Integrating Critical Thinking Skills into EFL Programs
Anthony S. D’Ath
Korea University (Seoul Campus), Korea
The purpose of this workshop was to present components of critical thinking skills that can be
integrated into an Academic English program for EFL university students in Korea and
extended to other relevant EFL programs. The particular approach adopted by the presenter
was logic intensive: an approach not uncommon in some non-EFL critical thinking courses
(MacPherson, 1998). The lesser developed and yet highly relevant component of this approach
was that of focusing on techniques for enhancing foreign language acquisition specifically
through the skill sets involved in the study of selected topics in logic. That foreign language
acquisition can be enhanced through such means was the central claim of this workshop and
this claim has some recent research support (Safranj, 2016). Methodology and relevant
exercises were presented in four segments to support this claim, from the basics in argument
structures through to advanced functions in definition and dispute identification.
INTRODUCTION
In many university ESL and EFL programs there is a demand for ‘content-based material’.
The effectiveness of “high-interest ‘compelling’ input in multiple language acquisition” was
something highlighted by Stephen Krashen (n.d.) in his plenary address at the 2018 KOTESOL
International Conference entitled: ‘The Secrets of Hyper-polygots.’ The integration of critical
thinking skills into EFL (and ESL) programs is a potentially fertile approach to this challenge.
This workshop focused on such a dimensional approach with engaging and interactive material for
the use of language acquisition, simultaneously endeavoring to enhance students’ logical and
general analytical abilities. As proposed by Gardiner (1983) in his groundbreaking book “Frames
of Mind” there are multiple intelligences in which this kind of criteria, the fourth in Gardiner’s
seven abilities for meeting intelligence modality criteria: the logical-mathematical, can have
relevance to the field of language learning.
With the title ‘Integrating Critical Thinking Skills into EFL programs,’ the parameters of
integration are entirely flexible and the content may be incorporated as a module, or modules, in a
more general curriculum, or, as has also been done by the presenter of this workshop, it can be
taught as a specialized course (elective) related to language acquisition.
This workshop report will now proceed in a similar format as the workshop, starting with
a presentation of the use of basic logical concepts: propositions, premises, conclusions, deductive
and inductive arguments, truth and validity. From this foundation, this paper proceeds to analysis
of arguments, highlighting techniques of argument recognition and diagraming. All these skills
culminate in one of the most dynamic components: solving problems through reasoning. The third
segment, ‘the uses of language’, is in some ways the most relevant in the field of language
acquisition, although requiring a more advanced level of proficiency. It also lays the foundation to
move into the fourth segment of ‘definitions’ in which interactive exercises in dispute
identification are presented. Two other relevant segments have been omitted due to time
constraints in the workshop. These were an extension of the last section of ‘disputes and definitions’
into ‘definitions and their uses,’ and one of the core topics: fallacies. Just treatment of these topics
would involve a workshop of similar length.
SEGMENT 1: THE BASICS
A. Propositions
In the first lecture of the elective course I teach, and also when introducing the module in
the general academic English program, a definition and brief explanation of the nature of
‘propositions’ is given. Providing an awareness of what distinguishes a proposition from other
forms of utterance is an expedient starting point. The distinguishing component of a proposition is
that it contains a truth-function. To make this more salient, students are shown that the truthfunction need not necessarily be determined, for example, in the proposition ‘There is life on other
planets in our galaxy.’ Furthermore, propositions are not confined to any given language, for the
same proposition can be expressed in almost any known language. Thirdly, propositions are not to
be confused with sentences: the same proposition can be expressed by two grammatically different
sentences: ‘John read the book,’ ‘The book was read by John.’ Fourthly, there are simple
propositions of which only one truth or falsity is expressed, and there are compound propositions
containing two or more simple propositions. Students are asked how many propositions they can
identify in a sentence like the following:
“The British were at the gates of Hamburg and Brenen and threatening to cut off
Germany from occupied Denmark.” (Shirer,1960 as cited in Copi, M. & Cohen, C.
