Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 513 – 521

International Conference on Current Trends in ELT

The Impact of Brainstorming on Reading Comprehension and

Critical Thinking Ability of EFL Learners

Zargham Ghabanchia, Saeedeh Behroozniab, *

a
English Language Department, Ferdowsi University of
Mashhad, 9177948974, Mashhad, Iran
b
English Language Department,Political Sciences and Foreign Languages,
Islamic Azad University of Mashhad, 9187144123, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

The present study investigated the impact of brainstorming as a pre-reading strategy on reading comprehension ability as well as
critical thinking (CT) ability of EFL learners. In so doing, the study used an experimental design with 29 participants in the
control group and 25 participants in the experimental one. The results of the pre test confirmed the homogeneity of the
participants in the two groups regarding their reading comprehension ability as well as critical thinking ability. Neither the
control group nor experimental group had any previous experience in brainstorming strategies. The participants in the
experimental group were instructed how to use brainstorming strategies before reading passages. A 45 multiple- choice reading
items taken from Flash (2005) TOEFL Reading and the 'Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal' (CTA) were employed to
evaluate students' reading comprehension ability, besides their CT ability; respectively. The post test results indicated that
brainstorming strategies have a positive significant effect on both CT ability as well as reading comprehension ability of the
participants. The conclusions and implications of the research have been further pointed out with reference to foreign language
teaching context.

© 2014
© 2014 Ghanbarchi
The Authors.and
Published by Elsevier
Behrooznia. Ltd.byOpen
Published accessLtd.
Elsevier under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Urmia University, Iran.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Urmia University, Iran.
Keywords: Bainstorming Strategy, Critical Thinking ability, Reading Comprehension Ability

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98-915-507-8550.

E-mail address: s_behrooznia2007@yahoo.com

1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Urmia University, Iran.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.447
514 Zargham Ghabanchi and Saeedeh Behrooznia / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 513 – 521

1. Introduction
The role of brainstorming in obtaining educational objectives in various fields was extensively under
research, recently. Many empirical studies have been performed considering the effectiveness of this approach in
group idea generation. Brainstorming was the term proposed by Dr. Alex Osborn in 1953. Osborn (1953) defined
this new technique as: “An organized way to allow the mind to produce ideas without getting bogged down in
trying to judge the value of those ideas at the same time” (Kirk & Spreckelmeyer, 1993, p. 85).

Osborn (1953) mentioned the four following central guidelines for brainstorming:
1. Criticism is ruled out. 2. Freewheeling is welcomed. 3. Quantity is wanted. 4. Combination and improvement
are sought (pp. 300-30). Osborn's claims have been investigated in great deal of research concerning the usefulness
of group brainstorming. It has been verified that generating ideas in group is considerably more when Osborn's
brainstorming guidelines are applied compared with individual ideation (Johnson , Parrott , & Stratten, 1968;
Meadow, Parnes, & Reese, 1959; Parnes & Meadow, 1959).

It has been found that brainstorming can be an effective tool in teaching English as a foreign language. In
Mongeau and Morr's (1999) terms brainstorming is a "method of ideation" (p. 14), through which a group of
language learners are motivated to generate a large number of ideas.

One of the main benefits of brainstorming is the activation of readers' prior knowledge. As it is expressed
by Feather (2004, p.82) "brainstorming provides plenty of materials for making prediction". Furthermore, it is likely
that through this strategy, the reader becomes conscious concerning what he knows about a given text's topic before
he goes on reading it. Feather (2004, p. 84) argues that brainstorming enhances the activation of the reader's schema
globally; so that they will know in advance about the ideas, vocabulary, culture, grammatical features and genre
structures which are most probably met in the text to be read. It has been documented in Labiod's (2007) study that
prior knowledge activation through brainstorming enhances learners' reading comprehension.

Richards (1990) recognized that brainstorming was effective of achieving student interaction in developing
the cognitive skills for the purpose of generating ideas. He found that students trained in brainstorming techniques
were more successful at generating and organizing ideas.

