The Iranian EFL Journal February 2011 Volume 7 Issue 1

0008292008296
 

ISSN On-line: 1836-8751

ISSN Print: 1836-8743

The Iranian EFL Journal

February 2011

Volume 7

Issue 1

Chief Editors:

Dr. Paul Robertson

Dr. Rajabali Askarzadeh Torghabeh

Iranian EFL Journal 1

 The Iranian EFL Journal February 2011 Volume 7 Issue 1

Table of Contents 

1. Foreword: Dr. Paul Robertson and Dr. Rajabali Askarzadeh Torghabeh 7

2- Thematic Clustering of L2 Vocabularies: A Technique for Improving Reading

Comprehension Ability of Iranian Intermediate EFL Adult Learners
Khalil Motallebzadeh and Neda Heirany 8 - 17

3- A Comparative In-Depth Evaluation of Two Pre-University English Textbooks

Nasser Rashidi and Hamid Reza Zare Asl 18 - 33

4- Effects of Oral Summary of Short Stories on Male/Female Learners' Speaking

Proficiency: High vs. Low Achievers
Bahman Gorjian, Syyed Rahim Moosavinia and Parisa Shahramiri 34 - 50

5- Brainstorming and Its Effect on Critical Thinking and Speaking Skills

Ebrahim Khodadady , Sara Shirmohammadi and Farima Talebi 51 - 66

6- Research Articles’ Critical Reading: Developing an Effective Approach in an EFL

Context
Hamid Ashraf 67 - 90

7- The Most and Least Frequently Used Vocabulary Learning Strategies among Iranian
EFL Freshman Students and its Relationship to the Gender
Mahdieh Arjomand and Masoud Sharififar 91 - 100

8- The Relationship between Extroversion and Introversion and the Oral Proficiency of
Iranian EFL Learners
Majid Nemati and Amin Shahini 101 - 115
 
 
 

Iranian EFL Journal 5

 The Iranian EFL Journal February 2011 Volume 7 Issue 1

 
 

9- The Nature of Interactive and Intervening Strategies in Scaffolding EFL Reading Skill
Mehdi B. Mehrani and Ghasem Modarresi 116 - 126
 
10- Two Types of Text Modification and Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition
Simplification vs. Elaboration
Maryam Shirin zarii and Mehdi Mardani 127 - 156
 
11- Corrective Feedback in the L2 Classroom: Matched-gender and Mixed-gender
Dyads in Focus
Ehsan Rassaei and Mansoor Tavakoli 157 - 166

12- A Contrastive Comparison of Structural and Rhetorical Patterns of Persian and

English Argumentative Essays
Sepideh Ahmad Khan Beigi and Hamed Ahmadi 167 - 178
 
13- EFL Learners' Proficiency Level and Attention to Linguistic Features during
Collaborative Output Activities
Shirin Abadikhah and Zahra Mosleh 179 - 198
 
14- Single vs. Multiple Prompts in Writing
Fateme Layeghi 199 - 209
 
15- Emotional Intelligence and Cognitive-Affective Reading-Based Courses: The Case of
Reading Open-Ended Stories
Bahareh Khazaeenezhad and Mohammad Reza Talebinezhad 210 - 221
 
16- How Many Reading Comprehension Strategies to be Taught in a Semester?
Hossein Askari and Moussa Ahmadian 222 - 232
 
 

Iranian EFL Journal 6

 Title

Brainstorming and Its Effect on Critical Thinking and Speaking

Skills

Authors
Ebrahim Khodadady (PhD)
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
Sara Shirmohammadi (M.A. student)
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
Farima Talebi (M.A. student)
Sabzevar Tarbiat Moalem University

Bio Data
Ebrahim Khodadady is assistant professor of Applied Linguistics at Ferdowsi
University of Mashhad, Iran. He has offered undergraduate and graduate courses such as
Advanced Writing, Advanced Speaking, Teaching Language Skills, Testing, Research
Methods and Principles and Syllabus Design in Canada and Iran. He has published
widely in the field.

Sara Shirmohammadi is an MA student of Applied Linguistics at Ferdowsi University

of Mashhad, Iran. She has taught general English and IELTS preparation courses in
various language institutes in Mashhad.

Farima Talebi is an MA student of Applied Linguistics at Sabzevar Tarbiat Moalem

University, Iran. She has taught general English and IELTS preparation courses in
various language institutes in Mashhad.

Abstract
This study explored whether applying brainstorming strategies brings about
significant improvements in English language learners' speaking proficiency
and critical thinking skills. Twenty male Iranian students enrolled in the
speaking program of an IELTS preparation course at a private language
institute in Mashhad, Iran, were assigned randomly to two control and
experimental groups. The administration of a 100-item schema-based cloze
multiple choice item test developed on the listening transcripts to-be-used
during the course and an oral interview showed that the two groups were
homogeneous in terms of their entry ability level. While both groups received
instructions in speaking three hours per week for one month, brainstorming
strategies were employed in discussing the same topics only in the
experimental group. Neither the control group (n=11) nor experimental group
(n =9) had any previous experience in brainstorming. The performance of

Iranian EFL Journal 51

 both groups on an oral interview test and Watson Glaser Critical Thinking
Appraisal test held at the end of the course showed that the mean scores of
the experimental group were significantly higher than the control group on
both tests. The implications of the findings are discussed within a foreign
language teaching context.
Keywords: Brainstorming Strategy, Critical Thinking Skill, Speaking
Proficiency, Schema-Based Cloze Multiple Choice Item Test