2005, p. 6)
Brief mention can also be made of two special kinds of propositions that do not assert the
truth of their components as in the case of propositions using ‘or’ (disjunctive or alternative) and
propositions using ‘if’, ‘then’ (hypothetical or conditional). In the first case, the proposition is false
if both its components are false. In the second case, the proposition is false if the antecedent is true
and the consequent is false.i
Once this fundamental building block has been shaped, it is then easy to provide definitions
of other elementary terms such as ‘premise’ and ‘conclusion’, along with ‘argument’ and
‘inference’. Understanding the concept of ‘inference’: “a process of linking propositions by
affirming one proposition (conclusion) on the basis of one or more other propositions (premise(s),”
(Copi, M. & Cohen, C. 2005 p 7 parenthesis insertion mine) is of profound significance, if not
deceptively simple.
It was at this stage that the first task set was introduced in the workshop. This involved
exercises in which students were asked to identify premises and conclusions in passages (primarily
conclusions). It was shown how this could be made relatively simple with passages containing
what are commonly termed premise and conclusion indicators. Premise indicators use such words
or phrases as since, because, for, for the reason that etc., conclusion indicators use such words or
phrases as therefore, hence, so, for these reasons.
Presenting students with passages that contained no such indicators can make the task more
challenging. On the first task sheet distributed in this workshop, problems like the following were
distributed and participants were asked just to identify the conclusions.
“We can avert a majority of cancers by prevention efforts, even if we can never get straight
on the causes; more research on prevention and less on cure makes increasing sense.”
(Callahan, 1995 as cited in Copi, M. & Cohen, C. 2005, p. 10)
Having students reinsert the conclusion and/or the premise indicators often led to a correct
answer and adequate comprehension of that answer. Furthermore, although the vocabulary used
in this kind of example may seem difficult for lower level students, dictionary usage led to an
adequate level of comprehension in most cases. Quizzes and exams with these kinds of problems
were entirely open book. I advocate that understanding this kind of relationship between premise(s)
and conclusion(s) expressed in a foreign language can do much in terms of enhancing students
comprehension level of the kinds of passages presented here.
B. Inductive and Deductive Arguments, Truth and Validity
With a clear definition of the term ‘argument’ given as “a structured group of propositions,
reflecting an inference” (Copi, M. & Cohen, C. 2005 p 7), a straightforward distinction can be
made between an inductive and deductive argument. Inductive arguments are those in which the
conclusion can only become more or less likely, while deductive arguments are those in which the
conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily. This leads into the next component in this segment on
the basics, which was to have students recognize the difference between ‘truth’ which applies only
to propositions, and ‘validity’ which applies only to arguments. Using this terminology, arguments
are not true or false, but rather only valid or invalid.
The second set of tasks presented displayed exercises in which students are required to
distinguish valid from invalid argument forms. This involved the (initially puzzling to some
students) claim that arguments can contain false premises and conclusions and yet remain valid.
Strictly, from the point of view of logic, a valid argument is one that cannot have true premises
and a false conclusion. Cases were shown like the following:
[F] “All four-legged creatures have wings.
[F] All spiders have four legs.
[F] Therefore all spiders have wings.” (Copi, M. & Cohen, C. 2005, p. 17)
In such cases, if the premises were true, the conclusion would necessarily follow, making
the argument valid. It could then be emphasized to students for debate purposes that in less obvious
cases, the premises need to be attacked, but not the argumentative form itself. An exercise sheet
was distributed in the workshop showing a large combination of valid and invalid argument forms
in order to get students more familiar with some of those forms. Getting students to explain the
reason for invalidity has proven to be a useful language acquisition tool. For example, in a
simplified invalid argument form:
If I have a credit card, I can make an online purchase.
I do not have a credit card.
Therefore I cannot make an online purchase.
the student is almost compelled to give the explanation that there are other ways to make an online
purchase, and the vocabulary is readily available if they are not already familiar with it. To
illustrate a slightly more sophisticated case, below is a valid argument form with what appears as
a more contestable conclusion:
“If it is morally permissible to kill an 8 month old fetus, then it is morally permissible to
kill a newborn infant.