Similarly, Rao (2007) found that students trained in brainstorming techniques and utilized them regularly
over a twelve-month period produced significantly higher results in writing tasks. Besides, an attitudinal survey
showed students' complacency about the effectiveness of the brainstorming techniques.

Brainstorming is regarded as an effective tool in creative problem solving (Fernald & Nickolenko, 1993;
Leclef, 1994; Stein, 1975). Its popularity can be traced back to the pervasive need to enhance the productivity of
groups.

The need for high-quality creative ideas likely achieved through brainstorming (Ganji, Sharifi & Mir-
Hashemi, 2005; Madandar-Arani & Kakia, 2007) is considered of utmost importance in the field of ELT because
when ample opportunities of discussion are provided to learners in language learning contexts , learners' critical
abilities concerning learners' lives, their social intelligence, novelty, problem-solving, etc. are going to be enhanced.

In the same line, to further clarify the relationship between brainstorming and cognitive aspects, critical
thinking (CT) has been the issue of concern. The literature around CT entails so many dimensions. In Dewey's
(1933) term CT is: “active, persistent, and the further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 9, cited in Fisher, 2001).
Paul (1988) defined CT as “the ability to reach sound conclusions based on observations and information”. Hughes
(2000), approaches CT as recognizing "true premises" and "logical strength of an argument" which constitutes the
main part of learning.

More recently, CT is considered as something more than cognitive skills. To name a few, Ennis (1996,
as cited in Mason, 2008) defined it as reflective thinking. The American Philosophical Association Project
defined CT (as cited in Giancarlo & Facione, 2001) as purposeful, self-regulatory judgment ending in interpretation,
 Zargham Ghabanchi and Saeedeh Behrooznia / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 513 – 521 515

analysis, evaluation and inference and is formed on the conceptual criteria upon which a judgment is based.

Although there is an agreed upon definition of CT as including both skills and disposition, most models of
CT approach it as a higher-order thinking skill centring around finding an effective way of learning (Frijters, Dam
& Rijlaarsdam, 2007). It is emphasized nearly by all proponents of CT that the objectives of the curriculum and the
teachers' responsibility should not be developing mere linguistic factors or pushing the students from one
educational level to the next, but improving the students' critical thinking CT should be the core of education, and
the educational program should emphasize, develop and nurture critical and reflective thinking of the learners, as it
is essential and standard of intellectual excellence for English users and learners to have active and reflective
participation in academic, personal and social lives (Brown, 2004; Thadphoothon, 2002; Lipman, 2003; Dewey,
1933; Brookfield,1987 ; Scriven & Paul, 2004).

In the same vein, a great deal of educational research on CT confirmed the integration of CT skills as
teachable techniques into L2 educational curriculum (Davidson & Dunham, 1997; MacBride & Bonnette, 1995). For
instance, Thompson, Martic, Richard and Brason (2003) designed a web-based curriculum requiring critical
thinking and problem- solving skills. They believed that web- based education enhances interpretation, analysis,
inference, evaluation and explanation which themselves are fundamental for developing critical thinking skills.
Likewise, Dantas-Whitney (2002) asserted that the use of reflective audio taped journals improved ESL university
students’ CT. Yeh (2004) found that computer simulation is effective in teaching general CT skills, as it improves
students and teachers' reflective thinking.

Likewise, Angeli and Valanides (2009) found that the method of teaching general thinking skills influences
critical thinking skill performance. Liaw's (2007) study indicated that the use of content-based approach is likely to
promote EFL learner’s CT skills.

Apart from this, the nature of brainstorming can be explored more deeply by studying the relationship
between higher-level thinking such as brainstorming and critical thinking. In a longitudinal case study, Miri, David
and Uri (2007) recognized that through teaching strategies that fostered higher-order thinking skills capabilities,
critical thinking skills of the participants improved.

The rationale behind the brainstorming strategies applied in this study is that the human brain deals
with matters in a patterned way. Hence, brainstorming can develop the students' cognitive toolkit while approaching
a reading task through considering a topic from different angles as well as taking their classmates' perspectives into
consideration which entails broader range of ideas facilitating creative thinking.

