IJIELTR (2013) ISSN: 2156-5716Volume 2, Number 1 pp. © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

CRITICAL THINKING FRAMEWORK: GLOBAL ISSUESAND MORAL EDUCATION IN PEACE EDUCATION

John SpiriGifu Shotoku Gakuen University, Japan

ABSTRACTThis article discusses two aspects of peace education (PE):

global issues (GI) and moral education (ME) both generally andspecifically regarding English second language learning. Bothbranches of PE share the common goal of educating to make theworld a better place. The rationale for utilizing PE content,which includes themes such as animal rights, poverty, nationaland global citizenship and values such as honesty, is discussedalong with a review of criticisms of these approaches. Amongthe criticisms includes the potential for English languageeducators to abuse their power and engage in subtle or blatantforms of indoctrination. Critics maintain that certain topicsdo not belong in the classroom because they will always betainted by the bias of a teacher who has the ulterior motive toconvince or manipulate students to adopt the same world view.Meanwhile, the emerging field of critical thinking (CT) offersactivities or course design that will help students cultivatecritical thinking skills. A CT framework is suggested for allPE topics, with a sample outline provided. By utilizing the CTframework in the English language classroom, PE educators willbe less likely to misuse the classroom as a venue to manipulatestudents to try to make them into activists or ethical citizensand be more likely to lead students to the realization ofcourse objectives and academic aims, including those with apeace education component.

John Spiri

Keywords: Critical thinking, global issues, indoctrination, moral education, peaceeducation

INTRODUCTION

‘Peace education’ has evolved as a means to realize thegoals of the United Nations. These lofty goals, articulated inthe UN charter, include saving future generations from war,realizing human dignity and equality, and promoting socialprogress. The UN recognizes that one of the main vehicles forrealizing these goals is education. The Peace Education pageon the “United Nations Cyber School bus” website (no date)explains, "Through a humanising process of teaching andlearning, peace educators facilitate human development" (para.3). Meanwhile the UNESCO manifesto states that war begins inthe minds of individuals, and likewise peace should begin inthe minds of individuals. Most significantly, article 26 ofthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) notes that“Education shall be directed to the full development of thehuman personality and to the strengthening of respect forhuman rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promoteunderstanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations,racial and religious groups, and shall further the activitiesof the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.”

From these statements two strands of peace education can beidentified: one that focuses on the cultivation of anindividual student’s character (full development of the humanpersonality) and one that focuses on external aims (promotingunderstanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations). Inthis paper, peace education (PE) will refer to both, moraleducation (ME) will refer to the former aim, while globalissues (GI) the latter.

The aim of this paper is to explore the appropriateness ofPE in general; discuss GI textbooks, curriculum, and teachingapproaches in English as a second language (ESL) universityeducation settings in Japan in particular; and articulate the

2

Developing Intercultural Literacy through the Teaching ofEnglish

advantages of presenting GI within a framework of criticalthinking. 

PEACE EDUCATION IN GENERAL

Some English language educators fulfill the above quoted PE-related UN and UNESCO mission statements by presentingstudents with content about a wide range of social problems,from poverty, to environmental destruction, to war. In Japan,the mission of the special interest group "Global Issues inLanguage Education" (GILE) is to "effectively acquire and usea foreign language while empowering (students) with theknowledge, skills and commitment required by world citizensfor the solution of global problems." In the US, members ofTESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) canjoin the "Social Responsibility Caucus" which, similar toGILE, aims to actively engage in, "integrating languageteaching with social responsibility, world citizenship, and anawareness of global issues such as peace, human rights, andthe environment." Other countries have similar peace educationrelated teacher organizations.

Moral education (ME), as opposed to GI, looks beyond themind and intellect and seeks to cultivate character. Damon(2002) notes, “From K-12 schools to college campuses,instructors are paying attention to students’ values and areaccepting responsibility for promoting students’ character”(p. vii). Teaching core values such as honesty and respect,however, is generally directed at children. Schwartz (2002)writes, “Clearly, most character education programs thatemphasize core values are designed for K-6 students. By thetime students enter high school, what we commonly callcharacter education has often been con ated or watered down toflmean nothing more than the prevention of harmful behaviors:alcohol and drug prevention, violence prevention, pregnancyprevention” (p. 11). Programs directed at character are notunheard of at the tertiary level however. Foderaro’s September30, 2010 New York Times article, reporting on the suicide of aRutgers student who was cyber-bullied, noted that Rutgers

3

John Spiri

University had, with poignant irony, just opened "ProjectCivility" which aimed to "raise awareness about the importanceof respect, compassion and courtesy in everyday interactions."The program, if instituted previously, might have made astudent think twice about using a camera to view a roommate'ssexual encounter with another man and show and discuss it withothers,, an act of cyber-bullying that may have led tosuicide.  

