You are on page 1of 9

Thinking and language learning

Alan Waters

The importance of thinking for language learning has been recognized for
some time. E LT activities which encourage active mental processing have

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidade do Porto on December 14, 2016


become increasingly common. However, there is evidence that the use of such
activities has still not become widespread in a number of E LT situations. One
reason for this may be lack of awareness about how levels of thinking can
be conceptualized in E LT activities. This paper therefore attempts to clarify
the types of thinking that E LT activities can promote, and how they can be
integrated in a basic learning cycle. In particular, it focuses on the possibility
(and importance) of providing learners who have only a limited knowledge
of English with activities that nevertheless involve creative thinking. The ideas
are illustrated via a series of sample activities.

Introduction It is widely accepted that learning occurs when the mind makes connections
between what it already knows and new, hitherto unknown items of
information, i.e. that knowledge is constructed by the use of thinking
processes—the ‘cognitive’ theory of learning (Gleitman 1995). As a
consequence, there has been a steady growth of interest in E LT, especially
from the late 1980s onwards, in the use of problem-solving activities as
a method of encouraging cognitive processing by learners (Nunan 1989;
Skehan 1998). Many modern international and national textbooks (for
example, Nelson et al. 1999; Soars and Soars 2003) nowadays incorporate
such activities as a way of stimulating active thinking by learners, both in
order to increase their knowledge of the language system and their ability to
use it in communication.
However, in some parts of the E LT world, problem-solving exercises still
appear to be infrequent. Thus, as a European teacher put it in a recent
global E F L teaching activities survey, ‘there are not many task-oriented
or project-based materials in our textbooks’, a situation mirrored by a
significant part of the rest of the data (Waters 2004). Also, in another
recent study (Cai 2003), observation of a wide range of secondary-level E F L
lessons in an Asian country showed that nearly all the teaching activities
involved were of a relatively mechanical type. One possible reason for this
situation may be lack of awareness about the ways in which the thinking
level of activities can be conceptualized, and the implications for lesson
design. Thus, in what follows, an attempt is made to provide a relatively
straightforward framework for analysing the types of thinking promoted
by ELT activities, and to use it to illustrate how a range of thinking levels
can be incorporated into ELT lessons.1

E LT Journal Volume 60/4 October 2006; doi:10.1093/elt/ccl022 319


ª The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
What is thinking? There are, of course, many different ways of characterizing the cognitive
processes which language teaching activities involve. Convenient
summaries of such typologies can be found in, for example, Ellis (1996)
and Skehan (op. cit.). However, Bloom’s ‘Taxonomy of educational
objectives’ (Bloom 1956) is probably still the most comprehensive
categorization available. Thus, in order to analyse levels of thinking in
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) materials, Adams-Smith (1981) used
an adaptation of Bloom’s framework, by Sanders (1966: 3), as shown in
Figure 1.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidade do Porto on December 14, 2016


figure 1
Sanders’ categories
of thinking
As Sanders explains, the ‘categories are sequential and cumulative. In other
words, each category of thinking has unique elements but also includes
some form of all the lower elements’ (ibid.: 9–10). They are thus in
a hierarchical relationship: work involving the earlier categories needs to
precede work of the kind which the later ones entail, a point which will be
returned to later.
Adams-Smith (op. cit.) very helpfully gives examples of the typical
questions associated with each of Sanders’ categories, and provides sample
language teaching activities illustrating each of them. Her article is thus
very useful for anyone with an interest in exploring the topic further.
However, it does not provide explanations of Sanders’ categories, even
though it is sometimes difficult to understand what they mean in E LT
terms. Furthermore, the sample activities are all ESP-related, are intended
for learners with a relatively advanced level of English, and do not illustrate
how the crucial area of ‘language focus’ work fits into the picture. These
features reduce the accessibility of the article for the teacher of general
English, who is likely to be less used to dealing with specialized subject-
matter, and for whom the teaching of grammar and other aspects of the
language system, often to learners of relatively low proficiency, is frequently
the central concern.

Development and This paper therefore attempts to complement Adams-Smith’s by


application i) further clarifying some aspects of the thinking categories and,
ii) showing how they can be applied to more ‘mainstream’ aspects
of E F L teaching. In order to do so, each of the categories is briefly
discussed and illustrated in turn, using a sequence of activities intended

320 Alan Waters


for a class of 10–11 year-old low-intermediate learners studying E F L in
a state sector educational institution. The language focus used to ‘frame’
the sample activities is concerned with the use of the imperative,
prepositions, and so on, in making simple instructions. The content
theme is about constructing simple paper (‘origami’) models. It should
be noted that not all the activities would be used in a single lesson or
sequence of lessons, a point which will be returned to. Also, while the
setting is regarded as a reasonably representative one, the overall purpose
is to use it to illustrate ideas which, it is hoped, are relevant to a wide
range of ELT situations.