It is not morally permissible to kill a newborn infant.
Therefore, it is not morally permissible to kill an 8 month old fetus.” (Rubin, M. n.d.)
The truth of the first proposition would need to be attacked for a refutation of the argument,
and students may readily be motivated to do so. Teachers are encouraged to find relevant valid and
invalid argument forms that students will readily respond to with explanations.
SEGMENT 2: ANALYZING ARGUMENTS
A. The Power of the Enthymeme
In this workshop, I advocated enthymemes as being a powerful tool to enhance language
acquisition and clarity in structure. An enthymeme is defined as “an argument containing an
unstated proposition.” (Copi, M. & Cohen, C. 2005 p 36) The set of exercises distributed in relation
to this involved having students formulate a missing proposition which could take the form of a
premise or a conclusion in the argument. This also integrated and further cemented more of the
basics mentioned above. Exercises contained arguments such as the following:
“All physicians are college graduates, so all members of the American Medical Association
must be college graduates.” (Copi, M. & Cohen, C. 2005, p. 283)
The first step in formulating the unstated proposition is to employ some of the basics
covered in the previous segment and discover if it is a conclusion or premise that is missing. The
presence of a conclusion indicator ‘so’ suggests that a premise is missing. In order to make the
conclusion follow necessarily, the missing premise can be formulated as, “All members of the
American Medical Association are physicians.” In Academic English Foundation level classes
tested at Korea University, as high as ninety percent of students were correctly formulating these
kind of missing propositions, in many cases with improved sentence syntax from their usual syntax.
I suggest that understanding the enthymeme also improves coherence in language, although further
testing would be required to prove this.
Another example with an unformulated conclusion, as opposed to an unformulated premise
can be given as:
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
(George Orwell, 1984 as cited in Copi, M. & Cohen, C. 2005, p. 285)
In this case neither a premise nor conclusion indicator appear in the passage. Yet, if the
two propositions are taken to be true, the result is seen to follow necessarily. In this case the
proposition, “Who controls the present controls the future.” Again, in test situations, more than
ninety percent of students at the above-mentioned level, were correctly formulating this kind of
proposition with improved syntax.
B. Argument Diagraming
Another powerful tool for enhancing comprehension levels in language acquisition is to be
found in the employment of argument diagramming. In this case a two-dimensional representation
of an argument showing the relationship between premises and conclusions is given. Workshop
participants were presented with such diagrams and methods for creating student exercises with
those diagrams. The scope of this cannot be fully presented here. Below is a simplified sample
exercise.
Instructions: Choose the best diagram for the argument(s) stated in the following passages. Then
write the proposition numbers correctly into the diagram
“(1) Genes and proteins are discovered, not invented. (2) Inventions are patentable,
discoveries are not. (3) Thus, protein patents are intrinsically flawed.” (Alroy, 2000 as cited
in Copi, M. & Cohen, C. 2005, p. 28)
a
b.
c.
2
1
3
In this case ‘b’ shows a correct relationship between premises and the conclusion in the
above passage. Proposition 3 is identified as the conclusion and is numbered in the lowest circle
on a vertical plane. Premises 1 and 2 need to corroborate to establish the conclusion and are
connected with a horizontal line. Note that in case ‘a’ the conclusion could follow independently
from each premise. In case ‘c’ there is a [sub]conclusion that becomes a premise for a main
conclusion. For specific examples of these cases, along with more complex combinations, refer to
Copi’s Introduction to Logic. My innovation was to create multi-choice exercises with the
propositions numbered for the students. Studying the relationships between the propositions and
representing that relationship in the above diagram form clearly enhances comprehension skills
using a more visual dynamic in which most students could fully engage.
