Interdisciplinary Learning to Promote Critical Thinking Skills in Thai EFL Students

การเรยนรแบบบรณาการเพอพฒนาทกษะการคดวเคราะห ของผเรยนชาวไทยทเรยนภาษาองกฤษในฐานะภาษาตางประเทศ

ธรนช อนฤทธ

Teeranuch Anurit

Abstract This study investigates the impact of interdisciplinary learning on the enhancement of critical thinking skills in Thai university students learning English as a foreign language. The study took place in the first semester of the 2012 academic year at Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai. Sixteen students in the study were divided into two groups – eight each – the experimental and the control group. The control group received single disciplinary learning. Students in this group were enrolling on English Literature 2 (EL2) and other major elective course(s); while, the experimental group experienced interdisciplinary learning, enrolling in the tool subjects: English Literature 2 (EL2) and Understanding Cultures through Cinema (UCC). The gain in critical thinking skills was assessed by twenty-nine open-ended questions grouped by cognitive domain in Bloom’s taxonomy. Then content analysis with the priori coding approach was used for data analysis. The results showed that the experimental group had higher critical thinking skills compared to the control group. Therefore, it was confirmed that the interdisciplinary learning was effective in promoting critical thinking skills in Thai EFL students. Keywords: critical thinking skills and interdisciplinary learning

บทคดยอ

การวจยนมวตถประสงคเพอส ารวจผลกระทบของการเรยนรแบบบรณาการตอการพฒนาทกษะการคดวเคราะหของผ เรยนระดบอดมศกษาชาวไทยทเรยนภาษาองกฤษในฐานะภาษาตางประเทศ โดยเปนการวจยเชงคณภาพมการเกบขอมลในภาคการศกษาท 1 ปการศกษา 2555 ณ มหาวทยาลยแมฟาหลวง จงหวดเชยงราย จากผ เรยนจ านวน 16 คน ซงแบงออกเปน 2 กลม กลมละ 8 คน คอ กลมทดลองและกลมควบคม ประชากรในกลมควบคมไดรบการจดการเรยนรแบบรายวชาเดยว คอ รายวชาวรรณคดองกฤษ 2 และรายวชาชพเลอกวชาอน โดยไมมการบรณาการระหวางรายวชา สวนประชากรในกลมทดลองเรยนรายวชาวรรณคดองกฤษ 2 และรายวชาการศกษาวฒนธรรมผานภาพยนตร ซงทงสองรายวชานมการบรณาการเขาดวยกน ในการวจยนมการประเมนทกษะการคดวเคราะหของผ เรยนโดยการสมภาษณจากค าถามปลายเปดทงสน 29 ค าถาม ซงมการแบงเปน 6 กลมตามทฤษฎการเรยนรของ Bloom และใชการวเคราะหเนอหาในการวเคราะหขอมลทไดจากการสมภาษณ ผลของการวจยนแสดงใหเหนวากลมทดลองมพฒนาการทางการคดวเคราะหสงกวากลมควบคม ดงนนจงสามารถยนยนไดวาการจด การเรยนรแบบบรณาการชวยพฒนาทกษะการคดวเคราะหของผ เรยนชาวไทยทเรยนภาษาองกฤษในฐานะภาษาตางประเทศไดเปนอยางด ค าส าคญ: ทกษะการคดวเคราะห และการเรยนรแบบบรณาการ

Introduction The present global society with high competition in politics and economy is in the need of human resources who have critical thinking skills in order to create innovation, improve current products and find plausible solutions for problems. However, the critical thinking skills of Thais are still in trouble (Thompson, 2011). The concern about critical thinking was presented in Thai Basic Education Core Curriculum 2008, only five years ago; although, critical thinking has been urged as an educational goal in western countries for over fifty years (Ennis, 1993). According to a survey by Organizational and People Development Consultancy (APM Group), Thais lack critical thinking skills due to a Thai educational model in which “Thai students [are] taught to listen, not to question.” Thai education is rote learning and memorization that obstructs the thinking abilities of Thai learners which is reflected in the assessment of PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) and EF English Proficiency Index of Education First (EF). Thailand has been in the low level of every test. (Bangkokbiznews, 2012; The Nation, 2011). In EF English Proficiency Index assessed in 44 countries in which English is not the native language, Thailand was ranked 42nd in the group of “Very Low Proficiency” (Wongsumran, 2013). Therefore, it should be questioned if pedagogical approaches currently and widely used in English teaching and learning in Thailand enhance learners’ thinking abilities or not.

In Thailand’s English teaching and learning, the communicative approach has been broadly applied since it is believed that this method can promote learners’ English fluency as the communicative approach brings language into “the contextual and/or situational circumstances in which it is used” (Widdowson, 1978). In fact, it has long been criticized that in real practice of communicative approach language learners could not apply language in daily authentic situations. In addition, because of misinterpretation of the communicative approach by emphasizing fluency over accuracy, learners ignored the meaning of language; they merely repeated what they had heard. Learners memorized and unknowingly reproduced the language (Ryan, 2001 & Swan 1985). In short, the approach became the rote learning; learners memorized and repeated without thinking or even understanding the language. Ryan (2001) added that in the classroom of communicative practice, learners depended on instructors’ feedback. Learners were not able to judge their own language performance. As a result, learners were unable to understand language, produce language and evaluate themselves. This means that learners can achieve merely the first level – remembering – of the revised cognitive domain in Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). They are incapable to attain the higher-thinking skills of the cognitive domain. There are six levels in the revised Bloom’s cognitive domain consisting of remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating. The latter four domains are considered higher-level thinking in which learners’ critical thinking ability is employed (Huitt, 2011). Thus, there have been some attempts to embed critical thinking skills in English teaching and learning, as critical

thinking is an essential skill of all higher forms of thinking: intellectual curiosity, self-directed learning, knowledge applying, problem solving and self correcting (Ganly, 2010; Phoongprasert & Teeranon, 2013; Thompson, 2011; Zhang, 2003).