Some educators, however, consider both GI and ME approachesproblematic for a number of reasons. Alfie Kohn (1997) saysthat the goal of ME is not to support or facilitate children’ssocial and moral growth, but simply to “demand good behaviorfrom students” and “the idea is to get compliance, to makechildren act the way we want them to” (p. 430). GI comessimilarly under fire. Peterson (2007) writes, “it is commonfor the charge of indoctrination to be leveled at peaceeducation’s practitioners” (p. 298). Critics note that issuesregarding peace and war, for example, are not black & whiteand students, because of classroom dynamics and gradingsystems, are susceptible to easily accept the teacher'sviewpoint as truth, or fear disagreeing because of the factthey will be graded at the course's end. These samecriticisms, especially the notion of trying to manipulateyoung adults to think or act in a certain way, are leveledagainst English language teachers as well.

Kiss and Euben (2010) note that many American universityeducators are "indifferent to, if not actively hostile to, thelanguage of ethics and morals (in the classroom)" (p. 4). Kissand Euben’s aim is to “explore and participate in the debateover moral education” (p. 5). They applaud the declarationsand statements of hundreds of university presidents regardingcommitment to civic responsibility (p. 58). Kiss and Eubenhave focused on one critic of ME in particular, Stanley Fish,acknowledge that he is “right to question some of the moregrandiose claims made on behalf of moral and civic education”(p. 58), but in the end decry his extreme view.

Fish (2003) has repeatedly emphasized that any attempt toteach peace or morality is not only undesirable butimpossible. “And you have no chance at all… of determining

4

Developing Intercultural Literacy through the Teaching ofEnglish

what (student) behavior and values will be in those aspects oftheir lives that are not, in the strict sense of the word,academic... You can't make them into good people, and youshouldn't try” (para. 8).

One of Fish’s main points seems to be the intent of theinstructor. Does the instructor have an ulterior motive (i.e.a noble goal or ideal)? Whatever it might be, whether to leadthe student to greater honesty, protest war, promote orcriticize nationalism, or any other “cause” that seems to bethe lifeblood of PE, it is a corruption of the academicendeavor. Instead, Fish maintains, instructors should have anunswerving dedication to the truth. At a certain level, anyonewhose mind remains open to information that may challengetheir beliefs is pursuing truth. But Fish does not say “havingan open mind” is the aim, but a headlong pursuit of truth.Instructors who are teaching subjects they have studied andconsidered for many years are rarely concurrently in thethroes of a perfectly objective ‘pursuit of truth.’ Peoplegenerally come to certain conclusions, however tentative,that, for example, war is destructive (or more specifically aparticular war is grossly misguided), or that human rightsshould be afforded all people regardless of gender, sexualorientation, race, age, etc. To make a “pursuit of truth” thestandard, however noble, seems impossibly impractical.

Fish’s (2010) ‘golden question’ that instructors are advisedto ask themselves is: “In saying or writing this, am I tryingto get at the truth about some matter of intellectual concernor am I trying to advance my personal… views about characteror about citizenship or about social justice or aboutanything…?” (p. 91). Fish admits the answer to the abovequestion may be slippery, and that listing taboo andacceptable topics may be impossible, but he gets around thisby invoking “I (and others) will know it (an inappropriatetopic) when I see it” (p. 91). The implication of Fish’s standis that no hard rules can be written about what methods ormaterials are appropriate (i.e. whether the teacher is pursingtruth), but instead methods and materials must be judged on acase by case basis. This position seems highly problematic

5

John Spiri

when one considers the vast variability of perception andideas among various individuals. Who becomes the arbiter ofwhat is acceptable? What Fish “knows” when he judges theappropriateness of an approach and what any other teacher“knows” are likely to often be at odds, so his rule of thumbis not helpful to a community of educators and researcherswith various world views and perspectives. Eagleton (qtd. inHauerwas, 2010) counters that Fish is merely “wheeling upavant-garde notions to defend the status-quo” (p. 99).

At the same time, the advocacy Fish condemns does seempotentially problematic on various levels. Kiss and Euben(2010) agree with Fish to a degree, noting that PE educatorsshould “publicly deplore” the faculty member who wrote that aclass goal was to teach “peace, freedom, diversity… and tochallenge American unilateralism” (pp. 62-63). An instructorwho openly aims to convince students to march in a gay rightsparade, join a war protest, or join a religion—especially whencompliance may be interpreted as grade related—would alsoindicate some level of impropriety.

There is, however, a fine line between simply informingstudents of extracurricular activities relevant to coursecontent, and actively recruiting them for a cause. At anyrate, cases where instructors openly strive to get students tojoin a movement are obviously inappropriate and thus rare.Butin (2008) notes, regarding the problem of faculty using theclassroom to push their own political agendas, “At best, Fishappears to be making a mountain out of a molehill. At worst,he is disingenuously setting up a false starting point fromwhere his arguments and battles seem not only meaningful, butcritical to the saving of higher education” (p. 5).