Consequently, owing to the salience of CT on one hand, and the efficiency of brainstorming in developing
intellectual skills on the other, it is worth studying any technique or procedure which enhances the improvement of
CT in an FLT context. Therefore, as there has been almost no attempt made on investigating the impact of
brainstorming on reading comprehension and critical thinking ability simultaneously, in the present study, the
relevance of brainstorming to critical thinking in general and the relationship between brainstorming and reading
comprehension, in particular are going to be sought.

To empirically examine the relationships, in the present study, the following research questions are posed
and investigated:
1) Does brainstorming have any significant impact on EFL learners’ CT ability?
2) Does brainstorming have any impact on EFL learners’ Reading Comprehension Ability?

2. Method
2.1. Participants
The participants of the present study were fifty four TEFL university students studying at a university in
Mashhad , Iran. The majority were fifth semester students attending a Reading course. Out of 54 participants, 30
students were female and 24 were male. The intact groups design (Hatch & Lazaraton,199) was used because of the
administrative restrictions with both the control group and the experimental group. Concerning the homogeneity of
516 Zargham Ghabanchi and Saeedeh Behrooznia / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 513 – 521

the participants in both groups with regard to their CT ability and reading comprehension ability on the one side, and
meeting the requirements of an experimental research on the other, the “Watsone Glaser Critical Thinking
Appraisal”(CTA) (Watson and Glaser,2002) together with a multiple-choice reading comprehension test taken from
Flash (2005) TOEFL Reading were given to all the subjects in the control and experimental groups as pre tests.

2.2. Instruments
To evaluate students' CT ability, the 'Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal' (CTA) was administered.
The test includes 80 items and is divided to the following 5 subtests as Table 1 shows.

Table 1. The subtests of CTA along with the corresponding descriptions

Subtest Description Items
Test 1. Discriminating among degrees of truth or falsity of inference drawn from given data. 1-16
Inference

Test 2. Recognizing Recognizing unstated assumptions or presuppositions in given statements or 17-32

Unstated assertions.
Assumptions
Test 3. Deduction Determining whether certain 33-48
conclusions necessarily follow from information in given statement or premises.
Test 4. Weighing evidence and deciding if generalizations or conclusions based on the given 49-64
Interpretation data are warranted.

Test 5. Evaluation of Arguments: 65-80

Evaluation of Distinguishing between arguments that are strong and relevant and those that are weak
Arguments or relevant to a particular question at issue.

CTA was found to be both reliable and valid (Hajjarian, 2008). In the present study, the Persian version of
the CTA was administered to make up for any inconvenience on the part of the participants. The total reliability of
the questionnaire in the present study was found to be 0.80. by calculating Cronbach's alpha.

CTA was given to both control and experimental group twice, once as pre test and the other time as post
test. Furthermore, a multiple-choice reading comprehension test taken from Flash (2005) TOEFL Reading
comprised of 40 items was given to all the subjects in the control and experimental group twice; once as pre test and
the other time as post test.

2.3. Procedure
The present study was performed during sixteen sessions among the Fifth semester EFL learners between
June and July 2012 at a university in Mashhad, Iran. In so doing, the following steps were followed sequentially: 1)
administration of reading comprehension test as pre test with the control and experimental groups, 2) administration
of critical thinking pre test with the control and experimental groups, 3) integration of brainstorming techniques into
the pre reading classroom activities and fostering students’ higher-level thinking in the experimental group, 4)
critical thinking post test with both groups, and 5) reading comprehension post test with both groups.