The realization of the importance of critical thinking skills over decades has

made the critical thinking the focus of many former studies (Bijani, 2012). Even though there are attempts to give a definition to critical thinking, it cannot be universally defined; it is subjective to each individual. Critical thinking is the process of actively and analytically gathering information, content, facts, theories and then the process of effectively and reflectively applying all information into practice such as making effective decisions, creating innovations and solving problems. Also, self-regulation and evaluation are utilized throughout the thinking process (Cranton, 1994; Ennis, 1993; Facione, 2009; Ganly, 2010; Paul & Elder, 2008; Phoongprasertying & Teeranon, 2013; The Critical Thinking Community, 2013). Moreover, Sumner (1940) stated that critical thinking was the test to examine if something corresponded to reality or not; and as the prevention of "delusion, deception, superstition, and misapprehension." From several concepts and ideas about critical thinking mentioned above, it can be concluded that critical thinking skills are the application of knowledge into practice and the ability of self-evaluation.

Even though critical thinking skills have been one of the prominent interests

in education sphere, there is only a small amount of research concerning this issue. Moreover, the results of studies on improving learners’ critical thinking skills are inconsistent. Some were successful in enhancing learners’ critical thinking skills, but some had only a small effect on learners. Unfortunately, there was more research that had an insignificant impact on learners’ critical thinking skills. Bijani (2012) was doing well in investigating the potential impact of explicit training of critical thinking programs on teachers and e-learning instruction on students. After the training program, teachers’ critical thinking ability, which was measured by the Cornell Critical Thinking Test (Level X), was found higher than before the training. For students, the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) was used, and it was found that the experimental group had significantly higher critical thinking ability than those in the control group. This result is in line with the study of Khodadady and Ghanizadeh (2011) though the research tool used was different from that of Khodadady and Ghanizadeh who used “concept mapping” to induce critical thinking skills and Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA) to assess learners’ critical thinking ability. Additionally, Davidson and Dunham (1997) assessed progress in critical thinking after a year of intensive academic English instruction among two groups of Japanese students. The control group received only content-based intensive English instruction; while an experimental group received critical thinking training. The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test was employed to measure learners’ critical thinking skills; it resulted in significantly higher scores for the experimental group (p<.001).

However, this study added the special training of critical thinking, so it was unquestionable that students’ critical thinking in the treatment group was higher than that of the control group.

In contrast, there are some studies that did not show a great impact of teaching methods on the increase of critical thinking ability in EFL students. McGuire (2010) applied the method of direct instruction in rhetorical analysis to improve students’ critical thinking and perceptions of critical thinking. As a result, the students had strengthened view of critical thinking and their own critical thinking ability, but the study found merely a slight difference between the pretest and posttest scores of their critical thinking capability evaluated by the California Critical Thinking Skills Test 2000 and the Pre- and Post-Critical Thinking Surveys. This result is in accordance with the work of Alagozlu (2007); the argumentative essays of 76 EFL students were analyzed by Stapleton’s criteria to seek the elements of critical thinking. It was found that the research tool did not have crucial impact on developing learners’ critical thinking ability. Similarly, the study of Gomez (2010) presented that structured reading lessons did not have significant effect on the development of college students' critical thinking skills evaluated by the California Critical Thinking Test. Likewise, Yang’s study (2009) on using blogs to improve critical reflection displayed that the research tool did not have any significant influence on the increase of students’ critical thinking. Apparently, there was too small amount of prior studies playing a crucial role in enhancing critical thinking skills among students, and most of them aimed at students’ improvement of critical thinking skills in a single disciplinary class. A discipline is a particular subject matter, branch of learning or body of knowledge. Disciplines differ from one another; each discipline has its view and assumption about the world, problems, topics and issues that create its subject matter. (Huber & Morreale, 2002; Newell & Green, 1982; and Shulman, 2002). Due to the inconsistent results of former studies concerning critical thinking, interdisciplinary learning became researchers’ novel interest in promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Interdisciplinary learning is also called cross-curricular learning and integrative learning, for it is the interaction, integration, collaboration or cooperation between subjects or disciplines (Savage, 2010; Vogt, 1997). Interdisciplinary learning is the integration of multidisciplinary knowledge domains, learning, teachers and learners across a sharing theme or focus. The repetitive exposure to interdisciplinary ideas develops learners' critical thinking and metacognitive skill as well as an understanding of the relations among views attained from different disciplines. (Ivanitskaya, Clark, Montgomery & Primeau, 2002). From principles of the interdisciplinary approach such as sensitivity and synthesis of knowledge, skills and understanding of various subject areas, authentic links between subjects and the focus on learning process, (Savage, 2010) interdisciplinary learning benefits learners’ thinking skills and motivation. Learners have to recall and apply their prior in-class and out-of-class knowledge, principles, values and experiences