GLOBAL ISSUES (GI) IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION

More at issue than rare cases of PE educator abuse such asinstances noted above are more subtle acts of faculty memberspromoting political causes, like when a university EFLinstructor utilizes textbooks (explained below) to havestudents consider and discuss a controversial topic such as

6

Developing Intercultural Literacy through the Teaching ofEnglish

vivisection. Many creators and users of such texts mighthonestly answer “yes” to the question of whether they aretrying to change the minds and world views of students. ToFish, this is a violation of conduct and inappropriate, butoutstanding questions remain regarding methodology andteacher-student relationships. When a teacher providesalternate points of view, keeps his or her views in check,invites and encourages various viewpoints, etc., all can leadto a topic still being fairly and provocatively presented,regardless of the conviction of the teacher. Furthermore, ateacher’s honest passion about a topic can be preferable toapathy or feigned mixed emotions by the teacher. In thelanguage classroom especially, teacher authenticity can be aninspiration to students if expressed skillfully, with, forexample, no insistence that students agree. Finally, teachersmight have conviction about a topic, and a desire to informstudents about it, but no interest at all in changing theirminds. These points confound any attempt to make thepresentation of PE content forever “inappropriate”.

In the end, however, Fish is addressing American academiaacross disciplines, which usually involves instructorsteaching a specific subject to students fluent in English. Thedebate about GI in Japanese universities, while similar,involves instructors teaching English. At first glance,English, like Political Science, English Literature, History,or Sociology is a subject with a focus, but it doesn’t have abody of content in the same way those other subjects do; itsfocus is the English language. It is impossible to consider anEnglish course just in terms of its grammar and mechanics(even if a teacher did attempt to conceive an English coursein this limited way); instruction necessarily includescontent, which includes meaning, especially in contexts wherestudents’ English ability becomes more proficient. Thus, thepossibilities of content for an English class can range froman activity utilizing random sentences to focus on particularvocabulary, a sample airport dialog, a paragraph about AIDSawareness, a narrative about a child soldier—or just aboutanything else in English. English Communication in itself

7

John Spiri

lacks the sort of thematic restrictions that other universitysubjects face (with the exception of English Composition).

A growing number of EFL educators in Japan have createdand/or utilized content about a wide range of global issuestopics from AIDS to xenophobia. The first question is, whatexactly do GI educators want to accomplish? Few disagree withthe value of world peace or honesty, but other aspects of GIare more controversial, among them the details of a particularwar, gay rights, or even—to many Americans at least—globalwarming. An example of a controversial GI topic is “goodcitizenship,” which can be a euphemism for patriotism. Asecond pertinent question is how GI educators aim to achievetheir objectives. Are students expected to become involved inactivism? Are authoritarian rules put in place? Does theteacher reactive negatively or aggressively to dissent?

David Peaty (2004), a proponent of global education inJapan, writes, “the criticisms raised against global educators(“PE educators” in this paper) have come to be directed atlanguage teachers, too” (p. 15). Indeed, one such prominentcritic is Guest (2005), who writes regarding Peaty’s approach,“global education (for Peaty) is not a means to open-mindedcritical inquiry but rather a pulpit from which certain truthsshould be proclaimed.” Sargent (2008), also based in Japan,gives a more general warning, “we (language educators) may betempted to promote our favorite side of the issue at theexpense of academic integrity and balance” (p. 24).

Giving a general framework for his criticism of Peaty, Guestmakes the following points: the declaration of human rightsfocuses on values not partisan political positions; massmedia, government and commerce do not present a monolithicsingular value or set of values; the GI author (Peaty) seemedto conform to a progressive agenda; the GI author displays a“missionary mentality” by implying that students have been“duped by an unfair, devious power (government)” while “theteacher—the enlightened one—knows the truth” (Guest 2005: 11).In summary he charges the GI author with indoctrination.

Guest, however, is discussing what he perceives to be anabuse of PE. Unlike Fish, critics of GI in Japan such as Guestand Sargent do not make blanket condemnations on the approach

8

Developing Intercultural Literacy through the Teaching ofEnglish

but rather focus on particular misuses; in fact, Guest (2005)identifies himself as “a supporter of global education.”Sargent’s criticism (2006) is aimed at teachers who are“publicly promoting an approach that calls for advocating oneparticular view of a multidimensional issue in the classroom”(p. 132). Sargent cites a teacher who wrote she wants toempower global citizens to use English as “the global languageof resistance to the dominant world view” (p. 131)). Whilesuch language does appear inappropriate in an EFL/ESL context,it is impossible to say the specific context for this quote(whether, for example, it was in a research paper orsyllabus), how the teacher taught “resistance” and othermitigating factors such as further or subsequent explanations.If this instance is indeed abuse, one still is left with thequestion of how widespread it is. So the question returns towhether abuse is systemic in the GI approach, or whether ahandful of overzealous teachers are being cited and giving GIa negative reputation among at least some critics.

