Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Specific Area of Interest: Higher-Level Thinking Skills

It has been proposed that by consistently incorporating learning activities which encourage higher-level thinking skills, it is possible to improve students’ English communication skills even though English is not explicitly taught and improve the degree to which students are able to learn and act on the content which they have assimilated in class (Hill & Miller, 2013).

The awareness that our thought processes have varying degrees of complexity has probably been with us for a very long time. In 1956, however, the educator Benjamin Bloom worked with a group of educational psychologists in an attempt to distinguish certain ways of thinking from one another and to classify these ways of thinking by their degree of cognitive complexity. The result was what the group called a “cognitive taxonomy”: a classification of different kinds of thinking in a hierarchical order of complexity. Originally, this taxonomy described six different levels of thinking: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Over time, this has been modified and revised so that the levels are now described as remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.

For almost 60 years, “Bloom’s taxonomy,” as it is called, has been used by many educators and curriculum developers as an underlying structure in their teaching. The reason for this is summarized well by Wendy Conklin (2012) in her book Higher-Order Thinking Skills to Develop 21st Century Learners:

Make no mistake—the ultimate objective in classrooms is to use higher-order thinking not because it is superior to facts, but because higher-order thinking encompasses lower-order thinking. The value of higher-order thinking is immense, because all levels of thinking are utilized. To be able to analyse, students need to understand and comprehend the facts. Higher-order thinking trains students for real-world application outside the classroom. It involves a series of related problems that contain important facts to solve instead of just a series of related facts to memorize. These activities will support students as they grow into adults and make decisions (in their lives). Students must be able to acquire the facts to make a good decision, while accessing higher-order thinking skills. The goal is building educated learners, and that happens by using higher-order thinking (p. 72).

There is a considerable body of research to suggest that higher-order thinking skills contribute to academic achievement (Pogrow, 2005). When students are required to use higher-level thinking skills, their degree of engagement with the subject matter increases. This increased level of engagement is shown to have a positive effect on student learning (Skinner & Belmont, 1993) and in itself is “a robust predictor of student achievement and behaviour in school” (Klem & Connell, 2004, p. 5). Other research shows that by infusing instruction with higher-order thinking skills, it is possible to improve students’ English communication skills even though English is not explicitly taught, in addition to improving the degree to which students are able to learn and act on the content which they have assimilated in class (Hill & Miller, 2013).

New studies in neuroscience show that involving the mind in complex thinking processes stimulates brain growth. In one important study, neuroscientist Bob Jacobs and his colleagues (Jacobs, Schall, & Scheibel, 1993, as cited in Conklin, 2012, p. 41) found that the brains of graduate students who were challenged to use higher-level thinking skills grew 25% more than graduate students who were not challenged to think at a higher level.

As part of this study, the researcher conducted an extensive interview with a senior human resources manager in a major Taiwanese electronics company which has a large international footprint. The discussion focused on the qualities which she looks for in applicants during the hiring process. She said that an applicant must possess a substantial amount of content knowledge and show that they have been able to build up a superior academic record. But this is not what really matters most to her. What she is looking for, and has difficulty finding, are applicants who can “think on their feet.” “We don’t have the time to shadow new employees, or to give them a lot of support. They have to jump into their jobs and work things out for themselves quickly. They can’t wait around to be told what to do all the time. They need to show that they can think “outside of the box” and demonstrate that they have good independent judgement.” What she said is what Conklin (2012) expressed so well: “The goal is building educated learners, and that happens by using higher-order thinking.”

The perspective of this experienced human resources officer suggests that there is value to emphasizing higher-order thinking skills in the English medium classroom when teaching academic content areas. On the one hand, the research suggests that students’ ability to acquire an understanding of, and demonstrate their acquisition of, academic content will improve. On the other hand, research suggests that students learn a foreign language better when they are challenged to use it in a context where they have to think in more complex ways (Hill & Miller, 2013). Many research studies show that many classrooms do not challenge students to use higher-level thinking skills when they are taught academic content. The US Department of Education Ramirez Report, for instance, has shown that, in general, lecturers tend to ask low-level questions, and students do not produce much beyond simple recall (Ramirez, Yuen, Ramey, & Pasta, 1991). The findings in the Ramirez Report are supported by prominent researchers (Goodlad, 1984; Sirotnik, 1983). This is particularly true in classrooms where the lecture approach to teaching is predominant. As Crowl, Kaminsky, & Podell, (1997) note (as cited in King, F.L., Goodson, L., 1997, p. 43):

A major factor in the growth of higher-order thinking capability is a student-centered classroom. It supports the open expression of ideas, provides active modelling of thinking processes, develops thinking skills, and motivates students to learn. Without it, students will not persist in higher order thinking processes.

