness of
Japans workforce in an ever-connected global market. Still, Japanese students are
arriving at university unable to actively communicate and exchange ideas. In such an
environment, traditional models of class discussion can often fall flat due to students
unfamiliarity with CT, active listening, and analytical responding. Thus, the onus is
on university EFL teachers to develop ways to effectively engage students in the
meaningful and enjoyable building of CT, communicative skills, and reflection in
order to prepare them for life beyond tests and lectures. This paper offers a new
discussion process - the fishbate-which combines the idea-sharing of whole-class
and small-group discussions with the peer-feedback of fishbowl discussions and
the focus and turn-taking of debates. As such, it stimulates exploration of ideas
while also focusing attention on a limited number of arguments, thus scaffolding
improvement in CT and conversational skills in an engaging atmosphere.

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Introduction
An academic debate rages over the teaching of critical thinking
(CT) and expression in English as Foreign Language (EFL) contexts
(Atkinson, 1997; Benesch, 1999; Davidson, 1998; Mazer et al., 2008;
van Gelder, 2005; Dunn, 2014). Meanwhile, the Japanese government
has taken the stance that these skills are essential for developing
autonomous, communicative learners, and for helping Japan remain
relevant and competitive in an ever-globalizing world marketplace
(MEXT, 2011). As a result, the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), has been instituting
reforms since the early 2000s that mandate the teaching of CT in
addition to English communicative language in secondary schools
and universities. However, a multitude of factors including cultural
preference for face-saving and harmony in conversation (Cutrone,
2010) and continued focus on grammar and memorization at the
secondary level (Dunn, 2015; Nishino & Watanabe, 2008; Ushioda,
2013) have made these directives difficult to actualize in classroom
practice. As a result, Japanese students are often unprepared for
what they find on the first day of university classes: high expectations
of autonomous thinking and active participation (Dunn, 2014, 2015;
Ushioda, 2013).
This disparity is especially salient in EFL speaking/listening
courses where students encounter Western or Western-educated
English teachers and are expected to engage in exchanges of ideas,
which students may have never before encountered. In these
situations, EFL teachers can find these students easily stumped
by basic Why? questions (Dunn, 2014), lost or disengaged in
2

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

discussions (Davidson, 1998), or stuck in circular logic and logical

fallacies (Finn-Maeda, 2015). In these cases, traditional activities
such as whole class or small group discussions often fall flat and
become frustrating for teachers and students alike (Finn, 2015;
Saito & Ebsworth, 2004). Furthermore, empowering students to
become autonomous through peer-assessment and reflection can
often be difficult, as students are more familiar with the practice
of summative teacher-to-student assessment (Forsythe, 2015).
This article explores the benefits and drawbacks of four classic
discussion-based activities and offers a new method for facilitating
critical discussion in an equal parts peer-supported, engaging, and
reflective activity.
Critical Thinking Expectations
While there exist as many definitions for CT as there are
writers on the subject (Mayfield, 2001 in Long, 2003, p. 220),
this paper frames CT skills within Fisher and Scrivens (1997)
definition of CT as skilled, active interpretation and evaluation of
observations, communications, information and argumentation
as a guide to thought and action (p. 20). This definition suggests
that CT requires a baseline competence in the context-dependent
application of thinking tools; reactive, proactive, and reflective
moves towards insight; the process of understanding, clarifying,
and determining the value of input through the senses, discourse,
data, and arguments; and the application of these mental processes
to ones beliefs and actions. This definition effectively encompasses
the exact attributes of autonomous learners whom MEXT aims to
3

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

produce in the hopes of cultivating reactive, proactive, and reflective

future leaders (MEXT, 2011).
Four Classic Models of Discussion in the
Language Learning Classroom
While a review of TESOL literature will reveal many different
tasks for fostering communicative competence, this paper will focus
on four classic discussion models. The benefits and drawbacks of
each model are explored in terms of interaction, engagement, and
turn-taking (Figure 1), drawing on research in Second Language
Acquisition and Task Based Language Teaching ( for output, see
Swain, 1995; for task type and group structure, see Long, 1990). It
also investigates the requirement of specific discourse markers (e.g.
opinion and reason markers) and conversational strategies (e.g.
countering, hedging), and the promotion of specific CT skills in

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

each activity, drawing on literature investigating effective teaching

of communicative and CT skills (see Beaumont, 2010; Cutrone,
2010; Finn, 2015).
i.