Introduction
In recent years, researches have focused on the role of brainstorming in achieving educational objectives in
various fields. For example, brainstorming has been employed as an effective tool in teaching English as a
foreign language. Mongeau and Morr (199) defined brainstorming as a "method of ideation" (p. 14), through
which a groups of language learners are encouraged to generate a large number of ideas. Similarly, Rossiter
and Lilien (1994) approached brainstorming as a technique for the "generation of high-quality, creative
ideas" (p. 61). Brown (2001) declared that brainstorming "involves students in a rapid-fire, free-association
listing of concepts, ideas, facts or feelings relevant to some topics or contexts” (p. 184). These definitions
were translated to the principles below by Rossiter and Lilien (1994):
(a) brainstorming instructions … should emphasize … number and not quality of ideas; (b) specific, difficult
targets should be set for the number of ideas; (c) individuals , not groups, should generate the initial ideas;
(d) groups should then be used to amalgamate and refine the ideas ; (e) individuals should provide the final
ratings to select the best ideas, which will increase commitment to the ideas selected; and, (f) the time
required for successful brainstorming should be kept remarkably short (p.61).
Osborn (as cited in Mongeau and Morr, 1999, p. 14), father of brainstorming, provided four instructional
guidelines to complement the principles mentioned above, i.e., criticism is ruled out, free-wheeling is
welcomed, quantity is wanted, and combination and improvement are sought. These principles and
guidelines have not, however, results in unanimous agreement as regards the conditions under which
brainstorming is performed.
The kind of tasks given to students, the time spent on brainstorming, size of brainstorming groups have
been some of the teachers' concerns, to name a few. Litchfield (2009), for example, randomly assigning 264
participants into four groups, compared the effectiveness of brainstorming alone with brainstorming having a
specific and difficult quantity goal as an intervention to improve the number of ideas generated by
individuals. The first group was given the brainstorming rules about a specific topic to follow in order to
generate ideas in 10 minutes. While the topic in a vague goal condition was given to the second group, the
third group were put in the specific and difficult quantity goal conditions and both were asked to generate 30
ideas in 30 minutes. Finally, in the brainstorming plus specific quantity condition, as the fourth group, the
participants were given both brainstorming prompts to generate 30 ideas in 10 minutes. The researchers
found that the combination of brainstorming rules with specific and difficult quantity goals were more
effective than the two alone (The mean scores of the four groups were 7.94, 7.31, 8.70 and 10.31
respectively).
In another similar study concerning brainstorming conditions, Nijstand, Strobe and Lodewijkx (1999)
compared task persistence- time spent on the task - and productivity- number of non-redundant ideas
generated during the task- for brainstorming intervals and groups of various sizes. They divided 122
participants into four groups of 26 individuals, nine dyads, nine four-person groups and seven six-person
groups. The participants were given a topic and told to generate ideas on that topic. The results revealed a
significantly positive linear relationship between group size and persistence in that groups were more

Iranian EFL Journal 52

persistent than individuals. (The mean score for individuals, dyads, four-person and six-person groups were
30.20, 34.48, 39.76 and 44.14, respectively. Moreover, with the enlargement of group size, productivity loss
was reduced. (Mean score in productivity loss for dyads, four-person and six-person groups were -43, -38.74
and -92.67, respectively.)
In addition to specific rules and conditions of brainstorming, some attempts have been made to explore
relationships between brainstorming and concepts such as creativity. Ganji, Sharifi and Mir-Hashemi
(1384/2005), for example, divided their 80 participants into control and experimental groups and studied the
four components of creativity, i.e., innovation, fluency, flexibility and elaboration by employing gender as a
moderator variable. They found that brainstorming significantly increased creativity. There was a significant
difference between both males and females’ pre- and post- tests (F= 25.25, p < 0.01 and F= 0.01, p < 0.05).
They also found that males and females performed significantly differently in terms of creativity
components. While there was a significant difference between males’ pre- and post- tests on fluency,
flexibility and elaboration (F= 7.19, p < 0.05- F: 20.18, p < 0.01 and F: 25.25, p < 0.01), females showed
significant differences only in fluency and elaboration after the treatment (F= 4.55, p < 0.05 and F= 4.26, p <
0.05).
Madandar-Arani and Kakia (1387/2007), however, explored the effect of brainstorming and guided
discovery learning on creativity. In contrast to brainstorming in which students freely generate ideas and
decide on solutions, in guided discovery learning, the teacher controls idea production so that students can
maneuver on determining the solution. By administering Torrance Creativity Test to 74 participants, the
researchers found that among the five components of creativity, i.e., elaboration, fluency, flexibility,
synthesizing and analyzing, only elaboration correlated significantly with brainstorming and guided
discovery learning on creativity.
Relating the concept of brainstorming with language skills, Rao (2007) showed that explicit training in
brainstorming significantly improved writing performance in an EFL context. In two control groups (N=78),
a traditional product-based approach was followed in which the main focus was on "providing practice for
producing writing product" (p.5). However, in the experimental group (N=40), the students were taught
through a process-based approach with brainstorming strategy in which their thinking, creation and
organization of ideas were emphasized. The mean gains (difference between mean scores of pre- and post-
writing tests) of the two experimental groups were 2.1 and 20.1, in contrast with mean gain of control group
as 0.825.
Similarly, Lynch, Murthy and Engle (2009) conducted a research on the effectiveness of brainstorming
techniques on computer-based language learning with a total of 118 participants. The purpose of this study
was to compare:1) the relative effectiveness of "electronic (computer-mediated) brainstorming" versus "face-
to-face brainstorming, and 2) the relative effectiveness of two forms of computer-mediated brainstorming,
namely, electronic interactive brainstorming, in which the participants could exchange ideas with each other,
versus electronic nominal brainstorming, in which the participants brainstormed alone, without exchanging
ideas with others. The results of this study showed that electronic brainstorming was more effective in
comparison with traditional face-to-face brainstorming.
A typical prism through which the nature of brainstorming can be explored further concerns the relationship
between brainstorming and critical thinking. Being a seminal concept, critical thinking "appears frequently in
the rhetoric of current educational reform in many societies across the globe" (Mason, 2008, p.1). Our ever-
changing and challenging world requires that the teachers train active, creative and critical thinkers and
learners.
In its most general sense, critical thinking is a complex of intellectual skills that are consciously,
deliberately and consistently applied by a thinker when he or she is confronted by a body of data from which