A number of studies of EFL textbooks show that these books tend to focus more on the lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy than on the high levels of thinking. A study of Iranian high school and pre-university English textbooks, for instance, conducted by A. Mehdi Riazi of Macquarie University in Australia (2010), states “The overall findings of this study demonstrated that the most frequent learning objectives pursued…were lower-order cognitive skills, that is, knowledge, comprehension and application” (Riazi & Mosalanejad, 2010, p. 23).

If student textbooks and the lecture approach to teaching tend to emphasize lower-level thinking skills, the challenge for the EMI lecturer is how to ensure that higher-level thinking skills are built into his or her instruction and into the overall learning environment. How may this be done?

Background of the Case

This study investigated two graduate-level EMI courses offered by a prestigious national university in Taiwan. One course focused on compensation management and is offered by the university’s graduate program in human resources development. The other course is on branding, which is one of the MBA courses offered by the university’s graduate business management program. The aims of the investigation were several:

  • To examine how these courses were established

  • To learn about the training and academic background of their lecturers

  • To determine what language prerequisites are required of the students

  • To examine the degree to which higher-level thinking skills are emphasized in the learning activities which take place in each course

  • To learn about the students’ responses to studying content in an English-medium environment

  • To learn if the students felt that using higher-order thinking in the course helped them with their content learning and helped improve their communicative English skills

Data collection was carried out by triangulation of several data sources: classroom observation, two individual interviews with the courses’ lecturers, and focus group interviews with students—all of which were audio-recorded—and a student survey questionnaire.

Compensation Management

Altogether the program which offers this course has around 25 first-year students, 25 second-year students, and 5 full-time lecturers. All courses are taught in English. When the program was first created, the lecturers who joined the program from the existing university faculty were all volunteers who felt capable of teaching their subject matter in English. From then on, the program only recruited faculty who could demonstrate that they were capable of teaching their subject matter in English. This was a primary requirement for being considered for a position in this program. The lecturer of the course in compensation had completed her Ph.D. in Taiwan and had also completed a master’s degree in curriculum design in the USA.

The course which was observed had 23 first- and second-year graduate students. Seventeen were Taiwan nationals, and six came from other countries. Five of the six foreign students were nonnative speakers from Thailand, Nicaragua, and Honduras. One foreign student, who was a native English speaker, came from Hawaii. The goal of the course is to help students understand how companies design their compensation systems, how they pay their employees, and how their payrolls are set up, their incentive systems, compensation issues for special groups, and their overall human resource policies.

The compensation management course was designed in a way which intertwined content lectures with a three-stage live case study. In this course, over a period of 14 weeks, students study each chapter in George T. Milkovich, Jerry M. Newman, and Barry A. Gerhart’s 2014 textbook (11th ed.) Compensation, published by McGraw-Hill/Irwin. At the same time, they work in teams of five through the live case study. As the lecturer’s syllabus explains:

The live case studies involve developing compensation systems or programs for real organizations. Students will form small groups for this project. Each group will select an organization they are familiar with and work with the organization to develop/improve its compensation system for a selected group/department of employees. Project tasks include interviews, job analysis, job evaluation, salary survey and pay design. Each group will present their progress in class at three checkpoints using PowerPoint presentation, and turn in a draft progress report in Word document at the same time. The three draft progress reports shall accumulate into a final report due at the end of the semester. The final project report shall incorporate all feedback provided at each of the progress report presentations.

Expected contents of the three progress reports and presentations:

Report 1.:

Live case study presentation I: Case company intro, current compensation strategy and practice, job evaluation scheme of the selected employees.

Report 2.:

Live case study presentation II: Job evaluation result, salary survey result, pay level and pay grade of selected employees.

Report 3.:

Live case study presentation III: Pay structure of the selected employees, recommended pay-for-performance plans and benefits.

The goal of this live case study is to examine how compensation principles are applied to achieve organizational objectives; the strategic use of compensation systems for attracting, motivating, and retaining employees; and the managerial aspects of paying employees at all organizational levels. Students are also expected to examine the current state of compensation decision making and how recent theoretical and research developments inform compensation decisions.

Branding

The course on branding had 23 students, nine of whom were Taiwanese. This course is a three-credit elective which can be used to fulfil the requirements for a 36-credit MBA degree from the university’s graduate program in management. This MBA program is primarily taught in Chinese.