Whole Class Discussion

Perhaps the most basic and prescriptive iteration of whole-class

discussion is that in which the teacher engages students by posing
questions to the class, receiving individual responses, responding
to them, and acting as a facilitator or mediator of ideas (Erickson,
1996). For students, CT tasks in this model involve interpreting,
analyzing and reflecting on input, and orally responding. However,
the one-on-one interaction (between the teacher and student or
between two individual students), and on-line processing (real-time
processing of language input with the expectation of unplanned
output) present in this model encourages some students to dominate
the conversation while others disengage; while this disengagement
may be found in other discussion formats, it is especially salient
in whole-class discussions in which only two or three participants
are engaged at a time. In this model, engaging passive students in
this interactional structure may even be counterintuitive or faceaffronting if the cause of their passiveness is resulting from high
affective filters and slower on-line processing; highlighting this with
pointed questions and the expectation of a spontaneous response
may cause embarrassment or even humiliation for the student,
resulting in further withdrawal from discussion. This format can
also discourage weaker students from participating out of fear of
being interrupted or making mistakes (linguistic or CT-related).
5

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

While specific CT skills might be elicited (namely interpretation

and evaluation of observations, communications, information and
argumentation), this model can lead students mainly into passive or
reactive thinking in response to lines of teacher questioning. While
this format may be suitable for brainstorming, its ability to involve
all students in CT and discussion is limited. Furthermore, engaging
students in reflection for future CT and language improvement can
be difficult given the aforementioned variables.
iI. Small Group Discussion

Group work has been touted as a solution to these problems; it

can lower affective filters and raise both the quantity and quality of
student contributions to the conversation (Brown, 2007). However,
in my own Japanese university EFL classes, students often engage
in discussion of a given prompt for a few short minutes and
then sit in silence or move off-task. Furthermore, interaction and
engagement of all participants is not guaranteed, and turn-taking
may not be evenly distributed. Finally, speakers may not use any key
expressions or CT skills, may use them superficially or inaccurately,
or may be led astray by the language of other students and thus
overlook fallacies (Davidson & Dunham, 1996; Finn, 2015; Paul, 1995
in Mazer et al., 2008).The teacher cannot be available for all groups
simultaneously and cannot provide necessary input or feedback to
all students, thus minimizing the effectiveness of the activity for CT
purposes.

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

iII. Fishbowls

Building off of these challenges is the fishbowl discussion model

in which three or four students sit together in a circle and discuss
a prompt while surrounded by other students who take notes and
give feedback on their performance. In this model, all students are
engaged in active listening, and while spoken interaction during
the fishbowl is limited to the speakers, the audience provides
immediate feedback post-discussion. The focus of these notes can
expand in complexity from target expressions taught in class (e.g. In
my opinion), to conversational movements (e.g. interrupting), to
critical thinking skills (e.g. evaluating information and arguments).
While the goal is for students to work through problems together
and to engage in reflection through feedback from and for peers,
if students are struggling with responding and are slipping into
monologues, misusing expressions, or overlooking fallacies, the
individualized attention on speakers creates the opportunity for
teacher intervention. Furthermore, peer-feedback provides content
for student reflection on performance (their own and others). One
drawback is its free form nature, allowing one student to dominate
the conversation. The ultimate shortcoming is that students can be
overwhelmed by the on-line processing requirement of the infinite
number of arguments that could arise in the bowl, hindering CT
and self-expression.
iV. Debates