Iranian EFL Journal 53

a conclusion must be arrived. Hughes (2000), for example, believed that that critical thinking skill deals with
determining true premises" and "logical strength of an argument, which are essential for any type of learning,
particularly foreign languages such as English in Iran.
Defining critical thinking as a correct assessing of statements, Ennis (1996, as cited in Mason, 2008)
incorporated it as reflective thinking. However, unlike Ennis, Geertsen (2003) believed that though both
critical and reflective thinking include many types of higher-level thinking, they are sharply distinct in terms
of type of thinking characterized.
Moving with the relatively new movement of Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Thompson, Martic,
Richard and Brason, (2003, p.190) set a web-based curriculum requiring critical thinking and problem-
solving skills. Under the support of a team of teachers, students were presented with authentic on-line
scenarios in which they took on different characters and tried to find a solution to the problem presented in
the scenario. The scenarios demanded students' interactions with each other to see other participants'
perspectives. The teachers reported that "students' research skills and role playing skill improved."
Furthermore, the students reported positive attitudes toward the program. The researchers claimed that web-
based education provided the opportunity for the development of "interpretation, analysis, inference,
evaluation and explanation" which were the keys for improvement of critical thinking skills.
One aspect of critical thinking worth being concerned with is its link to higher-level thinking defined as a
"systematic way of using mind to confirm existing knowledge or to search for new information using various
degrees of brainstorming" (Geertsen 2003 p.4). In a longitudinal case study Miri, David and Uri (2007) put
the concern into an experiment by dividing their 177 participants into three groups: A) experimental group
(N= 57) consisting of science students, and B) science (N=41) and C) non-science students (N=79) as control
groups. By teaching strategies that fostered higher-order thinking skills capabilities and by administering the
California Critical Thinking skills Test (CCTS), they showed that group A improved it's critical thinking
skills more than group B and C (F = 2:10.11 , p <0.01). No significant difference was found between groups
C and B indicating that critical thinking skills were not field-dependent. (Mean score of group B and C were
15.25 and 13.23, respectively.) They found that dealing in-class with real-world cases, encouraging open-
ended class discussion and fostering inquiry-oriented experiments were the strategies used by the participants
to promote their higher-order thinking skills.
The current trend toward critical thinking encouraged Angeli and Valanides (2009) to test the influence of
the method of teaching general thinking skills on critical thinking skill performance. They divided 144
participants into 18 dyads in each of the following four groups, namely General, Infusion, Immersion and
control group. While in General group, general thinking skills were taught separately from subject matter, in
Infusion group, they were embedded in it. In the third group, the Immersion group, critical thinking skills
were not made explicit. The participants in control group received no instruction regarding critical thinking
skills. The participants were assigned an issue which required discussing and producing an outline to present
their joint position on the issue. The participants' critical thinking performance, measured by a rubric
assessing 72 outlines and prepared by dyads indicated that participants in infusion and immersion groups
outperformed those in control group, mean score of 4.00 and 3.83 in comparison with 2.44. However,
participants in Infusion group reported better understanding of critical thinking skills than those in
Immersion group.
Glassner and Schwarz (2007) evaluated antilogous ability, "the ability needed to elaborate a critical
evaluation of how a claim is supported by a given piece of information" (p.13), in relation with the
development of critical and creative thinking. They divided 108 participants into two groups (G1: N=53,
G2: N=55) and gave them two different claims and two corresponding pieces of information to check the
extent to which the claims were supported with the pieces of information. The participants used four types of

Iranian EFL Journal 54

flaws- ideas used to evaluate the support of a piece of information to a given claim- namely different aspects,
different meaning, relevance, credibility and external. Through the administration of California Critical
Thinking Disposition Test, Glassner and Schwarz found that there was no significant correlation between
disposition to critical thinking and antilogous ability. (The highest correlation (-0.31) was between
"relevance" flaw and critical thinking disposition in G1.)
Edwards (2007) developed a two-phase framework to implement it in courses designed for nurses as
analytical practitioners of the future. He claimed that while organizing complex ideas and identifying more
than one solution to a problem had to be taught at phase one, responsibility, creativity and justifying a
decision could be developed in phase two. He believed that this framework would help nurses to critically
explore a patient's problem. However, these phases wait to be tested in quantitative studies.
With the exception of Rao’s (2007) study, all the research projects cited above have studied brainstorming
within a first or second language context and thus many issues wait to be addressed regarding the relevance
of brainstorming to critical thinking in general and their relationships with the skills involved in foreign
language learning in particular. This study has, therefore, been designed to find out whether brainstorming
affects critical thinking and the speaking skill of learners who study English as a foreign language in Iran so
that they can perform successfully on the IELTS.

Method
Participants
The participants of the present study were 20 Iranian male students with university degrees who were
chosen randomly from among the candidates enrolled in the IELST courses offered at Qeshm Institution in
Mashhad, Iran. Their age ranged between 22 and 26. The participants all spoke Persian as their mother
language and majored in fields other than English. The course in which the present study was conducted
involved speaking. It was held 3 hours per week lasting for one month. The students were divided into two
groups: group A, experimental group (n=9), consisted of students whose teacher purposely applied
brainstorming strategy in discussions related to the speaking course; group B, control group (n=11),
consisted of students whose teacher did not use any brainstorming strategy. None of the students had
previous experience in brainstorming.