With ESL courses at a Japanese university, there are issuesregarding the course description and objectives. Critics claima typical global issues courses deviates too far from “everyday conversation” and is thus inappropriate. Many would say GIis not appropriate for a freshman English Communicationcourse, as they define it. Determining whether their criticismis valid or not will, however, depend on each individualdepartment, course description and course requirements.Department heads and faculty are in the best position todetermine what is or isn't appropriate. Some might want topress the criticism and insist that nothing GI related wouldever be appropriate for an English Communication or EnglishConversation class, but with the emergence of content-basedlearning, that charge seems groundless. A generally acceptedapproach to second language education, content-based learningmaintains that students can effectively learn when focused onextracting meaning from English class content rather thanfocusing on form (i.e. grammar). Thus, while views on whatconstitutes appropriate content and details about particularmethodologies may vary, sweeping rejection of anything

9

John Spiri

environment or poverty related, for example, seem ill-informedand dogmatic in their own right.

Thus, the pertinent issue is, how can PE enhance a coursesuch as English Communication, a very common course inJapanese universities? Certainly, many educators, such asthose who are member of the GILE special interest group inJapan and TESOL’s “Social Responsibility Caucus,” feelstrongly about the benefits of teaching PE. Finch (2004)writes, “the recognition and exploration of social problemsand impediments to learning in the safe environment of theclassroom can promote development of the social mores andqualities -positive self-images, a sense of responsibility forself and others, a capacity to trust others which areessential for future world citizens.” Clearly, many educatorssee GI as necessary.

Still, a critic might maintain that GI, due to the inherentdifficulties of the issues, can’t be effective in lower levelclassrooms. Can the global issue be simplified to allowstudents, many of whom are low level in Japan, to comprehendand benefit adequately? Some GI instructors allow students todiscuss global issues in L1 at least some times, feeling thechance to grasp the issue more deeply outweighs the loss oftime speaking English. In the long run, these educators feel,the motivation that comes from exploring important issues inan English Communication class will have a positive effect onthe student as a person and as a language learner. So keypoints are whether understandable, pedagogically sound GImaterials exist, and whether they can be utilized in a varietyof required English courses such as English Communication,even with lower level students like in Japan.

GI TEXTBOOKS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING

As GI is an emerging field, and its issues are sometimescontroversial, there have not been many mainstream GItextbooks published. Teachers who wish to integrate GI intotheir lessons must make their own materials and lessons. InJapan, however, Peaty is one of a growing number of educators

10

Developing Intercultural Literacy through the Teaching ofEnglish

who have published a GI textbook. His four-skills EFL textbookTopics for Global Citizenship, published in 2005, included chapterssuch as Global Warming (in the Environment section), ChildLabor (in Development), Vegetarianism (in Society) andConsumerism (in The Economy). As opposed to research reports,considering the lessons and wording of particular GI textbookactivities can be revealing in the debate about whether anapproach crosses the line into indoctrination, or whether theapproach is legitimate. Accordingly, some textbook activitiesare described below.

Stimulating Conversations by Goodmacher (2008) is an EFL textbookpublished in Japan. In the text, the opening paragraph is anarticle about animal rights and using animals for scientificexperiments. Is the paragraph below presented fairly, or is itan example of advocacy?

The topic of using animals for scientific and medical researchis very controversial. Animal lovers often use the term"vivisection" to describe experiments that physically orpsychologically injure animals. Other people who believe thatanimals should be used for medical and other scientificexperimentation, even if the animals die or are in pain, preferto say "animal research" instead of vivisection.

Returning to Fish’s rule of thumb, that we can ‘knowinappropriate material when we see it’, what do we see? Thisparagraph does acknowledge both sides of the debate and iscertainly not preachy. On the other hand, it is written fromthe point of view of animal lovers. Consider the effect ifsubtle changes in the wording are made below (my changes andadditions for rhetorical purposes are indicated with italicsand deletions with strikethrough):

The topic of using animals for scientific and medical researchis very controversial. Some critics often use the term"vivisection" to describe experiments that physically orpsychologically injure animals. Proponents of scientific research whobelieve that animals should be used for medical and otherscientific experimentation to save human lives, even if the animals

11

John Spiri

die or are in pain, prefer to say "animal research" instead ofvivisection.

The effect of the above paragraph is altogether different.But to say the original paragraph subtly endorses animalrights is not to say it is necessarily biased, or worse, aneffort to indoctrinate students. The paragraph raises aquestion that is generally ignored in society, about whether“vivisection” is ethical. Clauses such as “even if the animalsdie or are in pain” may be seen as an effort to bias thereaders against vivisection—or, from the point of view of ananimal lover, be seen as emphasizing a point that may easilybe overlooked. Indeed, a main point of raising such issueswith such wording, from the point of view of GI educators, maybe to counter the sanitization of language, where “animalresearch” is thoughtlessly associated with positive imagessuch as “progress.” At many junctions the battle line drawnregards whether paragraphs such as this are legitimate becausethey are fighting against existing biases (human arrogance tocruelly take innocent animal lives), or are illegitimatebecause they are arguing for “pro-animal” biases (or even“anti-human”). The conclusion one draws very much depends onone’s world view. That being said, those fighting for change(i.e. individuals and activists against vivisection) are morelikely to raise the issue. For those who support vivisection,the status quo is desirable, so they are less motivated tocreate or utilize teaching materials about it. Thus, justdiscussing the issue might be considered agitation for changeon one level.