The goal of the course is to build a basic knowledge of branding. The course focuses on case studies, using a different case every week, and is designed to help students to think rather than to just remember facts. The branding course is one of several MBA courses which are taught in English. These courses were created for two reasons: They enable the university to recruit students from overseas universities which are partners in a dual degree program with this university, and these courses make it easier for Taiwanese students to find employment in businesses which are international in scope.

No English language test score is required to enroll in the branding elective. While the lecturer, a Taiwanese, earned a B.A. from National Taiwan University, he received a doctorate in psychology from Columbia University in the USA and speaks English with a high level of fluency. The course meets the needs of the international students at the university who are accustomed to studying in an English-medium environment, and the Taiwanese students who choose the course know that the text and instruction are all in English.

The lecturer of this course does not have any particular training in curriculum design. The lecturer reported that since this is a graduate-level course, he does not give paper-and-pencil tests. “Branding is more about planning for marketing a brand.” He has the students work on a project that requires them to create a brand for a product of their choice. This needs to be a new product. Thus, they have to prepare a proposal, do field research, present that proposal as their midterm, and present their final product as their final exam. In short, they have to create a new concept around a product, using the concepts and techniques which they have learned in the class lectures and from their textbook, Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measure, and Managing Brand Equity, by K.L. Keller (2012, 4th global ed., Pearson).

When asked where he had learned the pedagogical principles which he used to design this class, the lecturer responded:

This came from self-teaching. There was no real training. At my prior university, when they requested that I begin including English in my content courses, I began using half Mandarin and half English. I had to assemble the materials myself. My Power Points were in English, and the textbook was in English. Now I am using EMI in this graduate course, which is a case study course, which is very different. Very little Chinese is spoken in this class. In a case study course I have to design a path of discussion. When you use study cases, in each individual case there is usually a purpose for applying certain theories or models or frameworks for analysing the case in order to come up with a certain solution. The only way to get to those solutions is through discussion and by responding to questions. From the answers which the students give, you have to lead them to new ideas. Basically it is a process of shaping human thinking, leading them to consider what kinds of perspectives they can take on the case which they are studying. In a chain of questions and answers you get to a final conclusion. It is a very dynamic process where the teacher has to moderate the discussion, ask questions, challenge answers that don’t make sense, and lead students to new insights. One particular challenge for me is that overseas students who are native English speakers can tend to dominate the discussion, so I have to use different devices to get the Taiwanese and other non-native speakers to participate more fully in our class discussions.

The students in this course are told first to decide on a product. Then they must conduct an environmental analysis in the field, describe the products, and produce a financial plan. It is the students’ responsibility to devise their own timeline to complete these steps. The lecturer reported that he spends about half of his time in each 3-h class lecturing in relation to the text and half the time on the cases that the class is studying. The cases used are Harvard cases, chosen to compliment the topic being studied in each chapter of the textbook.

With regard to the questions which he asks the students in class, the lecturer reported that some are prepared beforehand, but most are spontaneous in response to whatever is happening in the class discussion. The prepared questions are those which help set the context for the class discussion and help students focus on a set of concepts they will need to use in thinking about the case they are studying. The spontaneous questions are designed to help students begin to see and understand the dynamics taking place in the case they are studying. The lecturer reported that he does not give the teams any particular guidance on how to work well together. “Sometimes they have a black sheep in the group,” he said. “Sometimes they tell me, but otherwise they handle things on their own.”

Regarding the in-class discussion, the lecturer discussed his challenge in overcoming the tendency of the overseas students to dominate. He said that he tries whenever he can to use those students to spark discussion and encourage others to interact with them. In the observation of this class, it was noted that the Taiwanese students all sat together, and few ventured to engage in active discussion. Some of the nonnative English students from other countries did speak up, but there did not appear to be any lecturer-organized classroom management structures designed to get students to discuss issues together or to report out or defend their thinking. The presentation groups, however, all contained a mix of Taiwanese and overseas students.

Case Study

Students’ attitudes toward the two courses examined in this case study were collected through a questionnaire, as well as through written responses and a 1-h focus group with the students in each class. Additionally, each lecturer was interviewed twice, once before the observations, and once after the observations had been completed.