Instruments
A schema-based cloze multiple choice item test (MCIT) and an oral interview were designed and
administered as pretests and posttests at the begging and end of the course. The participants also took
Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) test assessing their critical thinking skill at the end of
the term.

Schema-Based cloze multiple choice item test

Schema-based cloze multiple choice item tests (MCITs) are the most recent methods of language testing
enjoying construct, empirical and face validity as well as reliability and practicality (Khodadady 1997,
1999). They measure not only reading comprehension ability (Khodadady & Herriman 2000) but also
achievement (Khodadady 2009a; Khodadady, Pishghadam and Fakhar 2010) and translation ability (Seif &
Khodadady 2003; Khodadady 2008).
According to Khodadady (1999) and Khodadady and Herriman (2000), the words comprising authentic
texts are considered schemata whose understanding depends on the readers’ background knowledge related
to the concepts they represent within those texts. If a given schema is deleted from an authentic text as a
cloze item, it will be best understood and chosen correctly if it is presented as the keyed response along with

Iranian EFL Journal 55

the choices which have syntactic, semantic and discoursal relationships with it. The item below, for example,
shows how the test takers must employ their background knowledge and apply it to the text in order to
choose the keyed response.
Example A: Can I see that blouse?
B: That one without the pocket?
A: No, (72) ------------ one.
a) another b) the other c) other d) others
The keyed response, the other, will be chosen only by those learners who know that others is a pronoun and
cannot therefore be chosen instead of a determiner, i.e., syntactic knowledge. They must also know that other
is not the best choice because the previous utterance specifies which blouse, i.e., discoursal, is intended. And
finally the learners must know that another is employed when the selection is general not specific, i.e.,
semantic.
The schema-based cloze MCIT designed in this study consisted of 100 items (Appendix A). They were
developed on the 29 transcripts chosen randomly from the textbook Listening Tactics (Richards 2003). Since
the textbook was taught during the course, the test was also employed as a diagnostic and achievement
measure administered at the beginning and end of the course and thus served as a pre-and-post test as well.

Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) is a standardized 80-item test which measures
five critical thinking skills, i.e., inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretation, and
evaluation of arguments. The first skill, for example, is said to be a conclusion drawn by a given test taker on
the basis of facts expressed in a given text explicitly or implicitly. This skill is not limited to oral or written
texts and learners always face contexts in which inferencing becomes necessary. Watson and Glaser (2002),
for instance, said that if a passerby notices that the lights are on and music is heard coming from the house,
s/he can infer that someone is at home. No items of the WGCTA are reproduced here because of its being a
copyright test. Faravani (2006) reported the alpha reliability coefficient of 0.80 when she administered the
WGCTA as a post test to 32 students forming her control and experimental groups to explore the effect of
reading portfolios on the Iranian students' critical thinking and reading abilities.

Oral interview
An oral interview was held at the beginning and end of the course as a pretest and posttest in order to assess
the participants' speaking proficiency. Each learner was interviewed in an empty class by raising two topics
from a list of five chosen from disclosed IELTS tests (Cambridge Examinations Publishing 2007). Scales for
assessing the participants' speaking proficiency were taken from Farhady, Ja'farpur, and Birjandi (1994).

Procedure
After the researches had assigned participants into two experimental and control groups, a 100-item
schema-based cloze multiple choice item test (MCIT) was administered and all the participants were
interviewed individually to ensure that there was no significant difference between control and experimental
groups in terms of their knowledge of course content and speaking proficiency.
During one-month speaking course, participants in the experimental group took part in eight brainstorming
sessions. Each instructional session lasted for 90 minutes and was attended by all participants every-other-
day. In each session, the teacher employed a topic to perform brainstorming strategy. The students generated
different ideas about the topic without being judged. After writing all the ideas on the board, the teacher
combined ideas that were similar, then discussed each based on its own merits and finally eliminated those

Iranian EFL Journal 56

 ideas which did not relate to the original topic. However, no brainstorming strategy was employed in control
group. Both groups took the schema-based cloze MCIT and the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal
test in the last session. They were also interviewed and their speaking skill was assessed by averaging the
grades given by two researchers.

Data analysis
The scores obtained on the schema-based cloze multiple-choice item test (MCIT), the Watson Glaser
Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) test and oral interview were all subjected to statistical analyses via
SPSS version 16.0. The reliability coefficients and the independent sample T-test indices were estimated to
test the following hypotheses.
H1) Applying brainstorming strategy will not bring about any significant difference in mean scores of control
and experimental groups on schema-based cloze MCIT.
H2) Applying brainstorming strategy will not bring about any significant difference in mean scores of control
and experimental groups on oral interview test.
H3) Applying brainstorming strategy will not bring about any significant difference in mean scores of control
and experimental groups on the WGCTA.

Results and discussion

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the schema-based cloze MCIT administered as a pretest and
posttest at the beginning and end of the speaking course. As can be seen, it enjoys a very high level of
reliability (α = .95). The mean score of the experimental group (40.22) is lower than the control group
(55.64). However, the independent sample T-test did not show any significant difference in the mean scores
of neither the pretest (t = 1.980, df =18, p < .063) nor the posttest (t = 1.184, df =18, p < .252) and thus
ensured the present researchers of the homogeneity of both experimental and control groups in terms of their
background knowledge at entry level.