Furthermore, the wording of subsequent exercises may,intentionally or otherwise, be designed to encourage studentsto lean towards the anti-vivisection viewpoint. For example,the Pro-animal research sample statement “Humans are betterthan animals” (Goodmacher p. 54) might be easier to disagreewith because it is relatively easy to acknowledge that animalsare superior in at least some ways (they are stronger, can runfaster, etc.) and “better” is both judgmental and vague.Alternatively, if the textbook used the statement “Humans aremore important than animals,” students might be less inclined

12

Developing Intercultural Literacy through the Teaching ofEnglish

to disagree with it (and thus feel less critical ofvivisection). The former wording might more easily makestudents oppose the status quo that favors vivisection whilethe latter might lead them to embrace the status quo.

One point is that subtle changes in wording can have greateffect on readers. Another point is that the reaction a readerhas is very much contingent on his or her world view. Theanalysis made above is subjective and debatable, so Fish’srule “I’ll know it (inappropriateness) when I see it,” couldbe countered, ‘What we “know” when we see is very much aproduct of our own thoughts and biases.’ As the above exampleshows, just dissecting an idea such as vivisection, or who isresponsible for the terrorist attacks of 911, for an even morecontroversial example, is a kind of promotion of analternative.

In Peaty’s (2005) Topics for Global Citizenship, the Vegetarianismchapter presents the views of a vegetarian in a short article.The meat-eater’s view is absent in the chapter. This is anexample of presenting a particular point of view regarding a“multidimensional issue,” which Sargent considersinappropriate. But in Japan, it should be noted, vegetarianismis extremely rare, and reasons for it not well understood. Butis presentation of reasons for meat eating, which everyonebasically knows, necessary for the sake of balance? Peaty,like most GI educators, think not.

CRITICAL THINKING

While there may be no way to reconcile the extremes of thisdebate, that advocacy in the classroom, including the secondlanguage English classroom, is appropriate, and the opposingview that any teacher who deviates from a pursuit of truthregarding content is acting inappropriately, the integrationof critical thinking into GI activities is an approach thatstrengthens a GI activity by making student and teacher thinkmore deeply and thoroughly about the issue.

The emerging field of Critical Thinking (CT) has evolvedinto a discipline which is gaining influence in second

13

John Spiri

language education. For example, the newest special interestgroup (SIG) for the Japan Association of Language Teachers(JALT) is Critical Thinking. Critics of GI such as Kohn (Feb.1997) point out that the goal of a teacher concerned aboutsocial problems should simply be to teach or lead students togreater critical thinking, so they can then make intelligent,informed choices themselves about any topic they encounter. Ina 1997 address delivered at the University of Chicago,political scientist John Mearsheimer explained that thepurpose of higher education was to lead students to think morecritically and become more self-aware, but not to "provide youwith moral guidance. Indeed, it (academia) is a remarkablyamoral institution" (qtd. in Kiss & Euben, p. 4).

To promote critical thinking (CT) Stradling (1989) proposesteaching students "how to ask good, searching questions andhow to detect poor, misleading or evasive answers" (ptdqtd. inPeaty p.98). Fundamental critical thinking skills includeevaluating whether statements are of fact, or opinion, if thefacts expressed are true, false, or unverifiable, ifassertions are supported logically, and if proposals are good,or bad, and for whom, and why. They also include identifyingreasoning flaws, such as fallacies and leaps of logic, and thenumerous devices, such as loaded language, used to mislead thepublic by public relations specialists working for governmentsand for private corporations. Critical thinking, together withmedia literacy, could help protect students from the influencenot only of teachers with extreme views, but also of those whoseek to manipulate the mainstream media and the Internet forpolitical or commercial gain. In other words, both GIeducators and critics of GI should be pleased with theintroduction and integration of CT in classroom activities.

If debating war and peace, environmental and socialresponsibility, and personal morals have a place in theclassroom, students and teachers will surely benefit fromconsidering them thoughtfully and with awareness of bias—theaims of critical thinking (CT). Thus, GI and CT are naturallycomplementary. The aim of Developing Minds: A Resource Book for TeachingThinking is to “rejuvenate our focus on thinking throughout thecurriculum.” In it, Costa (2001) makes a case for GI: “Our

14

Developing Intercultural Literacy through the Teaching ofEnglish

society further recognizes a growing need for informed,skilled, and compassionate citizens who value truth, openness,creativity, interdependence, balance, and love as well as thesearch for personal and spiritual freedom in all areas ofone’s life” (p. xv).

One succinct definition of CT is provided by Ennis (1985)who calls it, “reasonable, reflective thinking that is focusedon deciding what to believe or do” (p. 28). This contrastsFish’s position that teachers should be ‘pursuing truth’because the end of CT, as Ennis describes it, is to believe ordo something. While avoiding absolute positions and keepingopen-minded about issues remains crucial, educators should notbe expected to never feel or express conviction as Fish seemsto expect.