to create links among various academic disciplines (Vogt, 1997). So learners actively participate in the learning process because they see the value of what they are learning not only in an academic way but also in their daily lives (Resnick 1989). Accordingly, learners’ application of knowledge from a course to others and to authentic situations greatly affects their thinking ability and motivation in learning. Presented in a great number of recent works, interdisciplinary instruction has succeeded in enhancing learners’ critical thinking competence in English classes and non-English classes. Phoongprasertying and Teeranon (2013) found that learners' thinking abilities: analyzing, criticizing and reflecting, were increased by "cross-class learning sessions" which adopted principles of interdisciplinary learning in conducting in-class activities of two classes - Academic English 2 and Writing 3. This is in line with the work of Elliot, Oty, McArthur and Clark (2001), Power and Jones-Walkers (2005) and Wheland, Donovan, Dukes, Qammar, Smith and Williams (2013). These studies’ result presented that interdisciplinary practice had an important effect on learners’ thinking skills such as critical thinking, collaborative problem-solving skills, planning skills and positive attitudes toward the course. Despite the successful outcomes of previous research about critical thinking that was done in interdisciplinary learning context, work about critical thinking skills in an Asian context, particularly in English teaching and learning, is still not taken into account. This is probably because of the nature of the Asian social structures and values in which collectivism and power distance are embodied. Asians are less critical and are reluctant to debate or to show strong opinions; consequently, works about critical thinking skills are unpopular in Asia (Hofstede, 1997). Similarly, in Thai society, collectivism and power distance are exhibited in Thai characteristics. Thais are considered ego-oriented which is reflected through the values of "face-saving" and "criticism-avoidance". Thus, criticism is seriously regarded as an insult that should be avoided. Unquestionably, critical ideas are not displayed, mainly in classrooms where power distance plays a key role between instructors and learners (Claydon, 2012). Learners, the less powerful member, neither dare to question, differ nor criticize instructors, the more powerful members. Due to the lack of critical thinking study in Thai EFL context, the present study focuses on the critical thinking skills of Thai EFL students through the interdisciplinary learning which is the collaboration between two courses – English Literature 2 (EL2) and Understanding Cultures through Cinema (UCC). These courses were selected to be integrated since despite the different mediums – written texts in EL2 and motion pictures in UCC – objectives, content, teaching and learning methods and the assessment in the two courses were similar. For the objectives, there are five comparable main points that after completing the courses, learners will be able to: 1) analyze the main idea of the story (in text or film) 2) identify short story elements in EL2 and film properties in UCC 3) make connections from the story with their lives 4) infer the

issues of historical, social and cultural background; and 5) apply the knowledge learned in class to compose a short story for EL2 and the produce a short film for UCC.

The content focused on elements of short stories (in EL2) and those of films (in UCC); plus cultural, social issues and values reflected in literary works and films. In addition, the courses applied similar teaching and learning methods of small group and class discussion. For the assessment, EL2 and UCC employed assignments and quizzes instead of midterm exam and a final project in place of a final exam – a short story project (in EL2) and a short film (in UCC). Consequently, instructors could see the possible integration and collaboration of these two courses. Therefore, in order to integrate EL2 and UCC, short stories and films were selected for developing lesson plans in order to support each other and to avoid overlapping contents and to finally achieve the objectives of both courses. Teaching method of Literature Circles was chosen, for this approach engaged learners in group and class discussion. Learners had chances to express and develop their critical ideas. Moreover, assignments and quizzes with open-ended questions are another way for learners to critically assess their beliefs, views, interpretation and analysis of short stories and movies (Cranton, 1994). In addition, the agreement about the final project was made that the final project of UCC was a short film developed from a short story written in EL2. Therefore, students needed to combine and apply knowledge from two courses, such as elements of a short story/film, social and cultural issues and the process of short story writing and film making, in order to produce their final projects. Thus, this study aims to analyze whether interdisciplinary learning promotes critical thinking skill of Thai EFL learners. Methods Participants Participants were 16 English major students, School of Liberal Arts, Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai, Thailand. All participants had similar educational experience of basic literary knowledge from English Literature 1. All participants were enrolling in English Literature 2 (EL2) as a compulsory course in the first semester, academic year 2012. Also, the first semester of 2012 was their first time selecting major elective course(s). These 16 participants were divided into 2 groups – 8 students each – experimental and control group. The experimental group consisted of 8 participants who were enrolling on English Literature 2 (EL2) and Understanding Cultures through Cinema (UCC) as a major elective course concerning Medias and cultures. All participants in the experimental group were Thai consisting of 6 female and 2 male students. Seven students were third year, and one female student was in her forth year (As she failed the prerequisite course of English Literature 1). The control group consisted of 8 students who were enrolling on English Literature 2 (EL2) and other major elective course(s). All participants in the control group were Thai consisting of 6 female and 2 male students; all of them were third year students.

Tools In order to probe for achieving the research objective to analyze whether interdisciplinary learning promotes the critical thinking skills of Thai EFL learners, twenty-nine interview questions were used. This qualitative research used interview as a tool for the data collection in order to discover how individual respondents think and feel about a topic and why they hold certain opinion and to gain information in an in depth way because interview allows respondents to describe freely what is important to them (Oatey, 1999; Russ & Preskill, 2001). The questions were divided into 6 groups according to the objective sets categorized by cognitive domain in Bloom’s taxonomy as all levels are keys to enhance students’ critical thinking skills (Huitt, 2011) (See Appendix A). Before the main questions in the 6 groups were asked, some questions about personal background were asked in order to create a rapport between the interviewer and respondents.