Student Questionnaire Responses

The questionnaire included both open and closed questions, making it possible for students to provide short written responses in addition to filling out Likert scale questions. The questionnaire focused on how students responded in general to each of the courses: how they felt about their experience learning the course content in English, whether they felt it was worthwhile taking on the challenge of learning the content and English at the same time, whether they found it difficult to understand the lecturer’s lectures in English, whether they felt they had successfully learned the course content, and whether they thought that having to learn the content in English would adversely affect their grade. They were also asked if they thought that studying the content in English improved their communication skills and increased their confidence in speaking English. The focus groups concentrated more on how the students responded to those parts of the course which were project based, and which required them to use higher-level thinking skills.

Student Questionnaire Responses to the Course in Compensation Management

In response to the questions itemized in Part 1 of Table 6.1, which ask whether their English language skills had improved, both the foreign and the Taiwanese students in the Compensation Management course responded that they felt their communication skills in English had improved, that they felt more confident using English, and that they believed it was worth the effort to combine studying the subject matter while also learning English. One of the concerns which educators interested in establishing EMI courses have is that students will worry that they will not be able to get a good grade in an English-mediated instruction course as they would in a course taught in their own language. It is interesting that in their responses to the student survey in the compensation course, the Taiwanese students expressed considerably more concern about this issue than did the foreign students.

Table 6.1 Student responses in the compensation management course
Full size table

Responses to the questions itemized in Part Two of Table 6.2, which ask students about their reactions to studying the subject matter in English, show that the foreign students in the compensation course didn’t seem to have much difficulty understanding the lecturer’s lectures in English or learning the content in English. They also felt that studying the subject in English would not affect their academic performance to any great degree.

Table 6.2 Student responses in the branding course
Full size table

The Taiwanese students, however, were more concerned about how their academic performance might be affected because they were studying the content in English rather than in Chinese. Many of them experienced a certain degree of difficulty understanding the lecturer’s lectures, and 11% of them felt that they weren’t able to learn the content as well in this EMI context as they would if the subject were taught in Chinese.

Student Questionnaire Responses to the Course in Branding

In response to the questions itemized in Part One of Table 6.3, which ask whether their English language skills had improved, most of the foreign and Taiwanese students in the Branding course responded that they felt that their communication skills in English had improved, that they were more confident using English, and that they believed it was worth the effort to combine studying the subject matter while also learning English. In the focus groups, some foreign students explained that when they filled out the questionnaire, they indicated they did not feel that their communicative skills in English, or their confidence in using English, had changed or improved much in this particular course because they already had strong skills in these areas. The one negative response to the question, “Is it worth the effort to combine studying the subject matter and learn English?,” came from a student from China who wanted to study branding but discovered that it was only offered as an English elective, so he was forced to study the subject in English. He said that if the branding course had been offered in Chinese, he would have preferred that option.

Table 6.3 Bloom’s taxonomy
Full size table

Responses to the questions itemized in Part Two of Table 6.2, which ask students about their reactions to studying the subject matter in English, show that like the foreign students in the compensation course, the foreign students in the branding course didn’t seem to have much difficulty understanding the lecturer’s lectures in English or learning the content in English. Other than the student from China, they also felt that studying the subject in English would not affect their academic performance to any great degree.

A quarter of the Taiwanese students in the branding course expressed some degree of concern about whether their academic performance might be affected because they were studying the content in English rather than in Chinese, even though they seemed to understand the lecturer’s lectures, and felt that they had learned the content almost as well as if they had studied the content in Chinese.

Higher-Level Thinking Skills in Both Courses

Neither of the courses included in this case study specified that they purposefully required students to use higher-level thinking skills. However, through the interviews with the lecturers and by examining the project requirements in each course, it could be determined that students did need to use higher-level thinking skills in order to complete their projects.

This case study took from Wendy Conklin’s book “Higher-Order Thinking Skills to Develop 21 st Century Learners” (2012) three suggestions for how lecturers can introduce higher-order thinking skills into their lessons and examined the degree to which the lecturers of the compensation and branding classes had actually included these practices in their courses. These practices involve (1) including activities which stimulate student thinking at each level of Bloom’s taxonomy, (2) involving students in problem-based learning, and (3) using Socratic questioning techniques in class.

The first practice is to create activities in the course which stimulate thinking at each level of Bloom’s taxonomy. These levels of thinking, as summarized in Wendy Conklin’s book, are shown below (Table 6.3).

The second practice is to introduce problem-based learning in the course. Conklin summarizes this practice in this way:

A typical problem-based learning lesson has several cycles. The steps are the following: first students need to locate a real-world problem; then they need to determine some facts about the problem and find a way to enter the problem; after the problem has been defined, students should discuss what they know about the facts associated with the problem; students then brainstorm ideas about the problem and create a problem statement which serves as a hypothesis. In order to answer the hypothesis, students need to identify further information necessary to understand the problem and to identify resources where that information can be found. These sources could include interviewing, data collection, and conducting other forms of research. Students then develop proposed solutions to the problem and consider the consequences of applying their proposed solutions. As a final step, students prepare a presentation in which they explain, apply, and justify their solution to the problem. Their information should take the form of some sort of publication which can be shared with others.