Table 1
The descriptive statistics of schema-based cloze MCIT administered as a pretest and
posttest
Schema-based Std. Std. Error
Group N Mean Minimum Maximum Alpha
cloze MCIT Deviation Mean
Control 11 55.64 16.120 4.860 31 77
Pretest .949
Experimental 9 40.22 18.713 6.238 17 74
Control 11 59.27 15.691 4.731 33 80
Posttest .945
Experimental 9 49.78 20.210 6.737 20 80

The results presented in Table 1 support the first hypothesis that applying brainstorming strategy will not
bring about any significant difference in mean scores of control and experimental groups on schema-based
cloze MCIT. Since the test was a paper and pencil measure of reading comprehension ability, it seems that
focusing on listening comprehension ability and speaking skill does not lead to any significant improvement
in learners’ reading comprehension ability.
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and independent sample T-Test analysis of oral interview held as a
pretest and posttest. As can be seen, while the control and experimental groups did not differ from each other
in their speaking skill when the course started, the very implementation of brainstorming strategy helped the
experimental group speak significantly better than the control group and thus disconfirmed the second

Iranian EFL Journal 57

hypothesis that applying brainstorming strategy will not bring about any significant difference in mean
scores of control and experimental groups on oral interview test.

Table 2
The descriptive statistics and independent sample T-Test analysis of oral interview held
as a pretest and posttest
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean t df p
Control 11 54.64 10.81 3.2
Pretest 0.38 18 0.70
Experimental 9 52.56 13.54 4.5
Control 11 59.82 16.636 5.016
Posttest -2.102 18 .050
Experimental 9 74.33 13.601 4.534

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics and independent sample T-Test analysis of critical thinking and its
five subscales. As can be seen, the implementation of brainstorming strategy has brought about a
significantly higher performance of experimental group on the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal
(WGCTA) test (t = -2.231, df =18, p < .05). This finding thus disconfirms the third hypothesis that applying
brainstorming strategy will not bring about any significant difference in mean scores of control and
experimental groups on the WGCTA.

Table 3
The descriptive statistics and independent sample T-Test analysis of critical thinking and
its five subscales
Test and its
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean t df p
subscales
Control 11 46.73 7.101 2.141
WGCTA -2.231 18 .039
Experimental 9 53.67 6.690 2.230
Control 11 6.27 2.240 .675
Inference -.074 18 .942
Experimental 9 6.33 1.118 .373
Recognition of Control 11 11.00 1.673 .505
-1.112 18 .281
assumption Experimental 9 11.89 1.900 .633
Control 11 8.73 2.240 .675
Deduction -2.895 18 .010
Experimental 9 11.33 1.658 .553
Control 11 11.09 2.119 .639
Interpretation -1.638 18 .119
Experimental 9 12.78 2.489 .830
Evaluation of Control 11 9.64 2.203 .664
-1.964 18 .065
argument Experimental 9 11.33 1.500 .500

However, when the five subscales comprising the WGCTA test were analyzed separately, the mean score of
experimental group proved to be significantly higher than the control group on the deduction subscale (t = -
2.895, df =18, p < .01) only. This means that employing the brainstorming strategy to encourage foreign
language learners to speak out their minds results not only in improving their speaking skill but also in their
ability to read statements or premises such as, “Some holidays are rainy. All rainy days are boring,” and then
decide that deducing “No clear days are boring” is not logical but “some holidays are boring” is.

Iranian EFL Journal 58

 Conclusion
In contrast to listening and reading comprehension abilities, speaking depends on the production of linguistic
output on the part of learners. The results of this study show that listening to tape scripts and receiving
linguistic input does not necessarily lead to new receptive intake otherwise the participants of this study in
both control and experimental groups could have performed significantly differently on the schema-based
cloze MCIT they took as a pretest and posttest. This means that a significant improvement in speaking skill
does not bring about significant improving in reading comprehension ability. Though the number of
participants in this study was relatively few, its experimental findings fly against the unitary hypothesis of
language proficiency claiming that all language skills can be described in terms of a single ability called g
factor. They can also be employed to avoid evaluating language learners’ overall linguistic ability on the
basis of their speaking skill alone.
While employing brainstorming strategy does not affect reading comprehension ability without explicit
teaching of written texts, it does improve learners’ critical thinking skill in general and their ability to reach
deductions in particular when they express themselves in the foreign language without being afraid of facing
criticisms. Considering the fact that deduction forms only one fifth of critical thinking, as it was appraised in
this study, further research is required to find out whether different results will be obtained with larger
samples. It also remains an open question whether employing the brainstorming strategy in reading and/or
writing classes will help foreign language learners improve the other four sub skills involved in critical
thinking, i.e., inferencing, recognizing assumptions, interpreting and evaluating arguments. An alternative
approach might be to conduct a large scale study to explore whether these sub skills have psychological
validity in a foreign language context such as Iran.
While Horwitz (1981, 1985, 1988, 1999), for example, established five logical categories to describe the
areas her Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) measures, Khodadady (2009b) extracted 14
latent variables when he administered the BALLI to 418 undergraduate and graduate university students who
majored in Teaching English as a Foreign Language, English Language and Literature and English
Translation at seven tertiary education centers in Iran. Since brainstorming did bring about significant
differences in the performance of language learners on speaking tasks and written WGCTA test, its
contribution to learning is still a largely unexplored domain within a foreign language context.

References
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Instructional effects on critical thinking: Performance on ill-defined
Issues. Learning and Instruction, 19, 322-334.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Interactive language teaching II: sustaining interaction through group work. In H. D.
Brown (ed.) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (pp. 76-191). NY:
Pearson Education.
Cambridge Examinations Publishing. (2007). IELTS 6. (2007). Cambridge: CUP
Edwards, S. L. (2007). Critical thinking: A two phase framework. Nurse Education in Practice, 7, 303-314.
Faravani, A. (2006). Investigating the effect of reading portfolios on the Iranian students' critical thinking
ability, reading comprehension ability, and reading achievement. Unpublished MA thesis, Ferdowsi
University of Mashhad.
Farhady, H., Ja'farpur, A., & Birjandi, P. (1994). Testing oral production. Testing language skills: From
theory to practice (pp. 231-245). Tehran: SAMT.
Ganji, H., Sharifi, H. P., & Mir-Hashemi, M. (1384/2005). The effect of brainstorming on enhancing
creativity in students. Education Quarterly (in Persian), 21(1), 89-112.
Geersten, H. R. (2003). Rethinking thinking about higher-level thinking. Teaching Sociology, 31(1), 1- 19.