1. Learners’ recognition of information, ideas and principles in both courses 2. Learners’ understanding of the main content taught in both courses 3. Learners’ application of knowledge gained from the courses 4. Learners’ attitude towards the courses 5. Learners’ process of the term project production in the courses 6. Learners’ recognition of the connection between EL2 and UCC or other

major elective course(s) In the design process of interview questions, the objective sets basing on cognitive domain in Bloom’s taxonomy were created, and then twenty-nine questions were composed following the objective sets. Subsequently, the objective sets and interview questions were presented to 2 experts for their advice. Due to the experts’ comments, the questions were adjusted and tried out with 3 students who were enrolling in EL2 and UCC in semester 1 academic year 2012, to check the questions’ intelligibility and effectiveness. In the interviews, all questions and answers were conducted in Thai in order to avoid the language burden. For example they might feel uncomfortable to answer the questions or were unable to convey their messages as much as they wanted. Then, the questions were revised with the experts’ suggestions and finally applied in the interview.

Data Collection and Analysis After being reviewed, all questions were employed to ask the participants, and the data was recorded using SONY ICD – UX523F. In assessing critical thinking ability, there are standardized tests designed by various scholars and publishers (Ennis, 1993). However, it cannot be identified which is the most effective in evaluating critical is thinking skills. Moreover, there were not the incompatible results in the previous studies about critical thinking in which the standardized tests were used. Consequently, less structured or open-ended assessment should be considered in critical thinking assessment due to its form of “naturalistic observation of a student” and “the opportunity for more life-like situation” (Ennis, 1993). In this study, twenty-nine open-ended questions were asked in the control and the experimental groups to assess the learners’ critical thinking skills exhibited in their answers.

According to Cranton (1994), learners’ reflection would echo components of critical thinking skills which were learners’ competence to show their opinion about “content, process and premise.” Cranton (1994) defined three components of critical thinking – “content, process and premise.” “Content” is what one perceives, thinks, feels or acts when doing a task. This element accords with Bloom’s (1956) knowledge and comprehension. “Process” is how one performs the function of perceiving, thinking, feeling or acting. This component corresponds to the levels of application and analysis in Bloom’s cognitive domain. “Premise” is why one comprehends, thinks, feels or acts the way one does and the consequences for how to act in a different future situation. This aspect is in accordance with Bloom’s (1956) synthesis and evaluation levels (Henderson, Napan & Monteiro, 2004). Cranton’s components of critical thinking as well as cognitive domains in Bloom’s taxonomy can be set in a hierarchy from less to more complex (Huitt, 2011). In the present work, content analysis was implemented to quantify and analyze the content in texts. Content analysis is a research tool to examine written texts, pictures, or any forms of recorded communication, to analyze and to systemically categorize them depending on explicit rules of coding. (Elo & Kynga, 2008; GAO, 1996; Stemler, 2001; Weber, 1990). In this study, the approach of priori coding was used. When applying this approach, the categories are established prior to the analysis based upon a theory (Stemler, 2001). For this research, there were 3 categories – content, process and premise – for coding the data based on components of the critical thinking skills defined by Cranton (1994). The process of content analysis was as follows.

1. The interview recordings were transcribed and categorized into 6 groups in accordance with the objective sets of interview questions.

2. The data was then analyzed by the following steps (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).

2.1. The data was separated into meaning units. A meaning unit is words, paragraphs or sentences containing aspects related to each other via their content and context, which were content students learned in interdisciplinary learning context.

2.2. A meaning unit was shortened or abstracted into a condensed meaning unit under the concepts of reduction; while, preserving the core. This step is suggested “since it emphasizes descriptions and interpretations on a higher level.”

2.3. A condensed meaning unit was labeled with a code that could distinguish objects, situations and other phenomena, and should be understood with regard to the context.

2.4. A condensed meaning unit labeled by a code was classified into one of three categories – content, process and premise. A category is a collection of content that shares a commonality that varies from other groups.

2.5. Finally, the categories were formulated into a theme: “component of critical thinking skills” in this study. (See Table 1)

Table 1. Examples of how to classify the data into meaning units, condensed meaning units, codes, categories and theme

Meaning unit Condensed

meaning unit Code Category Theme

Narrative voice, characters and setting are important. Actually, I think they are all important.

Perception of short story elements’ importance

What one perceives, thinks, feels or acts when doing a task

Content

Co

mp

on

ents o

f critical thin

kin

g skills

First we began with the conflict of the story based on a group member’s real experience. Next, we helped each other to create a plot and then shot the film.

Explanation of the short film making process: setting a conflict, plot and shooting a film

How one performs the function of perceiving, thinking, feeling or acting

Process

I’d like to make the audience understand the point without using any verbal explanation by characters. For example, to present a main character who was Muslim we used pictures as a medium so that the movie began with the protagonist performing Muslim Salah, and having a white mask on.

Reasons of employing the masked praying character to symbolize Islam and differences from other characters.

Why one comprehends, thinks, feels or acts the way one does and the consequences for how to act in a different future situation

Premise

3. The frequency of occurrences was evaluated in order to identify components

of critical thinking skills learners had. 4. The results were presented in tables. 5. Statistic analysis was also used.

Results The data received from both groups of participants – control group and experimental group – was analyzed by the content analysis. During the content analysis process, data was divided into three categories, which were content, process and premise (See Table 1). In order to tell the differences between the control and experimental groups, meaning units and their percentage (%) were presented as in

Table 2. In Table 3, Mean ( X ), standard deviation (SD) and t-test (p-value) were displayed to show the differences between the control and experimental group.