A third practice is to use Socratic questioning techniques in class. These would include:

Questions that clarify

Questions that probe assumptions

Questions that look for reasons and evidence

Question about perspectives and viewpoints

Questions that look at consequences

Questions about the question

Higher- Level Thinking Skills in the Compensation Course

An analysis of the research data showed that, to a considerable degree, the design of the compensation course does incorporate all three practices recommended by Wendy Conklin for introducing higher-level thinking skills into the curriculum.

Practice One

creating activities in the course which stimulate levels of thinking at each level of Bloom’s taxonomy:

Through her lectures and midterm and final exams, the lecturer ensures that students are tested on Remembering the key content and concepts of the subject area which they are studying. In the preparation of the first and second steps of their live case study, students have to classify and summarize the case company information which they have collected, including the current compensation strategy and practice, the job evaluation scheme for the selected employees, job evaluation results, salary survey results, pay levels, and pay grades of selected employees. Students must compare, contrast, demonstrate, outline, classify, explain, and summarize: all functions of the Understanding level in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. In the third step of their live case studies, students have to describe the pay structure of the selected employees, compare this pay structure with the pay structures of competitor businesses, and recommend new pay-for-performance plans and benefits. This final step, which involves combining all the information collected in the first two steps, requires students to employ the four higher-level thinking skills in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy: Applying (interviewing, constructing a model, illustrating), Analyzing (categorizing, classifying, surveying, creating questionnaires, constructing charts), Evaluating (making judgements based on criteria, criticizing, justifying, recommending), and Creating (putting elements together to form a coherent and functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing).

Practice Two

creating activities which introduce problem-based learning in the course.

In their live case studies, students are involved in all the stages which Conklin describes as being part of problem-based learning: In their case study they have to locate a real-world problem, determine the facts, and find a way to enter the problem, discuss what they know to be the facts of the problem, analyze the problem, brainstorm ideas about the problem, and create an exact statement of the problem. In their class reports, they need to identify information necessary to understand the problem and identify resources to be used to gather information. They must find and share information by interviewing, collecting data, and conducting other forms of research. And finally they must develop solutions by studying the information, finding a solution that fits best, and considering the consequences for their solution and present this information to the class.

Practice Three

using Socratic questioning techniques in class.

In her interview, the lecturer of the compensation course indicated that she used many of these Socratic questioning techniques in her classroom. She reported asking clarification questions, in which she asked students how they would explain a concept in their own words in Chinese. (This was the only occasion when she used Chinese with her class.) She said that she frequently asked students to give examples and to explain their thoughts more clearly. She said that she asked questions which attempted to probe students’ assumptions such as, “Why do you think this way about…?” and “What are your assumptions?” She said that she looked for students to give reasons and evidence to back up the claims which they made in their live case studies: “How do we know this is true?”and “What else do we need to know?” She reported asking questions about perspectives and viewpoints when challenging students to think about issues from the employers’ point of view, not just from the point of view of the employees, and challenging students to identify the point of view or perspective underlying certain compensation policies and practices. She said that she focused intensely on questions which examined consequences, requiring students to identify the effect that the compensation strategies they recommended would have on employees, management, and the company they had studied. And quite often she said that she asked students rhetorically, “Why are we discussing this?” Some of these questioning approaches were observed during the researcher’s visit to her classroom but not all. It is interesting that no student mentioned being asked stimulating questions when submitting their responses to the course.

Nevertheless, as we can see, the design of this course in the study of compensation included many features which required students to employ higher-level thinking skills as they sought to complete their project assignment. At the same time, these processes required students to employ English in increasingly complicated ways.

Higher-Level Thinking Skills in the Branding Course

In the interview with the lecturer of this course, as well as in discussions with the students and through classroom observation, an effort was made to determine the degree to which the three practices recommended by Wendy Conklin were used in the class to stimulate higher-level thinking skills.

Practice One

creating activities in the course which stimulate levels of thinking at each level of Bloom’s taxonomy.

