The Impact of Teaching Critical Thinking on EFL Learners’ Speaking Skill: A Case Study of an Iranian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English speaking proficiency requires more than knowing its grammatical and semantic rules. It also includes the knowledge of how native speakers of one language use the language in the context of structures of interpersonal exchange, within which many factors interact. Critical thinking is the deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim and of a degree of confidence with which the language speakers accept or reject it. The present quasi-experimental study aimed to investigate the impact of teaching critical thinking on the speaking skill of EFL learners. To this end, 44 male and female intermediate students at Respina Talk (i.e., Iran-Canada) language school with the age range of 20-35 were selected in order to achieve the objectives of the study. According to the obtained results, there was a significant relationship between the promotion of critical thinking and EFL learners’ speaking skill. The findings of this study may have some theoretical and practical implications for material developers, EFL teachers, language learners, etc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".