Iranian EFL Journal 59

Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking and
argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 10-18.
Horwitz, E. K. (1981). Beliefs about language learning inventory. Unpublished instrument: The University
of Texas at Austin. Austin, TX.
Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language
methods course, Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 333-340.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language
students, The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294
Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners' beliefs about
language learning: a review of BALLI studies, System, 27, 557-576.
Hughes, W. (2000). Reasoning and critical thinking. Critical thinking: An introduction to basic skills (pp.
15-25). Broadview Press.
Khodadady, E. (1997). Schemata theory and multiple choice item tests measuring reading comprehension.
Unpublished PhD thesis, the University of Western Australia.
Khodadady, E. (1999). Multiple-choice items in testing: Practice and theory. Tehran: Rahnama.
Khodadady, E. (2008). Measuring translation ability and achievement: A schema-based approach. Quarterly
Journal of Humanities, Al-Zahra University, 18(70), 56-76.
Khodadady, E. (2009a). Objective-based achievement testing in the context of schema theory. Iranian
Journal of Language Studies, 3(1), 1-30.
Khodadady, E. (2009b).The Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory: Factorial Validity, Formal
Education and the Academic Achievement of Iranian Students Majoring in English. Iranian Journal of
Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 12 (1), 115-165.
Khodadady, E. & Herriman, M. (2000). Schema Theory and Selected Response Item Tests: From Theory to
Practice. In A. j. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation on language assessment (pp. 201-222).
Cambridge: CUP.
Khodadady, E. Pishghadam, R., & Fakhar, M. (2010). The relationship among reading comprehension
ability, grammar and vocabulary knowledge: An experimental and schema-based approach. Iranian
EFL Journal, 6(2), 7-49.
Litchfield, R. C. (2009). Brainstorming rules as assigned goals: Does brainstorming really improve idea
quantity? Motive Emote, 33, 25-31.
Lynch, A. L., Murthy, U. S., & Engle, T. J. (2009). Fraud brainstorming using computer-mediated
communication: The effects of brainstorming technique and facilitation. The Accounting Review,
84(4), 1209-1232.
Madandar-Arani, A., Kakia, L. (1387/2007). An analysis of creativity in female students based on the
effectiveness of brain storming and guided discovery learning. The Scientific and Research Journal of
Mental Health Principles (in Persian), 10(2), 133-140.
Mason, M. (2008). Critical thinking and learning. In M. Mason (Ed.), Critical thinking and learning and
learning (pp. 1-11). Uk: Blackwell publishing.
Miri, B., David, B. C., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking
skills: A case of critical thinking. Res Sci Educ, 37, 353-369.
Mongeau, P. A., & Morr, M. C. (1999). Reconsidering brainstorming. Group Facilitation: A Research and
Application Journal, 1(1), 14-21.
Nijstand, B. A., Strobe, W., & Lodewijkx, F. M. (1999). Persistence of brainstorming groups: How do
people know when to stop?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 165-85.
Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal, 61(2), 100-106.

Iranian EFL Journal 60

 Richards, J.C. (2003). Tactics for listening. NY: Oxford University Press.
Rossiter, J. R., & Lilien, G. L. (1994). New brainstorming principles. Australian Journal of Management,
19(1), 61-72.
Thompson, S. D., Martin, L., Richards, L., & Branson, D (2003). Assessing critical thinking and problem
solving using a web-based curriculum for students. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 185- 191.
Watson, G. B., & Glaser, E. M. (2002). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal UK. London: The
Psychological Corporation.

Appendix
Schema-based cloze MCIT
Directions: Choose a, b, c or d, which you think is the best to fill the blank.
Passage (1)
A: Hello.
B: Hello. Can I speak to Cindy please?
A: Sorry. She is not (1) ------------. Can I (2) ------------ a massage?
B: Yes, this is Bob from school. Bob Jackson.
A: Can you spell your last name?
B: J-A-C-K-S-O-N.
A: Okay. And what is your telephone number?
B: 691-3839.
A: Okay. Do you want Cindy to call you?
B: Yes please.
A: Fine. I will (3) --------------- her the massage.
1 a) b) out c) on d) at
2 a) get b) take c) give d) make
3 a) take b) give c) let d) get

Passage (2)
A: (4) ------------ tell me about your cousin ' Paul.
B: Well, she's very pretty.
A: Really! Is she blond?
B: no, she's (5) ------------ dark brown hair. Everybody likes her. She's an actress.
A: Really? I'd like to meet her.
4 a) So b) But c) Or d) Hence
5 a) made b) got c) become d) taken

Passage (3)
A: It's my little boy! We were looking (6) ------------ Some pants (7) ------------my husband. Now I (8) ------------ find him.
B: Don't worry, ma'am. We'll find him. How old is he?
A: He's seven.
B: I see. And what color is his hair?
A: It is light brown.
B: Don’t worry we'll find him (9) ----------- you.
6 a) to b) up c) for d) out
7 a) for b) to c) out d) up
8 a) don’t b) can’t c) shall not d) will not
9 a) of b) from c) to d) for

Passage (4)
A: My little girl was here a minute ago, and now I can't find her.
B: She's (10) ------------ in the toy (11) ------------ can you
(12)------------ Her?