Debates have long been used as a method for engaging

students in the competitive, pointed practice of CT and self7

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

expression (Inoue, 1996). Inoue (1996) highlights the following CT

skills in his characteristics of academic debate: the analysis of a
problem, formulation of logical claims, identification of fallacies,
understanding of divergent opinions, conducting of research,
devising of arguments, and critical analysis of input from others.
In traditional debate styles, such as that used by the Japan High
School English Debate Association (HEnDA), on-line (real-time)
processing is scaffolded by off-line (planned, not spontaneous)
preparation, by providing students with time to research the debate
prompt, formulate and practice their speeches, and anticipate their
opponents objections prior to engaging in spontaneous exchange
with an opponent. For English language learners, debates offer
additional benefits, with uninterrupted speaking time, interaction
with one speaker, and a limited number of opposing views provided
by the debate format - allowing for focused attention on the
challenging language and cognitive skills needed to engage the
opponent. Drawbacks of this format which I have observed in my
classes include: the possible disengagement of the audience and
lack of reflection (unless the audience takes notes for feedback),
and the potentially face-affronting nature of performing CT and
speaking tasks under a time constraint, in front of an audience and
while under attack from an opponent, which might hinder both CT
and speaking performance.
A New Discussion Model: The Fishbate1 Process
i.

Rationale for a hybrid model

8

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

As is evident from the investigation above, there is a clear need

for a new model that incorporates the benefits of each of the four
while circumventing their drawbacks. Fishbate is a hybrid of the
four classic models (Figure 2).

iI. Steps

Step 1 (Awareness Raising) - The teacher engages students

in a whole-class discussion about the difficulties of having a serious
discussion in English. Together they brainstorm barriers to thinking
and communication and ways to overcome them. One concern may
be a lack of expressions to use (see Step 2a) or an inability to support
opinions (see Step 2b).
9

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Step 2 (Elicitation)
2a: Language Support-Discussion language is elicited from
students and transferred to a Cheat Sheet (see Appendix A) for
students to use as speaking support during discussion.
2b: CT Support-Teacher elicits possible methods for finding
supporting ideas, then provides students with tips for CT (see
Appendix B) for students to use as thinking support during
discussion.
Step 3 (Preparation) - Students are arranged into groups of
four or six. Each group receives a discussion prompt and is asked to
brainstorm their arguments for both sides of the issue, first briefly in
their group, then individually for homework, in addition to finding
reliable and valid sources for support.
Step 4 (Presentation)
4a: Fishbowl 1 - The groups reconvene to present their arguments
and support about both sides of the issue in a video recorded noaudience fishbowl (10 minutes). Following the open discussion,
students randomly self-assign each fish (student) a side to present
in the Debate Stage (5 minutes).
4b: Debate (Organization) - The newly organized teams (pro
vs. con) meet independently to clarify the unique argument
and support each person will present in defense of their side (10
minutes). Recording is paused during this time.

10

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

4c: Debate - Continue recording. Teams debate following

the timing and structure in the Debate Stage Instructions (see
Appendix C) and using the note-taking handout (see Appendix D)
(30 minutes).
4d: Fishbowl 2 - The discussion is open to free exchanges of
ideas. Students are able to change sides, support opponents or
weaker debaters, return to previous arguments, and present new
ideas (5-10 minutes). Recording ends.
Step 5 (Feedback) - The recordings are shared with members
of another group who take notes and give feedback based on target
skills (language or arguments) using the tips (see Appendix E) and
form (see Appendix F).
iII. POTENTIAL BENEFITS

This model requires engagement and the use of expressions

and CT skills through a debate with individualized, focused talktime couched inside peer-supported, face-saving discussions.
While this model has not yet been empirically tested, providing
students with multiple opportunities to work with others through
the cognitive processes of developing and supporting their ideas
may help struggling students lower their affective filters and save
face. Furthermore, the mix of group structures and interaction
can provide opportunities for a variety of input, listening focus,
and speaking requirements. Finally, the use of recordings for peerassessment can remove the stress of a physical audience, but still
provide opportunities for awareness-raising and goal setting for
11