The same teacher who happened to be one of the researchers in the study conducted the two classes. The
course book chosen was Mosaic 2 Reading: Wegmann and Knezevic (2007). The book comprises of 10 chapters,
out of which 5 chapters were covered. This book, according to its team of writers, intends to enhance the following
skills: Making use of academic content, organizing information, scaffolding instruction, activating prior knowledge,
interacting with others, and finally, cultivating critical thinking. The book and the procedure implemented were the
same for the two groups except for the treatment (brainstorming strategies). As mentioned before, the study was
conducted in 16 sessions; each session lasted for 90 minutes and was held every other day. Out of the 16 sessions
the first and the last sessions were devoted to conducting the pre and post tests of reading comprehension besides
critical thinking tests.
 Zargham Ghabanchi and Saeedeh Behrooznia / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 513 – 521 517

The subjects in the experimental group enjoyed being taught the Charette method or stage-based
brainstorming technique in 14 sessions for 25 minutes. Here, depending on the topic of the passage the main
question was raised. For example, the following question was posed according to the passage talking about
"Working mothers and the Consequences":
™ Women, nowadays try to be as active as men in society. How has raising children been under the
influence of this matter?
Then, the original question was divided into smaller questions such as:
x What roles do women try to take today?
x How important is raising children?
x What are the positive points of having a working mother?
x What are the negative points of having a working mother?

The class was then divided into four groups and each group was assigned one part of the question
and was allowed 5 minutes to individually brainstorm ideas on their question. Each group selected
a recorder whose job was to summarize the ideas maintained collectively by that group.
Afterwards, the reporters went to a new group and reported on the opinions stated by their previous group.
The new group then built on the existing ideas and stated new ideas of their own. This step was repeated until
each group had the opportunity to discuss each issue once. Finally, the reporters reported their lists to the whole
class which led the ideas to be collectively arranged into a logical structure derived from the whole class.

The brainstorming technique employed tried to get everyone in the group involved in the generation of
opinions and ideas by making them aware of what was going on. The strategies tried to activate learners'
background knowledge and experiences relevant to the topic of discussion without being judged or criticized.

3. Results
Independent samples t-Tests were performed, with the alpha level set at.05.

3.1. Results of the Pre test

The comparison between pre-test reading comprehension scores of the two groups is performed through Table 2.

Table 2 . Comparison between pre-test reading comprehension scores of the two groups
Sig. Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T Df (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Pre- Equal
reading variances 2.663 .109 -.968 52 .337 -1.69793 1.75390 -5.21738 1.82152
assumed
Equal
variances -.990 50.878 .327 -1.69793 1.71538 -5.14191 1.74605
not assumed

The reading comprehension mean scores and standard deviations for the control and experimental groups
were 19.86, 7.22 and 21.56, 5.33 respectively. As it can be seen in table 2, the result of independent samples t-Test
indicated no significant difference between the two groups regarding their reading comprehension ability before the
treatment was performed (t= -.96, p=.33).
Furthermore, to check the homogeneity of participants regarding their critical thinking ability before
instruction, the “Watsone Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal” (CTA) was administered to the participants of each
group. Mean scores and standard deviations for the control and experimental groups were 52.83, 8.66 and 50.13,
6.55 respectively.

Table 3 . Comparison between pre-test CT scores of the two groups

Sig. Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T Df (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
PRE CT Equal
variances .929 .340 1.268 52 .210 2.71 2.136 -1.577 6.994
assumed
518 Zargham Ghabanchi and Saeedeh Behrooznia / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 513 – 521

Equal
variances 1.308 51.863 .197 2.71 2.071 -1.448 6.864
not assumed

The independent samples t-Test (as shown in Table 3) revealed no statistically significant difference
between the two groups with respect to their CTA scores(t=1.26, p=.21).

3.2. Results of the Post-test

In order to study the effect of brainstorming on Critical Thinking Ability of the participants, 'Watson-
Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal' (CTA) was employed.

Table 4 . Comparison between post-test CT scores of the two groups

Sig. Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T Df (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
post Equal
CTtotal variances 6.258 .016 2.334 52 .023 5.31586 2.27733 .74607 9.88566
assumed
Equal
variances 2.413 47.711 .020 5.31586 2.20331 .88511 9.74661
not assumed

As table 4 suggests, the mean and standard deviation for the control and experimental groups were 53.72,
9.84 and 59.04, 6.15 respectively.

Additionally, the result of independent samples t-Test indicated that the experimental group performed
significantly better than the control group (t=2.33, p=.023).

On the other hand, to check the effect of brainstorming on Reading Comprehension Ability of the
participants, independent samples t-Test was run.