C. Solving Problems in Reasoning
Some of the most positive feedback in the courses where this program has been
implemented has come from this component focusing on the application of many of the above skill
sets to solve problems that require reasoning for their solution. Participants in this workshop were
given one (of many) problem(s) that had been presented to students in the critical thinking elective
and asked to apply reasoning skills. The sample problem was as follows:
“In a certain mythical community, politicians never tell the truth, and nonpoliticians always
tell the truth. A stranger meets three natives and asks one of them, “Are you a politician?”
The first native answers the question. The second native then reports that the first native
denied being a politician. The third native says that the first native is a politician.
How many of these three natives are politicians?ii (Copi, M. &Cohen, C. 2005, p.65)
Understanding this kind of problem does not require a high level of comprehension in the
foreign language and having students reason it out (with some solution strategies being provided)
has led to some vigorous discussion (as also occurred in this workshop).
SEGMENT 3: THE USES OF LANGUAGE
As mentioned in the introduction, this segment relates more directly with language
acquisition. The topics of basic functions of language, discourse serving multiple functions and
language forms and language functions have tremendous potential for development in language
courses. However, just the topics of distinguishing emotive and neutral language and
distinguishing agreement and disagreement in attitude and belief were given brief mention in this
workshop.
With regard to distinguishing emotive and neutral language, the nature of how words with
the same meaning, for example “bureaucrat,” “government official,” and “public servant,” have
different emotional impact was highlighted. Understanding more about this, along with the general
nature of euphemisms, was instrumental in developing the second distinction mentioned above
between ‘belief’ and ‘attitude’. Here, belief is defined more in terms of what can be established
through reason and argument, while attitude is defined as more of an arbitrary value one holds.
Attitude therefore connects more with the emotional impact given to words, while belief at least
aspires to greater emotional neutrality and a reasoning process.
While time parameters prevented exercises on this being given in the workshop, students
in both my critical thinking elective and academic English programs have been given exercises
whereby they are asked to distinguish agreement and/or disagreement in belief and attitude in short
passages. This also proved instrumental in enhancing the students’ understanding of the language.
For example, take two proverbial expressions:
“a. A stitch in time saves nine.
b. Better late than never.” (Copi, M. & Cohen, C. 2005, p. 88)
Here we can see that both ‘a’ and ‘b’ could agree in belief that time is important, but may disagree
in attitude about how they value time.
Only students at an upper intermediate level to an advanced level could really begin to
master some of this material. However, at these levels, much can be done to enhance understanding
of the second or foreign language. This segment also becomes quite pivotal for mastering the final
segment dealt with in this workshop, namely, disputes and definitions.
SEGMENT 4: DISPUTES AND DEFINITIONS
The final segment of this workshop built on the skill sets from the previous segment in
order to venture into exercises in which students are required to identify three different kinds of
language disputes: obviously genuine, merely verbal and apparently verbal but really genuine.
Although this material had been presented to students at an upper intermediate to advanced level
in academic English programs, the level of difficulty in mastering these exercises suggests that it
is more appropriate for advanced levels, or solely within a critical thinking course.
An obviously genuine dispute is defined as one in which there is a clash of belief (as defined
in the previous section) which can be corrected. For example, a dispute over the exact height of a
building. This can be fact checked and resolved. It can also be a dispute involving a direct clash
of attitudes (values). For example, whether soccer or baseball is a more enjoyable sport.
A merely verbal dispute is one that can be resolved once the meaning of some key word or
phrase is clarified. For example:
“Daye: Helen lives a long way from campus. I walked out to see her the other
day, and it took me nearly two hours to get there.
Knight: No, Helen doesn’t live such a long way from campus. I drove her home
last night, and we reached her place in less than ten minutes.”
(Copi, M. & Cohen, C. 2005, p. 96)
In this case clarifying what is meant by ‘a long way’: if it is by car or by foot, should resolve
the dispute.
Thirdly, apparently verbal but really genuine disputes are given as those in which there is
some ambiguous word or phrase, however, even after identifying that word or phrase, the dispute
will not be resolved. For example:
“Daye: Ann is an excellent student. She takes a lively interest in everything and
asks very intelligent questions in class.