Decrying typical language learning materials which rely on“canonized scripts and canned curriculum packages,” Rojas(2001) emphasizes the need for students to be asked to thinkand make meaning from lessons. Mirroring Fish, Rojas writes,“It is in the ongoing search for and the asking of questionsthat new understandings come forth” (p. 326) and articulatesfour questions for classroom teachers who are interested in CTto consider:

Why do we do what we do?What would more thoughtful language instruction look and sound like?How can we best learn to implement these conditions?How will we know what we have learned? (pp 326-330)

In addition to considering key questions, a teacher aimingto integrate CT can consider strategies as well. In Berman’s(2001) “An Empowering Methodology”, the 4th of nine strategiesis “Teach the questions rather than the answers” (p. 13). Theauthor goes on to encourage teachers to deal with toughissues, seek root causes and understand limiting biases.Returning to the above example of the EFL text activity aboutvivisection, it is clear that the author did that-but is itenough? Clearly, teachers who ask generally unasked questions

15

John Spiri

in class that challenge the status quo are not doing so infavor of the status quo. Questions alone can be incendiary ifthey challenge fiercely held beliefs.

To further our understanding of CT, Ennis (2002) lists thecharacteristics of a critical thinker, with the first three of12 listed below:

1. Is open-minded and mindful of alternatives2. Tries to be well-informed3. Judges well the credibility of sources

In support of the third point above, Abbot (2010) says, "Ifthey (students) are to be skilful readers, our students haveto learn to detect prejudice and bias in written texts" (p.12). For sure, bias exists in media, and recognizing it helpsreaders make sense of information. While detecting externalbias is important, a more fundamental issue may be addressingour own biases. For example, a reader’s own bias may lead toerrant interpretations of a writer’s bias, confoundingattempts to “read between the lines”. The problem of self-biashas been described as “the bias blind spot” by Emily Pronin.Teachers, like others, can fall victim to the bias blind spot.For one example of the bias blind spot, Elder (2004) notes,”The Center For Critical Thinking found a significant gapbetween what faculty think they know about critical thinkingand what classroom practices actually reveal (about what theyknow). Much of that gap is traceable to inadvertentintellectual arrogance” (section 12, para. 2). Thus, effortsto detect bias in a reading should be made with caution, andreaders should initially or at least concurrently strive toidentify their own biases. While these issues may be mentionedin a language classroom, an inquiry into bias and self-deception may only be possible if time (enough contact hours)and level (high language proficiency) are combined. Tocontinue with Ennis’ list of the characteristics of criticalthinkers:

4)Identifies conclusions, reasons, and assumptions

16

Developing Intercultural Literacy through the Teaching ofEnglish

5)Judges well the quality of an argument, including theacceptability of its reasons, assumptions, and evidence

6)Can develop and defend a reasonable position well7)Asks appropriate clarifying questions8)Formulates plausible hypotheses; plans experiments well9)Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context10) Draws conclusions when warranted, but with caution11) Integrates all items in this list when deciding

what to believe or do

Trying to address all the items above in a second languageclassroom, especially one with 30 or more students who meetjust 90 minutes a week, is certainly challenging if notimpossible. But there are ways language teachers can integratesome of the above (see section below). In fact, in some waysthe GI/content based approach naturally addresses CT by tryingto make student well-informed (2), asking students to defendtheir position (6) and asking appropriate clarifying questions(7). Since, however, the teacher’s own bias is under question,the above list can serve a guideline for a teacher andmaterial writer to follow.

INTEGRATING A CT FRAMEWORK INTO A GI ACTIVITY

Critical thinking is a relatively new concept to EFL/ESLteachers (Rear, 2010), A CT framework that may be adapted tosecond language classroom activities was provided by Facione(1990) (qtd in Rear).

figure 1: Facione’s Consensus list of CT Cognitive Skillsand Sub-skills

SKILL SUB-SKILLS1. Interpretation Categorization, Decoding

Significance, ClarifyingMeaning

2. Analysis Examining Ideas,Identifying Arguments,

17

John Spiri

Analyzing Arguments3. Evaluation Assessing Claims, Assessing

Arguments4. Inference Querying Evidence,

Conjecturing Alternatives,Drawing Conclusions

5. Explanation Stating Results, JustifyingProcedures, Presenting

Arguments6. Self-Regulation Self-examination, Self-

correct

These skills and sub-skills may be utilized in EFL lessonsthat integrate CT as Rear (2010) describes. A similarsimplification of Facione’s list was utilized in lessons aboutwhaling described below.

An extremely controversial issue in Japan is whaling. Theongoing battle between Japanese whalers in Arctic Ocean watersand the Sea Sheppard direction action environmental groupwhich obstructs those activities gets much press coverage. Aforeign teacher in Japan, especially one against whaling,would want to think carefully before presenting a lesson whichdescribes the anti-whaling viewpoint. A CT framework would askstudents and the instructor to put aside opinions and followthe above steps. A list of questions seeking to addressFacione’s first skill above (Interpretation) and identify andclarify the issue could be as follows:

1)Identify and clarify the issue (Interpretation)ex. Is whaling traditional?