Table 5 . Comparison between post-test reading comprehension scores of the two groups
Sig. Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T Df (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Post Equal
reading variances 6.656 .013 2.662 52 .010 4.40828 1.65582 1.08564 7.73091
assumed
Equal
variances 2.748 48.154 .008 4.40828 1.60396 1.18357 7.63298
not assumed

The mean and standard deviation for the control and experimental groups were 20.55, 7.11 and 24.96, 4.54
respectively, and the as table 5 shows the experimental group performed significantly better than the control group
(t=2.66,p=.01).

4. Conclusions
The present study aimed to investigate the impact of applying brainstorming strategies on the learners'
reading comprehension ability as well as their critical thinking ability. The findings revealed that brainstorming had
a significant role in improving the participants' reading comprehension ability besides their critical thinking ability.

Critical thinking is viewed as a higher level of reflective thinking which directs us to be more cognizant
about our perceptions, feelings, actions and performance. More specifically, as Kish, Sheehan, Cole, Struyk, &
Kinder (1997) postulate critical thinking is the ability to process information analytically and meticulously which
 Zargham Ghabanchi and Saeedeh Behrooznia / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 513 – 521 519

itself entails the use of cognitive reflection. This ability can enable learners to reflect critically about their own
learning and educational development leading to meaningful understanding of classroom materials.

Basically, Critical thinking is based on three aspects theoretically among which are theories of reasoning,
theories of critical discussion, and finally, theories of the cognitive mechanisms and processes operating in belief
formation and decision making (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Walton & Krabbe, 1995). The first one referring to theories of
reasoning is relevant to the present study as it refers to activating prior knowledge and information in approaching a
situation, updating the models by incorporating new information, and eventually arriving at a deduction through
analyzing the possibilities (adapted from Johnson-Laird, 1983; Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991). Brainstorming is
considered as a tool for prior knowledge activation and an alternative which can lubricate critical thinking
formation.

Accordingly, developing critical thinking skills is a compelling priority for achieving educational
objectives in ESL or EFL contexts. We should ensure that students not only internalize the content of the lessons;
but also, assess the quality of that internalization through achieving the survival skill of thinking critically to make
choices about their personal, social, academic, and occupational lives. Due to the salience of higher-level thinking,
meta-cognitive abilities and problem-solving and critical attitudes in L2 education, developing CT in an L2 context
should be a priority over L1 context; otherwise "our students may well flounder when they are confronted with
necessity of thinking critically, especially in an academic setting”( Davidson, 1998; p.121).

Since the development of higher order thinking skills such as critical thinking which affects reflective and
logical reactions and world perception is considered fundamental in higher education (Jarvis,2005), it is evident that
teaching this skill would require time, energy and expertise and the extent to which teachers can target teaching
critical thinking successfully depends on their grasping its foundations, as well as being able to think critically
themselves. The latter requirement is assumed to be one of the main barriers in the instruction of critical thinking
competencies.

Furthermore, the objective of all teaching strategies is to facilitate learning, in so doing, brainstorming
strategies are the ones which seek to involve all learners in generating their own ideas through accessing the prior
knowledge and information, they foster active learning through mental activity and spontaneous discussion in
finding new opinions, ideas and views. Applying brainstorming in class helps students reach synergy through peer
learning, access their current level of knowledge, its depth and extent, involve in class discussion, organize their
thoughts, and reach group consensus, be responsible and reflective for their own learning and finally be creative and
innovative in the learning process which in turn facilitates critical thinking.

Common ideas form the basis of brainstorming and to many educational scholars they sound to be more
valid (see Brauer & Judd, 1996; Stasser & Birchmeier,2003; Witten baum & Park, 2001) as they can lead to unique
and innovative ideas when well-supported.

Since it was shown in this study that learners' reading comprehension ability can be improved through
applying brainstorming strategies, it is advisable that teachers encourage learners to set the habit of bringing their
spontaneous ideas and views before reading texts which make them not only mentally and psychologically prepared
to approach the reading task, but also enthusiastic to know the material content.