The above methods of analysis resulted in Table 2, which displays the frequency and percentage of the control and experimental groups. In the control group, the students were studying EL2 and other major elective course(s); while, in the experimental group, the students were studying EL2 and UCC as a major elective course. The first column shows components of critical thinking according to Cranton (1994) consisting of “content”, “process” and “premise”.

Table 2. Frequency and percentage of the control and experimental groups

Components of critical thinking skills

Control group Experimental group

Meaning units

% Meaning units

%

Content 167.00 74.55 240.00 64.17

Process 17.00 7.59 24.00 6.42

Premise 40.00 17.86 110.00 29.41

Total Sum 224.00 100.00 374.00 100.00

Table 2 exhibits that total meaning units of the experimental group is higher than those of the control group, 374 and 224 respectively. Frequency in each component – “content, process and premise” – in the experimental group is 240, 24 and 110 respectively; while, in the control group, it is 167 for “content”, 17 for “process” and 40 for “premise”. Noticeably, the content component has the highest frequency in both groups; the second most frequent component is “premise” and the lowest is “process”. Considering the percentages, the content component in the control group (74.55%) is higher than in the experimental group (64.17%). Similarly, the process component of the control group (7.59%) was higher than that of the

experimental group (6.42%). However, the “premise” percentage of the experimental group (29.41%) is higher than the 17.86% of the control group.

Table 3. Statistical values of the control and experimental groups

Components of critical thinking skill

Control group Experimental group T-test

(P-value) X SD X SD

Content 20.88 6.60 30.00 4.11 .00

Process 2.13 .99 3.00 1.20 .07

Premise 5.00 1.77 13.75 4.95 .00

Table 3 demonstrates that Mean ( X ) of all components in the experimental group is higher than in the control group. The “content” was found to be significantly

higher (p < .05) in the experimental group ( X = 30.00, SD = 4.11) compared to the

control group ( X = 20.88, SD = 6.60).

Corresponding to the process component, the mean of the experimental

group ( X = 3.00, SD = 1.2) is higher than that of the control group ( X = 2.13, SD=.99) The experimental group mean was found to be insignificantly higher than that of the control group (p >.05).

Regarding the premise component, the mean of the control group ( X = 5.00,

SD = 1.77) was found to be less than that of the experimental group ( X = 13.75, SD = 4.95). It is found to be significantly higher in the experimental group (p <.05).

The results revealed that interdisciplinary learning promoted the three components of critical thinking skills when comparing between the control group and experimental groups. The experimental group results were found to be significantly higher than those of the control group, except the process component in which the experimental group was found to be insignificantly higher than those of the control group.

The following examples are answers of both the control group and the experimental group which were categorized in the content component of critical thinking skill. “Content” is what one perceives, thinks, feels or acts when doing a task (Cranton, 1994).

The control group:

“Yes, I tried to use symbolism, but I couldn’t make it obvious. I used other figurative languages instead.”

“I thought it would be similar to English Literature 1 but more difficult.”

The experimental group:

“Elements of a movie are similar to a short story such as theme, characters and setting.”

“From UCC, I understood differences between Eastern and Western cultures, but I think now they have become more similar.”

All underlined words present learners’ understanding, thinking, feeling and acting in their explanation about teaching and learning in EL2 and UCC.

The answers of the control group and experimental group below were grouped in the process component – how one performs the function of perceiving, thinking, feeling or acting (Cranton, 1994).

The control group:

“I drew the plot structure first, but it was too simple and lacked interesting points. So I tried to make it more interesting by adding some conflicts for my characters. I wanted to make my readers feel involved and interested in my story.”

“I set a theme first and then put in characters who could present the theme. Next I created some conflicts for the characters in order to move the plot forward.”

The experimental group:

“I started with a rough plot and then put other details such as setting and characters. After that I asked my friends to read my story. If they could understand it, it would be ok for me and other readers.”

“I began with theme and then thought about narrative voice to match with the theme. Then I thought about setting; where and when my story would take place.”

The underlined words present learners’ steps in the process of short story writing and short film making. Individual students had their own way to achieve each assignment.

The answers below of the control group and experimental group were grouped in the premise component which was defined as why one comprehends, thinks, feels or acts the way one does and the consequences for how to act in different future situations (Cranton, 1994).

The control group:

“I drew the plot structure first, but it was too simple and lacked interesting point. So I tried to make it more interesting by adding some conflicts to my characters. I wanted to make my readers feel involved and interested in my story.”

“When I read, I like symbolism the most because I feel that my reading is not just for superficial comprehension but I have to interpret or think deeply to get the real meaning of a text.”

The experimental group:

“English Literature 2 and Understanding Cultures through Cinema are similar and different in the same time. In term of similarity, we have to interpret the hidden meaning of both short stories and movies. In term of differences, for writing texts we can use our imagination more; while, for movies all massages have been presented in the form of motion pictures and presented in scene.”

“I’d like to make the audience understand the point without using any verbal explanation by characters. For example, to present a main character who was Muslim we used pictures as a medium so that the movie began with the protagonist performing Muslim Salah, and having a white mask on.”

The underlined words display learners’ reasons for their thoughts, emotions and current as well as future actions. They provided rationale for why they thought, felt or performed in a certain way.