Knight: Ann is one of the worst students I’ve ever seen. She never gets her
assignments in on time.” (Copi, M. & Cohen, C. 2005, p. 95)
“In this case Daye and Knight seem to disagree on the meaning of ‘good/excellent student’
– but the dispute appears to be about the criteria for ‘good/excellent student’. They also seem to
disagree in attitude towards Ann.”iii
Workshop participants were presented with a few other similar disputes and asked to
categorize them by the above criteria. Similar exercises have been given to students in academic
English programs and critical thinking courses. In smaller groups students were asked to reach
consensus on a categorization and explanation of that categorization. At an advanced level some
lively debate has taken place with the potential for an enhanced understanding of the language
structures involved, particularly in terms of socio-linguistic skill sets.
CONCLUSIONS
Integrating Critical Thinking Skills into EFL programs is a dimensional approach among
many for adding potentially “high-interest ‘compelling’ input in multiple language acquisition.”
Using the more logic intensive content covered in this workshop, strategies have been given for
enhancing foreign language acquisition through employment of the relevant critical thinking skills
covered in each segment. More time was spent with the basic building blocks in this workshop:
preposition, premise, conclusion and argument validity. Some methods of enhancing language
proficiency, even at this foundation level, were given. From this starting point, the workshop
moved into developing skill sets in such topics as identifying missing propositions (enthymemes),
two-dimensional visual representation of arguments (diagramming), and solving problems in
reasoning, which are proffered as providing further potential for engaging input in language
acquisition. The more advanced functions of distinguishing emotive and neutral language for the
purposes of then identifying distinctions between attitude and belief were employed as a means
for deeper comprehension of a foreign language. Finally, this led into exercises in dispute and
definition recognition that with further development would expand both language proficiency and
socio-linguistic skills.
THE AUTHOR
Anthony (Tony) S. D’Ath, completed a B.A. double major in English Literature and Philosophy
and a Master’s degree in Philosophy at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. He has held the position
of Assistant Professor at The Institute of Foreign Language Studies, Korea University (Seoul Campus)
since 2013. He has held teaching positions at university level in Korea since 1998 at four different
universities in and nearby Seoul for a period of no less than four years at each university.
REFERENCES
Copi, M. & Cohen, C. (2005). Introduction to Logic (12th ed.). New Jersey; Pearson Education,
Inc.
Gardiner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Book
Krashen,
S.
(n.d.).
The
Secrets
of
Hyper-polygots.
Retrieved
from
https://koreatesol.org/content/stephen-krashen
MacPherson, B. (Summer 1998). The Place of Formal Logic in Critical Thinking Courses. Journal
of Thought Vol. 33 No. 2 pp37-47
Rubin, M. (n.d.). Logic Worksheet. Retrieved from https://people.umass.edu/klement/100/logicworksheet.html
Safranj, J. (2016). Logical/Mathematical Intelligence in Teaching English as a Second Language.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 232, Pages 75-82
i
For further explanation of these kinds of propositions, refer to Copi and Cohen, 2005 initially on p. 6-7 and
throughout the text.
ii
This problem can be reasoned out in the following way: “If the first native is a politician, then he lies and denies
being a politician. If the first native is not a politician, then he tells the truth and denies being a politician. In either
case, then, the first native denies being a politician.
Since the second native reports that the first native denies being a politician, he tells the truth, and is,
therefore, a nonpolitician.
The third native asserts that the first native is a politician. If the first native is a politician, then the third
native speaks the truth and is, therefore, a nonpolitician. If the first native is a nonpolitician, then the third native
lies and is, therefore, a politician. Hence only one of the first and third natives is a politician, and since the second
is a nonpolitician, there is only one politician among the three natives.” (Copi and Cohen, 2005, p.586)
iii
CD-ROM eLogic Exercises in Logic for Essentials of Logic and Introduction to Logic, Twelfth Edition Irving M. Copi,
Carl Cohen, 2005.