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

linguistic and argumentation features from the perspective of both

speaker (self-reflection based on feedback the student receives)
and listener (self-reflection based on feedback the student gives to
others).
More specifically, this model allows students the opportunity
to hone their argumentation skills, both in terms of language and
logic through repetition of the task of explaining their ideas at each
stage of the fishbate. While empirical research would need to be
done to prove the true extent of cognitive load variance across the
different models, I have observed in my classes that the cognitive
load of arguing in a foreign language is lightened in the fishbate
model in comparison to the other four models likely due to offline processing time and, more importantly, task repetition. Tasks
that involve problem solving or argumentation have been identified
in the literature as having high levels of difficulty, drawing attention
away from fluency and accuracy (Shekhan & Foster, 2001 in Revesz,
2011). At the same time, repetition of a given speaking task has
been shown to improve linguistic ability (Gass et al., 1999). It could,
therefore, be argued that by repeating the task of explaining and
supporting their opinion, students are given the chance to manage
the cognitive load and focus more on logic and language, possibly
resulting in not only clearer argumentation, but also more linguistic
fluency, accuracy and complexity.
Conclusion
This paper has outlined the difficulties facing Japanese university
EFL teachers when it comes to engaging students in building CT
12

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

and communicative skills. It has investigated four classic models of

discussion in ELT, and has proposed the fishbate discussion format
to bridge the gaps between them. This discussion process combines
the idea-sharing and face-saving of class discussions with the peerfeedback of fishbowls and the turn-taking of debates. As such, it
stimulates exploration of ideas while also focusing attention on a
limited number of arguments, ultimately scaffolding improvement
in CT and conversational skills in an engaging atmosphere. It
eliminates the stress on speakers induced by the physical audience
element of fishbowls and debates, and replaces it with a videorecording element that provides content for peer-reflection to
promote further thinking and language development.
Notes:
1. It should be noted that the fishbate activity format was first presented at the 2015 Nakasendo English
Conference (Armand, 2015a) and a shortened explanation of the procedure was published in the ORTESOL
Quarterly Newsletter (Armand, 2015b).

13

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

References
Armand, V. (2015a). Get in the Bowl! Critical Thinking Activities. Practiceoriented presentation presented at the Nakasendo English Conference, Nakasendo,
Japan.
Armand, V. (2015b). Teaching Tips: Using Fishbate Group Discussions to
Promote Critical Thinking. ORTESOL Quarterly Newsletter 38(4), 6-8.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in TESOL.
TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 71-97.
Beaumont, J. (2010). A Sequence of Critical Thinking Tasks. TESOL Journal,
1(4), 427-448.
Benesch, S. (1999). Thinking Critically, Thinking Dialogically. TESOL Quarterly,
33(3), 573-580.
Brown, J.D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Education ESL.
Cutrone, P. (2010). Helping Japanese ESL/EFL Learners Overcome Difficulties
in Intercultural Communication. Journal of the Faculty of Global Communication,
University of Nagasaki 11, 11-22.
Davidson, B.W. (1998). A Case for Critical Thinking in the English Language
Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 119-123.
14

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

Davidson, B.W. & Dunham, R. (1997). Assessing EFL Student Process in
Critical Thinking with the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. JALT Journal,
19(1), 43-57.
Dunn, J. (2014). Limited Critical Thinking Skills in Japanese EFL: Where
Does the Responsibility Lie? Critical Thinking and Language Learning 1(1), 1-7.
Dunn, J. (2015) Critical Thinking in Japanese Secondary Education: Student
and Teacher Perspectives. Critical Thinking and Language Learning 2(1), 28-38.
Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: the social and cognitive ecology of teacherstudent interaction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, Learning,
and Schooling (pp. 29-62). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Finn, C. (2015). Anarchy in EFL: Introducing Simple Activities to Develop
Critical Thinking Skills in Discussion Classes. New Directions in Teaching and
Learning English Discussion 3, 77-85.
Finn-Maeda, C. (2015). A Multi-Faceted Approach to Integrating Critical
Thinking Skills in Oral Communication Classes. Critical Thinking and Language
Learning 2(1), 18-27.
Fisher, A. , & Scriven, M. (1997). Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment.
Norwick, UK: University of East Anglia, Centre for Research in Critical Thinking.