2)Are whales particularly intelligent? Does it matter? Is whaling immoral/wrong?

3)Is whaling illegal (by international law)? Are the laws fair? Who made the laws?

4)Are direct action protests appropriate? What sort of protests are appropriate for individuals and groups who disagree with whaling?

18

Developing Intercultural Literacy through the Teaching ofEnglish

5)Are the number of whales decreasing? Is the population ofcertain species stable?

6)Do whales help fishermen (by eating many fish)?7)Does whaling destroy or harm the ecosystem?8)Is whaling research necessary?9)Is research actually being conducted?10) If research is necessary, is killing the whales

necessary to conduct it?11) Does whale meat contain much mercury? Is it safe to

eat?

The questions above are meant to challenge assumptions onboth sides of the whaling argument. This emphasis onclarification puts the brakes on opinions and posturing to winan argument that might normally occur. Subsequent steps toaddress Facione’s skills that follow Facione’s list (seefigure 1) to utilize the framework could be:

2. Gather and organize information about the issue(Analysis)An instruction to students could be, “Discuss each of theabove 11 points regarding interpretation of the issue.Setting aside your personal views, give as much informationas possible for both sides (for example, in what wayswhaling is traditional, and in what ways whaling is nottraditional).”3. Evaluate that information for accuracy and applicability(Evaluation)This step would involve checking sources such as articles orbooks about the topic, if time allows. Normally, classroomtime and resources will not allow checking sources. Ideally,in a lesson that spans several weeks, students will be askedto research outside of the classroom, again putting asidetheir personal views. 4. Draw conclusions from the evidence based on theinformation you have (Inference)Students can be instructed to make statements such as, "Ithink whaling is/is not traditional because ______________."

19

John Spiri

To the extent possible, students should be encouraged tomake their inferences based on the facts that were uncoveredduring the evaluation stage.5. Make one overall statement (Explanation)Students make a succinct statement such as “My main viewabout this topic is... ___________ because ____________.” 6. Critically appraise and examine one’s performance (Self-regulation)This step prompts students to further question their biasand whether they are even willing to amend their viewsshould new information come to light. Questions that can beconsidered include:        1. Could new evidence cause you to change your view?Why or why not?        2. What aspect of this topic are you most sure about(for example, which of the top 11 points)? Why?        3. How does your culture influence your view aboutthis topic? How?        4. How have your personal experiences influencedyour view about this topic?

While there might be a tendency for a teacher who is anti-whaling to present this issue in a biased manner, adhering tothe above guidelines can assure consider of variousperspectives and reduce the chance of offending students whoare adamantly pro-whaling. Thus, passion for the topic can bemotivating for students who want to express their views, whichis a principle of the GI approach.

CONCLUSION

There is no question that English language educators canmisuse classroom time to push their own PE agenda or usequestionable tactics to get children or adults to believe ordo something, however noble the aim might be. Given the voicesof both critics and proponents of PE noted above, there seems

20

Developing Intercultural Literacy through the Teaching ofEnglish

to be consensus that teachers who use class time to advocateextreme political or religious views are actinginappropriately. Beyond egrarious examples of recruitment andadvocacy, it seems untenable to reject PE content altogether.Moreover, the inclusion of critical thinking activities intoany PE curriculum is beneficial because it will naturally movethe activity away from narrow views and give the activity aframework within which multiple viewpoints will naturally beincluded. A GI and CT activity in the English languageclassroom can motivate students to consider all points of viewwhile fulfilling the aim to enable students to see English asa tool and means of communication rather than an end initself. Thus, the inclusion of PE in the classroom comes withthe risk of a teacher narrowly advocating his or her politicalview, the potential rewards are greater. Many other learningexperiences, such as field trips and service travel, come withtheir own risks (injury, for example) but nonetheless remainvaluable. The same can be said for addressing PE issues in theclassroom.

In addition, there are few venues where controversial topicssuch as peace and war, ethics, and social justice can bediscussed by individuals with diverse views. Activities aboutsuch topics should be welcome in the university classroombecause they are excellent opportunities to address PE topicsin a rationale, systematic manner and, in the languageclassroom especially, a chance to hear a variety of opinions.If education is universal, as it aims to be at a university, notopics should be taboo.

Also, an EFL/ESL educator with sincere interest in thecontent that he or she teaches can bring greater energy intothe classroom which students can feed upon. Being passionateabout course content, whether it’s PE or otherwise, can leadto various positive learning results. Educator passion is nodoubt preferable to educator apathy.