1 Memory: the recall or recognition of information


‘Memory’ is the simplest and lowest of Sanders’ levels of thinking
(though, as with all the categories, it is nevertheless seen as playing

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidade do Porto on December 14, 2016


an important role in the learning process as a whole, an issue to be
discussed further). It involves showing the ability to remember or
identify information that has already been provided. It is thus factual
and product-oriented in focus. In terms of the lesson framework
mentioned above, an activity employing this level of thinking would
occur if the students were asked to re-order a jumbled set of
instructions relating to a text of some kind that they have been
studying, by means of a rubric such as
Put these instructions for making a paper model of a boat in the
right order.
In this situation, the students would first of all have been introduced to
a description of the stages involved in making such a model. The activity
therefore checks their comprehension of this information by seeing if
they can use their knowledge of the text to put the instructions in the
right sequence. An alternative activity, at the same level of thinking,
would involve giving the students the instructions in the right order, but
making some of them incorrect. The students would then be asked to
identify and correct the faulty ones.

2 Translation: changing information into a different symbolic


form or language
The meaning of the term ‘translation’ here is different from its
normal E LT usage. In this context, it refers to the kind of mental
processing involved in an ‘information transfer’ type of activity, in which
learners are asked, for example, to label and/or draw a diagram using
information in a written text. All the information is provided in one
medium: the thinking occurs as a result of attempting to reconstruct
it in a different one. In terms of the ‘origami lesson, thus, the learners
could be asked to change the set of instructions used in the ‘memory’
activity (i.e. ones showing the steps in making the model) into visual
form, for example
Use the instructions to make drawings of how to construct the boat.
or
Now use the instructions to make the boat.

Thinking and language learning 321


Alternatively, as a writing rather than a comprehension activity, the learners
could be asked to change a set of picture instructions into written form.
‘Translation’ involves a higher level of thinking than ‘memory’, because
the learners have to change the information from the original form into
a different one. However, these first two categories of thinking can also be
thought of as sharing a fundamental similarity, which distinguishes them
from all the others, viz: they both involve thinking ‘within the information
given’ (Bruner 1973). The information is provided for the students: their
main task is to show their understanding of it. Activities at these two levels
do not involve the learners in another main (and complementary) type of
thinking, i.e. ‘going beyond the information given’ (Bruner ibid.). However,
thinking of this kind is, of course, a further, essential part of the learning
process, because, to establish that learning has occurred, learners have

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidade do Porto on December 14, 2016


to show that they can transfer the ‘generalizable principle’ underlying
information studied in one context to a parallel but different one (Gagné
1975). All the other categories of thinking in Sanders’ taxonomy can be seen
to involve, in varying ways, this latter aspect of the learning process. In order
to clarify the overall nature of Sanders’ system, it can be divided up as shown
in Figure 2.

figure 2
Two main levels of
thinking
By adopting this perspective, it is possible in the first instance to size up
whether an E LT activity falls into one or other of the two superordinate levels
in the left-hand column. In this way, the crucial initial appreciation of
whether the activity involves thinking at the second, higher level, or only the
first, lower-level one, can be made. It also enables the teacher to make an
insightful initial ‘reconnaissance’ without getting too closely involved in
attempting to untangle the intricacies which sometimes beset attempting to
distinguish between the details of Sanders’ individual categories, especially
the remaining ones, the first of which is turned to next.

3 Interpretation: the discovery of relationships among facts,


generalizations, definitions, values, and skills
As with the ‘translation’ category, the meaning of ‘interpretation’ in Sanders’
system differs from the way the term tends to be used in ELT circles. It is
thus perhaps easier to grasp what is meant by focusing on the phrase which
forms the first part of the definition, i.e. ‘the discovery of relationships’.

322 Alan Waters


In E LT, this can mean, for example, a concern with creating understanding
of rules of grammar and the like—that is, with uncovering significant
regularities relating to knowledge of the language system. In the lesson in
question, a sample outline activity of this kind might take the following
form:

Language focus: the imperative


What form of the verb is used in imperatives? Look at the following
examples and then complete the rule.
Fold the paper in half.
Cut the paper into three equal parts.
(etc.)

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidade do Porto on December 14, 2016


r ul e: To make the imperative, we use the [infinitive] without [‘to’].

Other activities which can be seen as falling into this category are
language focus practice exercises, i.e. ones designed to reinforce and give
further understanding of how rules of this kind work, as well as those
which ask learners to look for logical relations in ‘non-linguistic’ content
(for example, in the context of this lesson, learners could be asked to say
how various procedures for making the same paper object are similar or
different).