Iranian EFL Journal 61

A: Yes. She's five years old.
B: And what color hair does she have?
A: Brown. And it's very curly.
B: All right. Let's go to the toy section and see if she's there.
10 a) particularly b) properly c) probably d) specifically
11 a) portion b) set c) section d) branch
12 a) describe b) elaborate c) explain d) clarify

Passage (5)
A: Are the sneakers (13) ------------?
B: Well, I think they're a little small for me.
A: Too small? Let me find a bigger (14) ------------.
13 a) airy b) spacious c) manageable d) comfortable
14 a) pair b) dozen c) coupl d) twosome

Passage (6)
A: Hi, Don. This is ted. Listen, we can't (15) ------------ tennis (16) ------------ Saturday. Are you free Sunday afternoon, July
26th, around three?
B: (17) ------------. I am waiting to see you.
15 a) go b) do c) play d) exercise
16 a) on b) in c) at d) into
17 a) Definitely b) Firmly c) Assuredly d) Really

Passage (7)
A: Do you work in an office, Fred?
B: Not (18) ------------. Now I'm an English teacher. I just had my first class.
A: Really? How was it?
B: It was (19) ------------!
18 a) any longer b) no more c) no longer d) any more
19 a) terrific b) admirable c) splendid d) optimal

Passage (8)
I just love to (20) ------------! I like many different sports. Let's see…. I like swimming a lot. I get up early, around 5 a.m., and
swim for two hours from Monday to Friday. I also enjoy play basketball and play whit a group of friends (21) ------------ work
every Tuesday night. And I've also started (22) ------------ golf this year. Before playing, I (23) ------------ jogging to (24) ----------
--.
20 a) practice b) exercise c) train d)warm up
21 a) in b) for c) from d) of
22 a) doing b) playing c) going d) making
23 a) play b) do c) exercise d) go
24 a) warm up b) train c) practice d) exercise

Passage (9)
A: What about the plant (25) ------------? It might be nice next to the window.
B: Yes, next to the window, (26) ------------- on the left or on the right.
A: I think I'll put it on the right.
25 a) place b) stand c) setting d) condition
26 a) neither b) both c) either d) whether

Passage (10)
A: Now What about the book shelf? It is so big!
B: Hmm. What do you think?
A: How about next to the door, (27) ------------ the Wall?
B: (28) ------------the left of the door?

Iranian EFL Journal 62

27 a) across b) against c) before d) to
28 a) to b) of c) in d) at

Passage (11)
A: Do you need these glasses?
B: (29) ------------ right now. I only use them for reading. Do you see the case they go(30)------------?
A: I don't see it.
B: Oh, never (31) ------------.(32)------------ them on the Coffee table, next to those sheets of Paper
A: Okay
29 a) Not b) None c) No d) Any
30 a) to b) over c) in d) off
31 a) focus b) consider c) mind d) think
32 a) let b) leave c) give d) take

Passage (12)
Both of my parents are taller than me. My dad is(33)------------ tall, (34)----------- my brother is(35)------------ taller than my
dad.(36)------------ they look like a basketball team! My sister and I are the short ones in the family
33 a) somewhat b) pretty c) reasonably d) halfway
34 a) but b) and c) while d) then
35 a) yet b) even c) also d) even though
36 a) By each other b) with each other c) together d) With together

Passage (13)
Yes, can I help you? Okay. Let's see. The newspapers are $1.50, and the magazines will (37) ------------ another …$8.15. Yes, so
that’s let me see, $9.65, right? Here’s your (38) ------------,$ 11.85.
37 a) cost b) expend c) charge d) price
38 a) shift b) refund c) alternation d) change

Passage (14)
I (39) ------------ a lot of clothes in my country before I (40) ------------ to U.S. because everyone told me how expensive
American clothing is. I was (41) ------------ of surprised that I could get nice clothes here for very (42) ------------ prices. In fact it
costs me less for clothes here than it (43) ----------- cost me at home
39 a) sold b) bought c) dealt d) ordered
40 a) got b) moved c) crossed d) took
41 a) form b) kind c) variety d) brand
42 a) realistic b) reasonable c) sensible d) rational
43 a) used to b) did use to c) got used to d) is used to

Passage (15)
A: And here's your (44) ----------- steak whit French fires and coffee.
B: Thanks. I can't (45) ------------ to eat I'm (46)------------.
C: It looks okay. How is it?
B: Let me try. Oh, just (47) ------------.
44 a) discipline b) order c) try d) decision
45 a) wait b) stay c) come d) take
46 a) dying b) starving c) undernourishe d) parched
47 a) flawless b) perfect c) idea d) utopian

Passage (16)
A: Terry is not here tonight. I hear she is sick.
B: Yeah. I spoke to her dad this morning, and he said she has a really bad (48) ------------ of the flu She has had it for about a
week.
A: Sometimes it (49) ------------ a long time to (50) ------------- the flu. Terry has been sick a (51) ------------ of times this year.
B: I know. It is too bad.

Iranian EFL Journal 63

A: I hope she can (52) ------------ the illness soon.
48 a) case b) subject c) issue d) example
49 a) spends b) takes c) wastes d) makes
50 a) over get b) improve c) get over d) combat
51 a) double b) couple c) twice d) dozen
52 a) handle b) approach c) attack d) overcome

Passage (17)
A: What are you doing here?
B: My friends and I (53) ------------ camping. It was really great. But it got very cold at night. This is how we (54) -----------
warm.
53 a) went b) did c) made d) played
54 a) stayed b) kept c) came d) remained

Passage (18)
I was thinking about (55) ------------ a bookshelf, but I don’t have many books (56) -----------, so I guess I can wait. I was lucky. I
(57)----------- a really cheap used TV the other day. It only (58) ----------- $50 and it works really well. It’s nice to have
something to watch. Right now I don’t have enough money to buy a stereo. The dinner table is very nice and big enough for six
people. I bought a cheap sofa, too. It’s really (59) ------------.
55 a) having b) taking c) earning d) getting
56 a) yet b) however c) though d) hence
57 a) took b) got c) earne d) had
58 a) charged b) priced c) cost d) expended
59 a) cosy b) spacious c) comfortable d) spacious