All in all, in content analysis, words in each meaning units were decoded in order to put them in the accurate category of critical thinking skill. From the results displayed in Table 2 and Table 3, interdisciplinary learning between EL2 and UCC are effective in promoting all three components – “content, process, premise” – of critical thinking skills. In interdisciplinary practice, learners had more awareness in what they had learned due to the interdependent and interchangeable content of the two courses – EL2 and UCC. These two subjects assigned learners to do the mutually applicable final project (a short story and a short film). Consequently, with the joint final projects of the two courses, learners in the experimental group were able to explain more concerning how to produce their projects. In addition, the higher-level thinking of synthesizing and evaluating or

“premise” of the experimental group was found to be higher. Learners could evaluate the knowledge gained from the two courses; synthesize information in order to produce their own work and provide reasons for their actions. This highlights that in the interdisciplinary environment, learners are more critical, for they are allowed to use their thinking in utilizing and applying the knowledge attained in the two courses. Discussion These findings are in line with the study of Zimmerman, Lester and Hendrix (2011) which found that learners’ critical thinking ability was increased after the interdisciplinary learning experience. The result of the present study is also consistent with the study of McDougall and LaMonica (2007) and Elliott, Oty, McArthur and Clark (2001) that found significant increases in learners’ critical thinking skills in interdisciplinary courses. From the result, the content component had the greatest difference in mean scores between the experimental group and the control group. It shows that the process of interdisciplinary learning helps to promote cognition in students, which is a mental process of memorizing, understanding, learning, reasoning, problem solving and decision making. An individual student uses cognitive strategies to reach a particular goal, such as to obtain knowledge or to understand a text (Livingston, 1997). This means that students comprehend and are able to explain their lessons, thoughts, emotions and actions in the two interdisciplinary subjects, EL2 and UCC. These findings are consistent with the significance and improvement of cognition found in a study of Huang (2006), Phakiti (2003) and Ward and Williams (2003). These studies found that cognitive strategies used in an EFL (English as a foreign language) reading class positively affected learners’ cognition. The least difference was found in the process component. This is probably due to the familiarity of Thai EFL students with drilling techniques when studying second or foreign languages. Drilling techniques have been used in language classroom(s) since the 1950s. It refers to a technique helping students to get used to foreign language(s). In the behaviorist approach, there are two important learning elements: stimulus and reinforcement. Stimulus is defined as repetition encouragement. Moreover, reinforcement is a crucial step to enhance the likelihood of the behavior that will occur repetitively and eventually become habit (Riswanto & Haryanto, 2012). Consequently, the students have the habit to use the target language. This is why drilling technique is used widely in language teaching. Nevertheless, this interdisciplinary learning was project-based. The know-how or the process to write a short story and to produce a film was indirectly explained while discussing short stories and films. Therefore, the drilling process that they were familiar with was not implemented in both courses. This phenomenon could explain both the experimental and the control group results. It is plausible that they could

explain only what they had done but not the know-how; therefore, the process component of critical thinking showed the least increase. As the process is know-how, the regular tasks relevant to the final project should be assigned to familiarize students with the process of short story writing and film making, so that students will have opportunities to be exposed to repetitive know-how and will be able to apply said know-how in the term project. This is in accordance with some studies presenting the effectiveness of drilling technique in language classes. Decker (1975) found that the drilling technique made lessons enjoyable and allowed students to practice and feel that they could use English more effectively with their own practice. Similary, Riswanto and Haryanto (2012) showed that drilling techniques could significantly improve students' achievement in language classrooms. Thus, it should be taken into account that drilling techniques should be implemented in future studies as a tool allowing learners to practice repetitively and feel familiar with what they have done in class. Therefore, the drilling techniques could help to enhance learners’ critical thinking in the process component. From the result showed in Table 3, “premise” of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group. This meant that students could give reasons to explain their learning or thinking process including setting goals, organizing plans, analyzing their own weaknesses and strengths and creating solutions for any problems. These thinking skills are also called metacognition. The findings are consistent with previous studies, which found that a multidisciplinary or cross-curricular approach is suggested in broadening students' knowledge and assisting students to be critical - questioning, reasoning, etc. Students are able to apply these skills in different areas and situations (Leicester & Taylor, 2010; Jones, 2004; Pither & Soden, 2000; Chun, 2010) Due to the result presented, interdisciplinary learning helps to promote cognition and metacognition which means that the critical thinking skills are also enhanced as critical thinking, cognition and metacognition are inseparable (Flavell, 1979; Martinez, 2006; Kuhn, 1999; Hennessey, 1999). All elements of critical thinking skills in the present study were found relatively higher than those found in previous studies in which interdisciplinary practice was not implemented. For example, students' critical thinking slightly increased due to the e-learning instruction (Bijani, 2012). Likewise, rhetorical analysis could increase students' perception of critical thinking and their own critical thinking capability in only a small degree (McGuire, 2010). In addition, in a study that examined students’ critical thinking through using blogs, students’ critical thinking was insignificantly increased (Yang, 2009).

Conclusion As displayed in the findings of the present study, interdisciplinary learning

promoted the three components, “content, process and premise”, of critical thinking skills. Consequently, metacognition is also enhanced by interdisciplinary learning. Among the tools from previous research about critical thinking promotion and

metacognition, the result of this study reinforces that interdisciplinary learning is another option of enhancing critical thinking skills in Thai EFL students. Therefore, interdisciplinary learning should be implemented in EFL students in Southeast Asia as it has already been proved that the interdisciplinary approach is another effective tool.