4 Application: solving a lifelike problem that requires the


identification of the issue and the selection and use of appropriate
generalizations and skills
As we have seen, the ‘interpretation’ category is concerned with identifying
rules and the like. It is, however, of course, another matter to be able to
put such knowledge into practice in a life-like way. As its name this time
does imply, the ‘application’ category is concerned with putting language
knowledge, such as grammar rules and so on, into practice, by applying
the ‘generalizations’ derived from earlier activities to new content. Thus,
in the lesson in question, an activity involving thinking at this level might
take this form:
Use the drawings you have been given to write a set of instructions
for making a paper aeroplane.
In terms of the thinking involved, the main focus of this activity is on the
application of the language rules for forming simple instructions—the
content required (i.e. the steps involved in constructing the model) has been
provided for the students via the drawings (though it is not, of course, the
same content that was used in the earlier parts of the lesson). The learning
task the student faces is, therefore, not to work out how to make the object,
but ‘simply’ how to describe how it can be made, using the language data
and rules studied in the previous part of the lesson.
While this category of activity does involve the learner in ‘going beyond
the information given’, this occurs here at only the most basic level (thus
usefully allowing for the focus to be on the learning of only one ‘new’ area
of knowledge at a time).

Thinking and language learning 323


However, the remaining three categories, all also concerned with
promoting thinking that goes beyond the information given, provide
increasingly more challenging supplements to the kind of thinking
involved. They can therefore be thought of as further examples of how
the ‘application’ level of thinking can be catered for. The four levels as
a whole, in other words, are all concerned with various forms of ‘learning
by doing’ (Skehan op. cit.).

5 Analysis: solving a problem in the light of conscious knowledge


of the parts and forms of thinking
Once again, the term for this category differs in meaning from customary
ELT usage. As with the previous category, it involves a form of hands-on
learning, i.e. a life-like application of knowledge to achieve some kind of
goal. However, the analysis category requires students to take their thinking

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidade do Porto on December 14, 2016


‘one step further’ than the previous level. Instead of the students being
provided with the information they need in order to apply the ideas they
have been studying, the ‘analysis’ category involves students in showing
their ability to put knowledge into practice by getting them to use their own
content. In the case of the lesson in question, use of this category of thinking
could involve the students in making instructions for a paper model of some
other kind by using their own knowledge of how it is made, for example
Think of a paper model you know how to construct and write
instructions for making it.
Such an activity involves the students in having to think through both what
the steps involved in making their models are and how to express them
using the language studied in the previous activities. It therefore requires
a more advanced level of thinking than the previous level, where the
information needed to solve the first part of the problem (how to make
the model) is provided for the students.
Nevertheless, because the students are applying the language knowledge
to information that they are already familiar with, the extent to which they
are thinking beyond the information given is still somewhat circumscribed
in this category. Both of the remaining categories extend this kind of
thinking further.

6 Synthesis: solving a problem that requires original, creative thinking


In the ‘synthesis’ category, the level of thinking involved in attempting to
put knowledge into practice increases once again, because students have
to use what they have learned in the previous levels to solve what, for them,
is not an already familiar problem (as in the case of the ‘analysis’ level),
but, rather, a novel one. In the lesson under consideration, this level of
thinking might be represented by an activity in which the students were
required to make instructions for assembling an object which they do not
already know how to construct. They therefore have to think first of all,
‘from scratch’, about how such a model could be designed, and then how
to devise the instructions, for example
Think of a kind of paper model you haven’t made before (for example,
of a spaceship, an angel, etc.). Then create instructions for
constructing it.

324 Alan Waters


It is important to note that this activity differs from the previous ‘analysis’
one because, although the students have to work out the basic steps for
constructing the model in both cases, this task involves a greater degree of
creative thinking since the method for designing the model is not already
known to them. The extent to which the students have to think beyond the
information given is therefore no longer significantly circumscribed and
involves a higher-level, more creative type of applied learning than in the
previous categories.
Finally, in the last category, thinking of this kind is taken one stage further.

7 Evaluation: making a judgement of good or bad, right or wrong,


according to standards designated by the student
Here, the students must use the same kind of thinking as in the previous

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidade do Porto on December 14, 2016


level and also take into account how well their solution to the problem meets
a set of evaluation criteria for determining success or failure. In the sample
lesson, this might involve the students in showing how a given model,
whose construction is novel to them, can be made in the cheapest and/or
quickest and/or simplest way, for example
Think of a kind of paper model you haven’t made before (for example,
of a spaceship, an angel, etc.). Then create instructions for
constructing it in the simplest possible way.
An even more complex example of thinking of this kind would occur if
students were asked to be judges in a simulated or real origami competition,
and to give reasons for their ‘verdicts’.

