IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v12y2022i2p21582440221094584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating EFL Learners’ Perceptions of Critical Thinking Learning Affordances: Voices From Chinese University English Majors

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoshuang Du
  • Lian Zhang

Abstract

Affordances are action possibilities provided by the environment. This study investigated university EFL learners’ perceptions of the critical thinking learning affordances in their course learning environment. The participants were a cohort of 156 fourth-year English majors from a Chinese university where the English department was under a curriculum reform to promote students’ language learning and critical thinking development. The instrument of this study was the Learning Environment Affordance Survey_Critical Thinking (LEAS_CT) with a set of multiple-choice questions. The data analysis methods used in the study included descriptive statistical analysis, factor analysis, and MANOVA tests. The results showed that the English majors had strongly positive perceptions of the critical thinking learning affordances, which included four types: Rich Resources, Interactive Negotiation, Quality Task, and Community Culture. The results also revealed that high-achieving students had significantly better perceptions of the critical thinking learning affordances than lower-achieving students. Responses to the multiple-choice questions indicated that the English majors considered content-rich materials, teacher-facilitation, and small-group/peer learning benefited them most in terms of critical thinking development. Factors that influenced their perceptions of learning affordances and implications concerning integrating critical thinking into the tertiary EFL curriculum were discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoshuang Du & Lian Zhang, 2022. "Investigating EFL Learners’ Perceptions of Critical Thinking Learning Affordances: Voices From Chinese University English Majors," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:21582440221094584
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440221094584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440221094584
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440221094584?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:21582440221094584. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.