The branding course has three main objectives. The first is to have students learn fundamental concepts about branding, such as brand management, equity, and positioning. The second is to study real-world cases in brand management and to see how equity is built, measured, and managed. The third objective is for the students to put everything that they have learned into practice, by developing a brand of their own, while at the same time preparing a presentation where they need to explain how this brand relates to other brands and how its equity might be measured and managed.

The lecturer in this course does not give midterm or final exams. All activities focus on the project, in which they must create a brand for a new product. Consequently, the emphasis on Remembering occurs mainly in the way in which students need to use information from the class lectures and textbook in the development of their products and in their presentations. In their effort to fulfil the requirements of the second objective, students must classify, explain, and summarize, which are functions of the Understanding level in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy (assembling consumer data about other brands and explaining their rationale for the choice of brand they have made). In order to complete the third objective, students must employ all four higher-level thinking skills in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy: Applying (collecting and organizing information about their own brand, interviewing potential consumers in the field, building a model, and developing prototype brand logos); Analyzing (using the information which they have collected in the field, plus the information they have picked up in the class lectures and in the textbook, to construct a prototype new brand), Evaluating (at the end of the semester, the students vote for the brand which they think is most successful and defend the decisions they make about which brand they would support as venture capitalists), and Creating (each team must create a PowerPoint presentation in which they describe the ideas behind the creation of their brand, the data which led them to think that this brand would be successful, and present pictures of the ways in which the brand will be promoted).

Practice Two

creating activities which introduce problem-based learning in the course.

In the work that each team does to create a brand for a new product, students need to use all the stages which Wendy Conklin describes as being part of problem-based learning: They have to decide on a real-world product for which they must create a brand, they must research data related to other real-world products which compete in the marketplace with their product, they have to brainstorm ideas for how they wish to position their product, they need to decide what strategies they will use to create a brand which will maintain this position, and they have to prepare a presentation which explains the reasoning behind the approach they took in developing a brand for their product, while, at the same time, demonstrating the different ways in which they will advertise their brand and monitor its equity.

Practice Three

using Socratic questioning techniques in class.

The lecturer of this course indicated that he does not prepare specific questions before class but uses impromptu questions to focus the students’ minds and to lead them through a sequence of ideas which will enable them to create a final branding project that demonstrates they have assimilated the main concepts and content of the course. Since 50% of the class time is spent on examining Harvard case studies, questions that clarify (“What is an example of…?” and “Can you explain…?”) are unavoidable, as are questions that look for reasons and evidence (“How do we know that this is true?”and “What else do we need to know?”). The way in which brands are positioned has a great deal to do with perspective, so questions about perspectives and viewpoints are common in the class discussion, as are questions that scrutinize consequences (“What impact on the positioning of the product will this approach to branding have?”) The lecturer reported that it was harder to ask questions which probed the students’ assumptions (“Why do you think this way about…?” and “What else could we believe about this?”). He rarely asked questions about the questions (“What does this question mean?” or “Why was this question asked?”). The researcher’s observation of this course identified a few of these approaches to questioning but not many. Most of the lecturer’s questions were limited to questions of clarification.

Student Reactions to Each Course

In this case study, the researcher used a number of different instruments to collect data. A student questionnaire focused on students’ overall response to studying compensation management and branding in an English medium of instruction course. Interviews with the course lecturers and student focus groups concentrated more on the effect of being required to use higher-level thinking skills, and whether this appeared to affect the students’ learning experience, both in terms of learning the course content and in developing better communicative skills in English, even though English was not explicitly taught in either course.

In studying the students’ responses, it became apparent that the students had very different learning experiences when they were in class listening to lectures and when they were collaborating together on the class projects. Often they found the lectures hard to follow. Working together on the class projects, on the other hand, they found it to be stimulating and an excellent way not only to understand the course content in greater depth but also to improve their communicative English language skills.

The Compensation Course

In their written comments, the Taiwanese students made a number of comments which may help to explain why they found the course difficult in certain respects. They described the extra time it took to do the reading for the course and the fact that it was not always easy to understand these assignments. They mentioned having difficulty following the lecturer’s instructions and the pressure they felt keeping up with the lecturer’s lectures. They also shared some frustration about being unable to express their thoughts and opinions clearly in English. Some are worried about contributing to the class in imperfect English.

When asked whether the lecturer could make studying in the course easier, students requested that when the lecturer lectures, she could explain some of the more difficult concepts or vocabulary in Chinese. Another suggested, “If it’s possible, lecturer could provide the Chinese material in advance to let us preview, so that it will help us a lot to understanding the concept in class.” Five students suggested that the students’ English language competencies should be tested before the course begins, using some measure like the TOEFL iBT, so that the lecturer could modify her teaching style and content to better match students’ capabilities in English. As one student put it, “Each lecturer could take the course progress depends on student’s competency or learning condition, and then modify their teaching style and content.” Nine students requested that the lecturer provide more detail in her written and verbal instructions in her lectures and that she either make an effort to use simpler vocabulary when possible or take time to explain more complicated terms.