Nevertheless, it is necessary for teachers to remember that the role of brainstorming is facilitating the
activation of students' background knowledge or schema rather than imposing the opinions mentioned in the text.
Moreover, the opinions posed by students shouldn't be judged or criticized at all costs; that is, learners should freely
and spontaneously express their views and as they hear their opinions they can assess the rationality of their ideas
which is in line with (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005)'s claim who maintain learners can understand which
concepts are important and evaluate the importance, correctness and relevance of what they had said through
hearing their own ideas for the first time. In so doing, they can develop reflective thinking and higher order level
thoughts.
520 Zargham Ghabanchi and Saeedeh Behrooznia / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 513 – 521

Moreover, according to assembly effect bonus concept proposed by Collins and Guetzkow (1964),
involving in group interaction facilitates the capabilities of individuals to be pooled and this advantage is far much
beneficial than any group member's individual best attempts. Therefore, brainstorming is a clear example in which
assembly effect bonus is achieved through collective creative outcomes and building mental models which paves the
way for critical and reflective thinking as the individuals in crafting creativity, seek to aspire to the existing mental
models and adapt, change and refine them to meet the relevant brainstorming goals.

The Charette procedure implemented in this study is one method of applying brainstorming strategies in
which students are organized into several small groups, each of which brainstorms opinions one-after-the-other until
every student involved has taken the opportunity to express his/her ideas completely. This method of brainstorming
paves the way for high amount of participation in idea generation taking into account the effectiveness and quality
of the brainstorming as well as optimal use of time as many issues can be discussed simultaneously.

Taken together, based on the results of this study, it seems reasonable that EFL teachers and practitioners
departure from adopting product-based approaches to process-oriented ones in their teaching as the latter have
significant contributions towards activating students' thinking and mental models and creating innovative ideas
which result in enhancing learners' critical thinking ability.

Nevertheless, the present study has certain limitations. First, based on the available sampling, the subjects
were selected. Second, since randomization requirements could not be followed, the researchers had to apply intact
groups design, but they tried to select homogeneous subjects by implementing a reading comprehension pre test.

In spite of the fact that the present study revealed learners' improvement in reading comprehension and
critical thinking ability through brainstorming, additional studies in which qualitative approaches such as interviews,
observations, ... are applied seem to be necessary in order to investigate not only the effects of brainstorming on
reading comprehension and CT, but also the impact of brainstorming on the other skills as well as the successful
processes involved in this method of ideation.

References
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Instructional effects on critical thinking: Performance on ill-defined Issues. Learning and Instruction, 19,
322-334.
Brauer, M., & Judd, C. M. (1996). Group polarization and repeated attitude expressions: A new take on an old topic. In W. Stroebe & M.
Hewstone (Eds.).European review of social psychology, 7, 173–207. Chichester, England: John Wiley.
Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing Critical Thinking. SRHE and Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Brown, H.D. (2004). Some practical thought s about students- sensitive critical pedagogy. The Language Teacher, 28/ 7 , 23-27.
Collins, B. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision-making . New York: John Wiley.
Dantas-Whitney, M. (2002). Critical reflection in the second language classroom through audiotaped journals. System 30(4), 543e555.
Davidson, B. ,Dunham, R. (1997). Assessing EFL student progress in critical thinking with the Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test. JALT
Journal19(1), 43e57.
Davidson, B. (1998). A case for critical thinking in the English language classroom. TESOL Quarterly 32(1), 119e123.
Dewey, J.,(1933). How we think: Are statement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA.
Feathers, K.M. (2004). Info Text: Reading and learning . Ontario: Pippin Publishing Corporation.
Fernald, L. W. & Nickolenko, P. (1993). The creative process: Its use and extent of formalization by corpo-rations. Journal of Creative
Behavior , 27(3), 214-220.
Fisher, A. (2001). Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge university press, Cambridge.
Frijters, S. ,Dam, G.T., Rijlaarsdam, G. (2007). Effects of dialogic learning on value-loaded critical thinking. Learning and Instruction 18(1),
66e82.
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.
Giancarlo, C.A., Facione, P.A. (2001).A look across four years at the disposition toward critical thinking among undergraduate students .Journal
of General Education 50(1), 29e55.
Hajjarian R. (2008). The relationship between critical thinking ability of Iranian EFL students and their performance on open and closed reading
tasks. Unpublished MA thesis, Islamic Azad University of Tehran, Science and Research Campus, Tehran, Iran.
Hatch, E., Lazaraton, A. (1991). The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Hughes, W. (2000). Reasoning and critical thinking. Critical thinking: An introduction to basic skills (pp. 15-25). Broadview Press.
Jarvis, M. (2005). The Psychology of Effective Learning and Teaching. Nelson Thornes Ltd, London.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness . Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
 Zargham Ghabanchi and Saeedeh Behrooznia / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 513 – 521 521