Implications Two main implications arise from the above. First of all, it is important
to note that, as mentioned earlier, a lesson (or lesson series) on a given
topic would not normally include all of Sanders’ categories of thinking,
because, for example, some of the steps may already be sufficiently well
understood, any topic becomes boring if focused on for too long, and so
on. On the other hand, there is a case for seeing the kind of thinking involved
in the first four categories as the essential minimum needed for learning
to be demonstrated, since they encompass a basic learning cycle that i)
begins with creating ‘subsidiary awareness’ (Polanyi 1958) of the learning
point—the memory and translation categories, ii) moves on to establishing
‘focal awareness’ (Polanyi op. cit.)—that is, the interpretation category,
and then iii) provides for a ‘transfer’ (Gagné op. cit.) or ‘learning by doing’
(Skehan op. cit.) stage—the application category. Ideally, for reinforcement,
an activity involving the type of thinking associated with one of the
remaining categories might also be used, the appropriate choice depending
on a ‘reading’ of the students’ needs and capabilities at this point, and so
on. But the overall point is that the core sequence just outlined helps to
ensure that activities concerned with both of the two equally important
main types of thinking—‘staying within’ and ‘going beyond’ the
information—and, within the latter, the practical application of learning,
are included in the learning unit, and in a closely integrated manner.
Secondly, it should be noted that, in the sample lesson activities above,
although the level of thinking gradually increases, the level of language
remains unchanged. Thus, in the case of all the main sample activities, what

Thinking and language learning 325


is required is first of all an ability to recognize the language of simple
instructions, and then, in later stages, to be able also to produce such
language. However, even the evaluation activity—involving, as it does, the
highest level of thinking—requires language which is, in essence, no more
complex than that involved at all the other levels. In all cases, the main
language ‘product’ required is a set of simply-expressed instructions. This
shows that it is possible to combine activities which involve relatively simple
language with complex thinking (and that activities involving complex
thinking do not necessarily require complex language).
Indeed, it can be argued that learners with low levels of language have a
particular need for activities which are not only linguistically manageable
but also cognitively challenging. This is because such learners may feel
reduced to a state of psychological infancy by the way their limited

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidade do Porto on December 14, 2016


language knowledge constrains their means of self-expression (cf. Stevick
1996: 165–72). It is thus perhaps especially important for learners of this kind
to be given opportunities to use their normal cognitive abilities as much as
possible in the course of their language learning experiences, in order to foster
a healthier, more ‘adult’ psychological frame of mind: as the philosopher
Descartes famously said, ‘Cogito ergo sum’ (‘I think, therefore I am’).

Conclusion The use of activities involving problem-solving and other more complex
types of thinking has become increasingly common in recent years.
However, there are some parts of the E LT world where this trend has not
yet become widespread. It is hoped that the conceptual framework and
sample activities provided in this article will help those teaching in such
situations to see how activities which stimulate thinking at a variety of
different levels can be used in an integrated way, and with learners who
do not have a high level of knowledge of English as much as those
who are more advanced.
Final revised version received January 2005

Note Gagné, R. 1975. Essentials of Learning for


1 Many of the ideas on which this paper is based Instruction. (Expanded edition) Dryden Press.
developed while I was working with the Gleitman, H. 1995. Psychology (Fourth edition).
Philippines ELT Project (1995–1999). New York: W. W. Norton and Co. Inc.
Nelson, J. N., K. Chan, and A. Swan. 1999.
References Longman English Express Book 1A. Hong Kong:
Adams-Smith, D. 1981. ‘Levels of questioning: Addison Wesley Longman China Ltd.
teaching creative thinking through ES P’. English Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the
Teaching Forum. January 15–17: 21. Communicative Classroom. New York: Cambridge
Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational University Press.
Objectives. New York: Longmans, Green. Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge. London:
Bruner, J. 1973. Going Beyond the Information Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Given. New York: Norton. Sanders, N. M. 1966. Classroom Questions—What
Cai, Y. 2003. ‘Classroom interaction: an analysis Kinds? New York: Harper and Row.
and evaluation of EF L teachers’ questions in Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language
China’s setting’. Unpublished MA dissertation. Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lancaster University. Soars, L. and J. Soars. 2003. New Headway
Ellis, R. 1996. The Study of Second Language Intermediate Student’s Book. Oxford: Oxford
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. University Press.

326 Alan Waters


Stevick E. W. 1996. Memory, Meaning and Method The author
(Second edition). Boston, MA: Heinle and Alan Waters is a Senior Lecturer in the
Heinle. Department of Linguistics and English Language
Waters, A. 2004. ‘E LT Activities Questionnaire— at Lancaster University, England. His current
summary of findings.’ Available at http:// main interests are in language teacher learning
www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/alan/summary.pdf. and the management of innovation in language
education.
Email: A.Waters@lancaster.ac.uk

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidade do Porto on December 14, 2016

Thinking and language learning 327

You might also like