Thus, teaching about global issues or ethics iscontroversial but worthwhile if approached properly. In theEnglish language classroom, integrating the lesson in acritical thinking framework will help the teacher and students

21

John Spiri

gain objectivity and delay the expression of opinions, a goodthing especially when a topic is not deeply understood (as mayoften be the case with young adult learners who have not hadthe time or experience to explore an issue deeply). Such aframework will give the teacher and students the bestopportunity to understand and address biases. A sincere effortto think critically about a controversial issue will also leadthe teacher away from subtle or blatant indoctrination andtowards respect and consideration of all viewpoints. Thus,whenever PE is allowable given the course’s description anddepartment’s aims, language teachers should consider it alegitimate approach to help students learn content, learnlanguage, and consider ways to make individuals and societymore peaceful and just.

22

Developing Intercultural Literacy through the Teaching ofEnglish

REFERENCES

Abbott, G. (2010). Sceptical inquiry, reading skills andterrorism. Global Issues in Language Education Newsletter, 74, 10-13.

Berman, S. (2001). Thinking in context: Teaching for open-mindedness and critical understanding. In (ed. Costa A.),Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 11-17).Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Butin, D. W. (2008). Saving the University on His Own Time:Stanley Fish,Service-Learning, and Knowledge Legitimation in the Academy.Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Fall 2008: 1-9. Retrievedfrom http://danbutin.org/Butin_Review_Fish.pdf

Costa, A. ed. (2001). Developing Minds: A Resource Book for TeachingThinking. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Damon, W. (2002). Character Education. Hoover Institution Press.Retrievedfromhttp://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/0817929622_vii.pdf

Peace Education. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/peace/frame2.htm

Elder, L. (2004). A Professional Development Model for Colleges andUniversities that Fosters Critical Thinking. Foundation for CriticalThinking. Retrieved fromhttp://www.criticalthinking.org/professionalDev/model-for-colleges.cfm

Ennis, R. (1985). Critical thinking and the curriculum. NationalForum, 65, 28-31.

Finch, A. (2004). Peace begins in the classroom. AcademicExchange Quarterly, 8(4), 219-223. Retrieved fromhttp://www.finchpark.com/arts/

Fish, S. (2003). Aim low. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(36).Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Aim-Low/45210

Fish, S. (2010). I Know It When I See It: A reply to Kiss andEuben. In Kiss & Euben (eds.) Debating Moral Education: Rethinking

23

John Spiri

the Role of the Modern University (pp. 76-91). Durham: DukeUniversity Press.

Foderaro, L. (September 30, 2010). Private Moment Made Public,Then a Fatal Jump. The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/nyregion/30suicide.html

Goodmacher, G. (2008). Stimulating Conversation: Thinking Critically aboutCurrent Issues. Fukuoka, Japan: Intercom Press.

Guest, M. (2005). A Response to Peaty’s Global Issues in EFL:Education or Indoctrination? The Language Teacher, May 2005, Vol. 25,no. 5. Retrievedfrom http://www.jalt-publications.org/archive/tlt/2005/05_2005TLT.pdf

Hauerwas, S. (2010). The Pathos of the University: The Case ofStanley Fish. In Kiss & Euben (eds.) Debating Moral Education:Rethinking the Role of the Modern University (pp. 92-110). Durham: DukeUniversity Press.

Kiss, E. & Euben, J. (2010). Debating Moral Education: Rethinking theRole of the Modern University. Duke University Press, Durham andLondon.

Kohn, A. (1997). How Not to Teach Values: A Critical Look atCharacter Education. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 78, No. 6. Retrieved fromhttp://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/hnttv.htm

Peaty, D. (2004). Global Issues in EFL: Education orIndoctrination? The Language Teacher, issue 28.8, August 2004.Retrievedfrom http://jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/445-global-issues-efl-education-or-indoctrination

Peaty, D. (2006). Topics for Global Citizenship. Tokyo: KinseidoPublishing Co., Ltd.

Peterson, B. (2007). Holding Teachers Accountable forIndoctrination: A Reexamination of I.A. Snook’s Notion of“Intent”. Philosophy of Education, 298-305. Retrieved fromhttp://ojs.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/pes/article/viewFile/1476/222

Rear, D. (2010). “A Systematic Approach to Teaching CriticalThinking through Debate.” ELTWO; Voices from the Classroom, Features,Vol. 2. Retrieved fromhttp://blog.nus.edu.sg/eltwo/2010/02/19/a-systematic-approach-to-teaching-critical-thinking-through-debate/

24

Developing Intercultural Literacy through the Teaching ofEnglish

Rojas, V. P. (2001). “A View from the Foxhole: ElevatingForeign Language Classrooms” in Developing Minds: A Resource Bookfor Teaching Thinking (ed. Costa A.). Alexandria, VA; Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sargent, T. (2007). Tackling controversial issues: Balance andintegrity. In K. Bradford-Watts (Ed.), JALT2006 ConferenceProceedings. Tokyo: JALT. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2006/E077.pdf

Schwartz, A. (2002). Transmitting Moral Wisdom in an Age ofthe Autonomous Self. In, W. Damon (editor). Bringing in a New Era of Character Education.

Stanford, CA:Hoover Institution Press. Retrieved fromhttp://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/0817929622_1.pdf

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948), article 26, (2).Retrieved fromhttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

25