In the project work, on the other hand, many students said that they benefited from being required to use English in their project work because the dual challenge of using English to understand the content and then finding ways to express their ideas forced them to concentrate more closely. They had to use higher-level thinking skills in order to complete the project. As one student put it:

To participate in the projects work in English is a challenge for me, but I think if I take the class in Chinese I will not take more attention … because I think it’s very easy to understand and to know but however in English for me it’s difficult so I will pay more attention … to learn and I think it will be better than in Chinese.

Another common theme was the belief that by working on projects together where conversations and discussions required students to use higher-order thinking skills, students not only learned more about the content but also learned how people from other cultures think:

Student: Participating in this kind of whole-English environment has lots of advantages: 1 Increase your learning attitude and passion; 2. Improve your language ability; 3. Be more confident than before; 4. Realize diverse cross-cultural differences from students.

Student: You learn a lot about marketing and branding, but you also learn different thinking in different cultures… a lot of different ideas. People have different views from you.

Students also commented that by being involved in projects that required them to converse using higher-order thinking skills, they began to develop the kind of fluency they would need to be able to participate in an international business environment.

In this class you meet other people from different cultures so you can learn what people think. You want to focus your career about business and business now is very global so we need to have that kind of English. I have learned to express my ideas and to make presentations well.

The Branding Course

In their questionnaire and written responses, the Taiwanese students made a number of comments which may help to explain why they found the branding course difficult in certain respects. Like the Taiwanese students in the compensation class, they described the extra time it took to do the reading for the course and the fact that it was not always easy to understand these assignments. They mentioned having difficulty following the lecturer’s instructions and the pressure they felt keeping up with the lecturer’s lectures. They also shared some frustration about being unable to express their thoughts and opinions clearly in English. As one student put it, “Language barrier: some students may feel embarrassed or don’t have enough confidence to speak English in public although they have brilliant opinions.”

When students were asked if the lecturer could do anything to make studying in the course easier, they mentioned that the lecturer could use Chinese more often to explain some of the more difficult concepts or vocabulary. Like the students in the compensation class, a number of students suggested that the students’ English language competency should be tested before the course begins, so that the lecturer could modify his teaching style and content to better match students’ capabilities. As one student put it, “The lecturer should use simple words, slow down the speaking speed, and make the course more interesting.” Another suggested that the lecturer should check more regularly to see if the students are keeping up with him. A further suggestion was “We do the presentation with business cases in English. I think it’s better that lecturer could give us some information such as summary. To tell us which part is important first.”

When asked about their need to use higher-level thinking in this course, students noted that they didn’t need it so much for the lectures but that they did use it while working on projects together. In the lectures, one student wrote, “If you do not pay much attention in class, you will lose large part of the lesson, and hard to catch up what lecturer or classmates says.” In other words, the main job is recording what the lecturer says. In the project work, however, another student wrote, “Taking an English-medium instruction course permit to improve a lot your English. At the beginning it’s true you have to concentrate more in class, but though working with classmates on the project little by little you understand well the content, and your listening skills in English have improved.” Like four other members of the class, one of them wrote that by using higher-level thinking skills in their projects “It enables students (local and foreigners) to meet and inter-react more. It also helps you improve your English skills and general knowledge too.” Another student noted that when you are required to use higher-level thinking skills to carry out a project, “It will allow you to do more than learn the content, it will allow you to think as a native speaker when doing business.”

Summary

This case study examined two content courses taught in English at a prominent Taiwan university: one in compensation management and the other in branding. Both courses used curricula designed to challenge students to use higher-order thinking skills as they are defined in Bloom’s taxonomy. The research issues of interest were several: whether the students felt that in a learning context requiring them to use higher-order thinking skills, the content was more difficult for them to learn and understand, whether they felt they were able to learn the content well, and whether they would prefer to have studied the content in their native language rather than using English as the medium of instruction. Some researchers have claimed that it is better to teach content in students’ native language first before introducing English language instruction in a particular content area (Cummins, 1994). Other researchers have claimed that some of the disadvantages of teaching content in a language which is not native to students can be mitigated by building higher-order thinking skills into EMI instruction (Dong, 2004).