Appendix A. Interview questions

Cognitive domain

The objective set Control group Experimental group

Knowledge

Learners’ recognition of information, ideas and principles in both courses

1) What is EL2 about? 2) What are short story elements? 3) What is (major elective course(s)) about? 4) What are important elements of (major elective

course(s))?

1) What is EL2 about? 2) What are short story elements? 3) What is UCC about? 4) What are elements of a film?

Comprehension

Learners’ understanding of the main content taught in both courses

1) Which short story elements are the most important?

2) Which short story elements are the least important?

3) What content in (major elective course(s)) is the most important?

4) What content in (major elective course(s)) is the least important?

1) Which short story elements are the most important?

2) Which short story elements are the least important?

3) What content in UCC is the most important? 4) What content in UCC is the least important?

Application

Learners’ application of knowledge gained from the courses

1) Can you apply the content in EL2 in other courses?

2) Can you apply the content in EL2 in your daily life? 3) Can you apply the content in your (major elective

course(s)) in other courses? 4) Can you apply the content in your (major elective

course(s)) in your daily life?

1) Can you apply the content in EL2 in other courses?

2) Can you apply the content in EL2 in your daily life? 3) Can you apply the in content in UCC in other

courses? 4) Can you apply the in content in UCC in your

daily life?

Analysis Learners’ attitude towards the courses

1) How do you understand EL2? 2) How do you understand short story elements? 3) How do you like EL2? 4) How do you understand (major elective course(s)) ? 5) How do you understand the important element of

(major elective course(s)) ? 6) How do you like (major elective course(s)) ?

1) How do you understand EL2? 2) How do you understand short story elements? 3) How do you like EL2? 4) How do you understand UCC? 5) How do you understand film elements? 6) How do you like UCC?

Cognitive domain

The objective set Control group Experimental group

Synthesis

Learners’ process of the term project production in the courses

1) What is your short story project? 2) What were your steps in composing your short

story? 3) Which elements did you use the most in your

short story? 4) Which elements did you use the least in your

short story? 5) What is the term project in _(major elective

course(s))_? 6) What were steps in doing your project? 7) Which content did you use the most in your project? 8) Which content did you use the least in your project?

1) What is your short story project? 2) What were your steps in composing your short

story? 3) Which elements did you use the most in your

short story? 4) Which elements did you use the least in your

short story? 5) What is your short film project? 6) What were your steps in producing your short film? 7) Which elements did you use the most in your

short film? 8) Which elements did you use the least in your

short film?

Evaluation

Learners’ recognition of connection between EL2 and UCC or other major elective course(s)

1) Are there any similar or different contents in EL2 and_(major elective course(s))_?

2) Do EL2 and _(major elective course(s))_ support each other in your study?

3) Did you use EL2’s short story project in your (major elective course(s))’s project? Why?

1) Are there any similar or different contents in EL2 and UCC?

2) Do EL2 and UCC support each other in your study?

3) Did you use EL2’s short story project in your film project? Why?

References

Alagozlu, N. (2007). Critical thinking and voice in EFL writing. Asian EFL Journal, 9(3), 118-136. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and

assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Bijani, H. (2012). The development of students and teachers critical thinking ability: A case of explicit and e-learning instruction. The Iranian EFL Journal, 8(3), 241-258.

Callahan, W. P. (1998). Critical thinking and decision making [On-line]. Retrieved from http:// www.uni. edu/ coe/arc_coe/admin/crthinking/.

Chiann-Ru, S. (2012). Online composition content analysis of critical thinking skills. International Journal of Instructional, 39(3). Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-2981716 62/ online-composition-content-analysis-of-critical-thinking.

Chun, M. (2010). Taking Teaching to (Performance) Task: Linking Pedagogical and Assessment Practices, Change, 42(2), 22-29.

Claydon, R. (2012). A framework: Thai cultural values. Retrieved from http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ecls/ assets/documents/pdf/countryfiles/Thailand.pdf.

Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults. CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://www.leadershipeducators.org/Resources.

Critical thinking. (2010). Learning Development. Plymouth University Press. Cross, D. R. & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s

metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142.

Davidson, B. W. & Dunham, R. A. (1997). Assessing EFL student progress in critical thinking with the Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test!. JALT Journal, 19(1), 43-57.

Decker, D. M. (1975). Drilling English auxiliary verbs in ESL classes. TESL Reporter, 13-15. Duron, R., Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2006). Critical thinking framework for any discipline.

International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 160-166. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/.

Elliott, B., Oty, K., McArthur, J, & Clark, B. (2001). The effect of an interdisciplinary algebra/ science course on students' problem solving skills, critical thinking skills and attitudes towards mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(6), 811-816. doi : 10.1080/00207390110053784.

Elo, S. & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1), 107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179-186. Facione, P.A. (2009). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts?. CA: Measured Reasons

and the california Academic Press. Retrieved from www.insightassessment.com. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive

developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. Ganly, S. (2010). Critical thinking: Benefits, characteristics, and decision making. Retrieved from

http:// voices.yahoo.com/critical-thinking-benefits-characteristics-decision-5935574.html. GAO. (1996). Content Analysis a Methodology for Structuring and Analyzing Written

Material. Program Evaluation and Methodology Division, United States General Accounting Office, Washington.

Gomez B, J. C. (2010). The impact of structured reading lesson on the development of critical thinking skills. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(1), 32-48. Retrieved from http: // e-flt.nus.edu.sg.

Graneheim, U.H. & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today, 24(2), 105-112.