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1996). A model point of view: A comment on Holyoak and Cheng. Thinking & Reasoning, 1, 339 –350.
Johnson, D. M., Parrott, G. L., & Stratten, R. P. (1968). Production and judgment of solutions to five problems. Journal of Educational
Psychology Monogragh, 59(6).
Kirk, Stephen J. and Spreckelmeyer, Kent F. (1993). Enhancing Value in Design Decisions.
Kish, C.K., Sheehan, J.K., Cole, K.B., Struyk, L.R., & Kinder, D. (1997). Portfolio in the classroom: A vehicle for developing reflective thinking.
The High School Journal, 80 (4), 254-260.
Labiod, Ahlem ( 2007). Prior Knowledge Activation through Brainstorming to Enhance EFL Learners' Reading Comprehension. The Case of
Second Year Learners at the ENS, Constantine. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the magister
degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (Reading and Writing Convergences).
Leclef, F. (1994). 132 managers talk about creativity consultancy. In H. Geschka, S. Moger, & T. Rickards (Eds.), Creativity and Innovation:
The power of synergy (pp. 45-49). Darmstadt, Germany: Geschka & Partner Unternhmensberatung.
Liaw, M.L. (2007). Content-based reading and writing for critical thinking skills in an EFL context. English Teaching & Learning 31(2), 45e87.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
MacBride, R., Bonnette, R. (1995). Teacher and at-risk students’ cognitions during open-ended activities: structuring the learning environment or
critical thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education 11(4), 373e388.
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.
Meadow, A., Parnes, S. J., & Reese, H. (1959). Influences of brainstorming instructions and problem sequence on a creative problem solving
test. Journal of Applied Psychology , 43 (6), 413-416.
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.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied Imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effects of “brainstorming” instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 50 (4), 171-176.
Paul, R. (1988). Critical thinking in the classroom. Teaching K-818, 49e51.
Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal, 61(2), 100-106.
Richards J. (1990). New Trends in the Teaching of Writing in ESL/ EFL, in Wang Z. (ed.) ELT in China. Papers Presented at the Intern
ational Symposium on Teaching English in the Chinese Context, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing.
Richards J.C. and Nunan D.(1990). Second language teacher education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Scriven, M., Paul, R. (2004). Defining Critical Thinking. Retrieved September
2008from:http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml.
Stasser, G., & Birchmeier, Z. (2003). Group creativity and collective choice. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation
through collaboration (pp. 85–109). New York: Oxford University Press.
Stein, M. I. (1975). Stimulating creativity: Group procedures (Volume two). NY: Academic Press.
Thadphoothon, J. (2002). Enhancing critical thinking in language learning through computer-mediated collabor ative learning: A preliminary
investigation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education.
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.
Walton, D. and Krabbe, E. C. W (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: SUNY Press.
Wegmann, B., & Knezevic, M. (2008). Mosaic 2 Reading: McGraw-Hill Education.
Weick, Karl E., Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, & David Obstfeld (2005). ‘Organizing and the process of sensemaking’. Organization Science 16: 409–
421.
Wittenbaum, G. M., & Park, E. S. (2001). The collective preference for shared information. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 70–
73.
Yeh, Y.C. (2004). Nurturing reflective teaching during critical-thinking instruction in computer simulation program. Computers and Education
42(2), 181e194.