In this case, each of the courses examined in the study was analyzed to assess whether it did integrate higher-level thinking skills into its English language content instruction. It was found that the lecturers of both courses did indeed integrate higher-level thinking skills in multiple ways.

Overall, the responses of the two groups of students in both the compensation course and the branding course were very favorable when it came to questions relating to studying the content of the courses in an EMI environment. In response to the question, “Do you like studying the information in this course in English?,” 90% of the foreign students (N, 14) in the branding course answered in the affirmative. (The only exception was the one student from China, who felt that he was forced to take the course in English because it was the only branding elective offered and only in English. He would have preferred to study the course in Chinese.) All of the Taiwanese students (N, 9) answered in the affirmative. In the compensation course, 100% of the foreign students (N, 6) answered in the affirmative, while 95% of the Taiwanese students (N, 17) also answered in the affirmative. In response to the question, “Do you think it is worth the effort to combine studying the subject matter information in this course while also learning English?,” 90% of the foreign students in the branding course answered in the affirmative (the Chinese student was the exception), as did 100% of the Taiwanese students. In the compensation course, 100% of the foreign students and 100% of the Taiwanese students replied positively.

While the survey used in this case study revealed that, for the most part, the students in these two courses were very positive about learning the course content in English in the manner that their lecturers used it, the student focus groups suggested that many students found that it was in the class projects, where they had to use higher-order thinking skills, that they learned to understand the content at a deeper level. This is also where they learned how people from other cultures often think differently from them and learned how to become more fluent in sharing their thoughts and ideas in ways which they felt would be an advantage in an international business context.

Students were more negative in their written comments, however, regarding the quality of instruction in the classroom. The lecturers of both these classes spent 50% of their time lecturing the students and 50% on projects or cases. It is fair in retrospect to see that, for the most part, it was in the student projects that students were most challenged to employ higher-level thinking skills. Little is mentioned in either the lecturer interviews or the published course materials about the nature of the lecture segment of each class. Both lecturers said that they tried to use a variety of Socratic approaches to questioning students in class, but little evidence of these approaches was seen during visits to the classroom. In their comments about their experience in these courses, students did not mention the lecturers’ questioning techniques in the classroom. Instead, the students reported that these lectures were very much like those they have experienced in many other classes: the lecturer lectures, the students listen and take notes, and some discussion is attempted occasionally. It is here, in the classroom, where we need to focus if we wish to improve the students’ learning experience. Several suggestions can be made:

  1. 1.

    Lecturers need to know the level of English language competency of their students before the class begins. They should be given English language proficiency scores, such as those obtained from the TOEFL iBT, for each student in their class, so that they can ensure that their lectures, and project instructions, are delivered at a level where they can be understood by everyone.

  2. 2.

    Lecturers need to learn a repertoire of pedagogical skills to help students keep up with the pace of the class. These might include taking additional time to explain complex words and concepts, speaking more slowly, checking regularly for understanding, providing outlines on the white board or in PowerPoints to support the oral transmission of information in the class lectures, and providing students with supplemental materials beyond what is written in the textbook.

  3. 3.

    Lecturers should introduce more group activities into the classroom with the aim of encouraging students to use higher-order thinking skills, rather than allowing students to sit passively listening to a lecture.

  4. 4.

    Lecturers need to learn how to use Socratic questioning techniques more frequently in their teaching.

While this case study cannot claim to prove that there is any direct connection between building higher-level thinking skills into the instructional framework of an EMI content class and the quality of content learning, it is clear that in this case, doing so did not have an adverse effect. Intuitively it makes sense that if students are required to involve themselves in a highly interactive English language learning environment, one which requires them to use higher-level thinking skills, they will find that their communicative skills in English improve, and they will develop a deeper understanding of the course content. Consequently, content-area EMI lecturers may find it helpful to adopt the three practices outlined in this case study for incorporating higher-level thinking skills into their courses, as described by Wendy Conklin in her excellent book Higher-Order Thinking Skills to Develop 21st Century Learners (2012).

At the same time, simply adding higher-level thinking processes into the projects in which students must involve themselves in a course cannot automatically compensate for that portion of the class which involves traditional lectures. Here, in addition to deliberately stretching students’ thinking by using Socratic questioning, EMI lecturers must be given their students’ language test scores on a test like the TOEFL iBT. In this way, lecturers can tailor their instructional approach to each unique class setting. They should also learn the pedagogical tools necessary to create interactive activities which break down the separation between foreign and native students and require students to use higher-order thinking skills in the classroom context itself.