Passage (19)
A: Hey, let me tell you about the movie. It’s about this guy who goes into the hospital for an(60)------------, and by(61)-------------
, he used the (62)------------ kind of (63)------------. Every night, when it gets dark, he turns into a kind of half man, half animal
and starts killing people.
B: Yuck. I hate those kinds of movies. I don’t think I (64) ------------ seeing it. Thanks anyway.
60 a) tuck b) amputation c) anesthesia d) operation
61 a) mistake b) abnormality c) error d) fault
61 a) faulty b) wrong c) erroneous d) abnormal
63 a) dosage b) remedy c) medicine d) script
64 a) attempt b) struggle c) bother d) seek

Passage (20)
A: Oh, look. It’s snowing.
B: Great. Let’s (65) ----------- our things and have a snowball (66) ------------.
A: No way! It’s too cold for me.
B: Come on! There’s (67) ------------ wind. It’ll be nice.
65 a) earn b) get c) give d) take
66 a) fight b) battle c) conflict d) combat
67 a) not b) any c) no d) none

Passage (21)
My place is (68) ------------ easy to find. (69) ------------ the bus across from the supermarket. When you (70) ------------ the
supermarket, could you pick up some snacks? Then walk north for two blocks. You’ll see a footbridge. (71) ------------ it and
you’ll see a small street when you get to the other side. Go down the street, and on the corner you’ll see an apartment building.
That’s my place.
68 a) mildly b) sort of c) some d) fairly
69 a) Climb b) Get off c) settle d) board
70 a) go to b) cross c) walk to d) get to
71 a) Get to b) Cross c) Take d) Walk

Iranian EFL Journal 64

Passage (22)
A: Can I see that blouse?
B: That one without the pocket?
A: No, (72) ------------ one.
B: Here you are.
A: What (73) ------------ is this? Is it cotton?
B: I think it’s a linen and cotton (74) ------------.
72 a) another b) the other c) other d) others
73 a) fabric b) material c) substance d) matter
74 a) emulsion b) amalgam c) blend d) synthesis

Passage (23)
A: Is it a nice day today?
B: It’s (75) ------------ nicer now. It was so cold and windy this morning, but it’s really nice (76) ------------ now. And it’s getting
warmer, too.
75 a) further b) more c) too d) much
76 a) getting b) keeping c) beginning d) going

Passage (24)
A: Hello.
B: Hello. Can I speak to Anne, please?
A: Sorry she is not in right now. Would you like to (77) ------------ a massage?
B: Yes, please. My name is Mary Brown.
A: Mary Brown?
B: Yes, and my number is914-6520.
A: Did you say 6520?
B: That’s right. Could you ask John to (78) ------------ tonight?
A: Okay, I’ll (79) ------------ her the message.
B: Thanks.
A: You’re welcome.
77 a) take b) leave c) ge d) make
78 a) get me through b) phone me in c) call me back d) put me through
79 a) offer b) grant c) pass d) give

Passage (25)
I thought it was in my briefcase. I usually put it there when I (80) ------------ one from the newsstand and then read it when I get
home. Now I remember! I was (81) ------------ the subway! I (82) ------------ to read the sports (83) ------------. I’m sure I left it
there.
80 a) earn b) have c) get d) take
81 a) on b) in c) at d) into
82 a) put it away b) took it away c) threw it out d) took it out
83 a) section b) branch c) elemen d) portion

Passage (26)
A: How can I (84) ------------ the post office?
B: Oh, it’s not far from here. Go up Third Street and turn right on Ford. (85) ------------ Ford and you’ll see it (86) ------------ your
right, (87) ------------ the corner of Ford and Fourth.
84 a) arrive b) get to c) wake d) cross
85 a) go b) get c) walk d) take
86 a) on b) of c) from d) to
87 a) at b) on c) off d) up

Passage (27)

Iranian EFL Journal 65

A: What are your new neighbors like?
B: Mr. and Mrs. Robert? Well, they seem nice. I have spoken to Mrs. Robert several times. She’s very (88) ------------ to talk. But
I haven’t spoken (89) ------------ to her husband. He’s (90) ----------- of shy and not very talkative.
88 a) straight b) easy c) trivial d) light
89 a) more b) many c) much d) far
90 a) kind b) form c) type d) variety

Passage (28)
A: There’s a really (91) ------------ guy from Canada on the basketball team!
B: Oh yeah?
A: Yeah. And he’s really outgoing. Very friendly, too.
B: Tell me more.
A: Well, it’s difficult to (92) ------------ him to laugh. He doesn't seem to enjoy any jokes. I guess he’s (93) ------------ serious.
But he’s very good-looking.
B: Hmm. Sounds cute. Do you know if he has a girlfriend?
A: I’m sure he has many. He always (93) ------------ on a date every weekend. I don’t like guys like that.
B: But (94) ------------ he’s cute, I don’t (95) ------------.
91 a) fair b) cherubic c) cute d) aesthetic
92 a) get b) keep c) let d) have
93 a) somewhat b) reasonable c) half way d) pretty
94 a) calls a new girl in b) asks a new girl out c) calls a new girl out d) came a new girl across
95 a) so long as b) so far as c) as far as d) as long as
96 a) mind b) consider c) focus d) concentrate

Passage (29)
A: Sorry to (97) ------------ you waiting. One (98) ------------ of fried chicken with broccoli.
B: Thanks! Oh my! This chicken looks pretty dry.
C: Really? How does it taste?
B: I’m (99) ------------. It's not very fresh. I think it must have been frozen.
C: Let’s (100) ------------ it back.
97 a) keep b) get c) make d) let
98 a) bill b) order c) receip d) demand
99 a) afraid b) penitent c) excusable d) apologetic
100 a) put b) send c) bring d) make

Iranian EFL Journal 66