Haase, F. A. (2010). Categories of critical thinking in information management: A study of critical thinking in decision making process. Mediterranean Perspective, 27(3). Retrieved from http://pendientedemigracion.ucm.es/info/nomadas/27/feehaase.pdf

Henderson, K., Napan K. & Monteiro, S. (2004). Encouraging reflective learning: An online challenge. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 357-364). Perth, 5-8 December. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/henderson.html

Hennessey, M. G. (1999). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for conceptual change teaching-learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (2002). Situating the scholarship of teaching and learning: A cross-

disciplinary conversation. In M. T. Huber, & S. P. Morreale (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.

Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 95-111.

Jones, A. (2004). Teaching critical thinking: an investigation of a task in introductory macroeconomics. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(2), 167-181. doi: 10.1080/0729436042000206645.

Khodadady, E., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2011). The impact of concept mapping on EFL learners' critical thinking ability. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 49-60. doi : 10.5539/elt.v4n4p49.

Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178-181.

Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268-273.

Leicester, M., & Taylor, D. (2010). Critical thinking across the curriculum: Developing critical thinking skills, literacy and philosophy in the primary classroom Berkshire: Open University. Retrieved from http://library.oum.edu.my/oumlib/content/catalog/676003.

Livingston, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: An Overview. Retrieved from http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/ shuell/cep564/metacog.htm.

Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 696-699. McDouall, R., & LaMonica, J. (2007). Interdisciplinary education and critical thinking in religion and

history: The delivery of two "Content -Based" linked courses. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(1), 44-46.

McGuire, L. A. (2010). Improving student critical thinking and perceptions of critical thinking through direct instruction in rhetorical analysis. (Doctoral dissertation). Capella University. Retrieved from the Eric database. (ED 519477)

Ministry of Education. (2008). The Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D.2008). Retrieved from http://academic.obec.go.th/web/doc/d/147.

Newell, W. H., & Green, W. J. (1982). Defining and teaching interdisciplinary. Improving College and University Teaching, 30(1), 23-30.

Oatey, A. (1999). The strengths and limitations of interviews as a research technique for studying television viewers. Retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/aeo9702.html

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26-56. doi: 10.1191/ 0265532203lt243oa.

Phoongprasertying, S. & Teeranon, P. (2013). Reflection through reflective writing to stimulate learning activities in normal-class learning sessions and cross-class learning sessions. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 31(2), 105-128.

Pithers, R.T., and Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42(3), 237–49.

Politics: Education (2012). Thai learners at the lowest of the rank: Lack of critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/home/detail/politics/education/ 20120828 / 470762 (in Thai)

Powers, M. F., & Jones-Walker, J. (2005). An interdisciplinary collaboration to improve critical thinking among pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69(4).

Resnick, L.B. (Ed.) (1989). Introduction. In Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, 1-24. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Riswanto & Haryanto, E. (2012). Improving students’ pronunciation through communicative drilling technique at senior high school (SMA) 07 South Bengkulu, Indonesia. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(21), 82-87. Retrieved from http://www. ijhssnet.com/ journals/Vol_2_No_21_November_2012/10.pdf.

Russ-Eft, D., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation in Organizations. New York: Basic Books. Ryan, S. (2001). Overcoming common problems related to communicative methodology. The

Internet TESL Journal, 7(11). Retreived from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Ryan-Communicative.html

Savage, J. (2010). Cross-curricular teaching and learning in the secondary school. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2173/140196

Schneider, W. & Lockl, K. (2002). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents. In Perfect, T. & Schwartz, B. (Eds.), Applied metacognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Shulman, L. S. (2002). Untitled contribution in “Learning after September 11, 2001: A collaborative reflection.” Retrieved from Learning Development Institute website: http:// www. learn dev.org/

Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17.

Sumner, W. G. (1940). Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals, New York: Ginn and Co. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/ pages/sumnerrsquos-definition-of-critical-thinking/412.

Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 39(1), 2-12. doi: 10.1093/elt/39.1.2

Thai students taught to listen, not to question. (2011). Retrieved from http://www. nation multimedia.com/2011/05/04/business/Importance-of-critical-thinking-30154554. html.

The Critical thinking community. (2013). Defining critical thinking. Retrieved from http:// www. criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766.

Thompson, C. (2011). Critical thinking across the curriculum: Process and output. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(9) [Special Issue], 1-7.

Vogt, M. E. (1997). Cross-curricular thematic instruction. Retrieved. from http://www.eduplace. com/rdg/res/vogt.html. Ward, P., & Williams, A. M. (2003). Perceptual and cognitive skill development in Soccer: The

multidimensional nature of expert performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 93-111.

Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis. Sage Publications, Newburry Park, CA. Wheland, E. R., Donovan, W. J., Dukes, J. T., Qammar, H. K., Smith, G. A., & Williams, B. L.(2013).

Green action through education: A model for fostering positive attitudes about STEM. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(3), 46-51.

Widdowson, G. H. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wongsumran, P. (2013). Country Competency. Innovation Links. Retrieved from http:// www.nia.or. th/ innolinks/page.php?issue=201303&section=2. (in Thai).

Yang, S. H. (2009). Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 11–21.

Zhang, L. F. (2003). Contributions of thinking styles to critical thinking dispositions. Journal of Psychology, 137 (6), 517-543.

Zimmerman, S. D., Lester Short, G. F., & Hendrix, E. M. (2011). Impact of interdisciplinary learning on critical thinking using case study method in allied health care graduate students. J Allied Health, 40(1), 15-18.