15

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Forsythe, E. (2015). Improving Assessment in Japanese University EFL Classes:
A Model for Implementing Research-Based Language Assessment Practices. 21st
Century Education Forum, 10, 65-73.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M.,& Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999). The
Effects of Task Repetition on Linguistic Output. Language Learning, 49(4), 549581.
Inoue, N. (1996). Traditions of Debate in Japan. Bulletin of the Graduate School
of Social and Cultural Studies, Kyushu University, 2,149-161. Retrieved from: http://
www.flc.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~inouen/deb-trad.html
Long, C.J. (2003). Teaching Critical Thinking in Asian EFL Contexts:
Theoretical Issues and Practical Applications. Paper presented at Proceedings of
the 8th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics. ( Japan)
Okayawa. 229-234.
Long, M. (1990). Task, Group, and Task-Group Interactions. In Sarinee, A. (Ed.)
Language Teaching Methodology for the Nineties: Anthology Series 24. Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional Language Center. (31-50). Retrieved from http://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/ED366184.pdf
Mazer, J., Hunt, S., and Kuznekoff, J. (2008). Revising General Education:
Assessing a Critical Thinking Instructional Model in the Basic Communication
Course. The Journal of General Education, 56(3/4), 173-199.

16

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).
(2011). Reform Action Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/
topics/1324314.htm
Nishino, T. & Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication-oriented Policies Versus
Classroom Realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), pp. 133-138.
Revesz, A. (2011). Task Complexity, Focus on L2 Constructions, and Individual
Differences: A Classroom-Based Study. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 162181.
Saito, H., & Edsworth, M.E. (2004). Seeing English Language Teaching and
Learning through the Eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL Students. Foreign Language
Annals, 37(1), 111-124.
Shekan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task Type and Task Processing Conditions as
Influences on Foreign Language Performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3),
185-211.
Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing Critical Thinking in the Writing of Japanese
University Students. Written Communication, 18(4), 506-548.
Swain, M. (1995). The Output Hypothesis and Beyond: Mediating Acquisition
Through Collaborative Dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second
Language Learning. Oxford University Press: Oxford. (97-115).

17

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Ushioda, E. (2013). Foreign Language Motivation Research in Japan: An

Insider Perspective from Outside Japan. In M.T. Apple, D. Da Silva, &T. Fellner
(Eds.) Language Learning Motivation in Japan. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
(1-14).
VanGelder, T. (2005). Teaching Critical Thinking: Some Lessons from Cognitive
Science. College Teaching, 53(1). 41-46.

18

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

Appendix A
Expressions and Strategies for Group Discussion

Appendix B
Tips for Critical Thinking & Argumentation Support

19

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Appendix C
Debate Stage Instructional Handout

20

vanessa armand - fishbate discussions

Appendix D
Debate Stage Note-taking Handout (Fish)

Appendix E
Tips for Giving Peer Feedback

21

ctll, volume 3, issue 1

Appendix F
Fishbate Feedback Forms
Note: Feedback for each student should include teacher feedback on comments;
1. Read commentary to speakers and write feedback about it. 2. Cut along each
horizontal line to separate feedback for each speaker. 3. Organize individualized
feedback strips into piles by speaker name in the left column and stapled together with
the corresponding listener paper on top.

*Note: Full versions of the handouts can be found at:

http://vanessaarmandtesol.weebly.com/get-in-the-bowlhandouts.html

22