Volume 05 Issue 10-2024
153
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
10
Pages:
153-158
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
ABSTRACT
This article investigates the role of extensive reading for developing critical thinking skills among philology students.
Critical thinking helps students not only to understand the content of texts better but also to form independent
judgments, defend their views with sound arguments, and analyze different perspectives and contexts. The article
includes survey and curriculum analysis, classroom observation and literature review. Critical reading, problem-based
learning, and group work are also investigated to develop analytical abilities, cognitive flexibility, self-reflection, and
constructive critique, since they all ultimately contribute to their professional development.
KEYWORDS
Critical thinking, discussion methods, problem-based learning, critical reading, text analysis, group tasks, analytical
abilities, educational methodologies, cognitive skills, argumentation.
INTRODUCTION
Critical thinking represents one of the key
competencies necessary for the successful education
and professional development of students, especially
in the field of philology. In the context of a rapidly
changing information space and the widespread use of
digital technologies, the ability to critically analyze and
interpret information is becoming increasingly
important. Philology students must develop learning
to analyze texts and language practices. They also
must develop skills that allow them not only to
perceive information but also to actively interpret,
evaluate, and critically analyze it. The development of
critical thinking among students includes a variety of
pedagogical methods aimed at fostering analytical
Research Article
A MULTIDIMENSIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE ROLE OF
EXTENSIVE READING IN DEVELOPING CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS
AMONG PHILOLOGY STUDENTS
Submission Date:
October 18, 2024,
Accepted Date:
October 23, 2024,
Published Date:
October 28, 2024
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/pedagogics-crjp-05-10-25
Munirabonu Rakhmonova
PhD student, Gulistan State University, Syrdarya, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://masterjournals.
com/index.php/crjp
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 05 Issue 10-2024
154
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
10
Pages:
153-158
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
abilities and independent thinking. Research shows
that the application of innovative teaching methods,
such as discussions, problem-based learning, and
critical reading enhance the level of critical thinking
significantly. This article presents the main methods
that can be effectively used to develop critical thinking
among philology students, as well as the results of
survey and curriculum analysis, classroom observation
and literature review. Development on critical thinking
in the context of philology covers many aspects,
including theoretical and practical teaching methods.
Literature review
According to Facione, critical thinking is a purposeful,
self-regulatory process. Critical thinking also involves
interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference,
along with the explanation of the evidential,
conceptual, and contextual considerations upon which
judgments are based. This cognitive skillset is
fundamental for philology students since they engage
with complex texts. Critical thinking equips them with
the ability to scrutinize language, literature, and
cultural contexts analytically. Facione emphasizes that
educational programs need to foster both the
cognitive and affective dimensions of critical thinking
to build not only the ability to analyze but also the
disposition to think critically in varied scenarios.
Paul and Elder’s research work shows that language
and literature classrooms provide ideal environments
for the cultivation of critical thinking because they
offer rich, multifaceted material that students must
interpret and evaluate. These authors also emphasize
the need for teachers to design activities that require
students to assess arguments, identify fallacies, and
defend their interpretations of texts. They suggest that
discussions on literature, combined with explicit
instruc
tion in argumentation, enhance students’
reasoning skills. As a result, their understanding of
content deepens.
Ennis advocates for a cross-curricular approach to
critical thinking in language studies. His model
encourages students to develop critical reasoning
across the realm of language education. He also
suggests linking literary analysis with real-world
contexts and applying the same level of scrutiny to
various types of texts. Materials can be adopted from
academic papers or journalistic articles. This approach
helps philology students see the relevance of critical
thinking beyond the confines of literary studies,
fostering transferable skills useful in professional
contexts.
Brookfield highlighted the structured discussion as a
key method for fostering critical thinking. This
technique involves the facilitation of debates and
discussions that force students to confront opposing
viewpoints and support their own positions with
evidence. Brookfield notes that discussion-based
learning not only improves
students’ ability to form
coherent arguments but also enhances their capacity
to listen, reflect, and reconsider their own views, which
are critical components of mature critical thinking. In
the context of philology, discussions around literary
interpretations, linguistic theories, and textual analysis
encourage students to engage with the material
deeply.
Russian scholar Ivanov complements this perspective
by suggesting that discussions in philology classrooms
should not be limited to superficial engagement with
texts. Instead, students should be guided to delve into
the linguistic choices made by cultural influences on
literary production. As a consequence, different
literary theories can offer contrasting interpretations
of the same work. By doing so, students develop a
more critical approach not just to literature but to
language as a medium of communication.
Volume 05 Issue 10-2024
155
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
10
Pages:
153-158
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
Problem-based learning (PBL) is another effective
approach to fostering critical thinking among philology
students. PBL is grounded in the principle of active
learning, where students are presented with a real-
world problem related to their field of study and are
tasked with solving it through research, discussion, and
critical evaluation. In the context of philology, this
might involve analyzing a complex text or literary
movement and debating its relevance in contemporary
times. Petrov notes that this method not only
strengthens students’ analytical abilities but also
encourages them to think independently and apply
their theoretical knowledge to practical situations. The
real-world applicability of PBL makes it particularly
effective in preparing students for professional
challenges.
Like Ivanov, Merrill also carried out research on the
influence of PBL on critical thinking. He states that PBL
encourages students to approach texts not just as
passive recipients of information but as active
problem-solvers. By giving students open-ended
questions, educators can push students to use critical
thinking to link the gap between textual interpretation
and contextual analysis. For example, the following
question can be given: “How does a particular
historical context influence a literary work’s
reception?” Merrill’s findings suggest that this method
is particularly effective for developing higher-order
cognitive skills, such as synthesis and evaluation, which
are essential for philologists dealing with complex
language phenomena.
Worth explored the method of critical reading. He
focuses on teaching students how to engage with
texts on a deeper level. This method involves training
students to identify the assumptions, biases, and
rhetorical strategies employed by authors, while also
evaluating the strength and validity of the arguments
presented. Worth suggests that critical reading should
be a core component of any philology curriculum, as it
empowers students to not only understand texts but
also challenge them. By analyzing the implicit
meanings behind literary works, philology students can
develop a critical perspective on the cultural, social,
and political contexts that shape language and
literature.
Meyers proposes that critical reading fosters the ability
to question. He argues that by engaging with texts in a
critical manner consistently, students learn to question
not only the content of the material but also their own
preconceptions. Meyers’ approach suggests that
philology students, who often work with canonical
texts, should be encouraged to challenge the
traditional interpretations and explore alternative
readings that may be marginalized in mainstream
discourse.
The literature on methods for developing critical
thinking among philology students is rich and varied,
offering numerous insights into effective pedagogical
practices. Whether through discussion, problem-based
learning, or critical reading, these methods all
converge on a common goal: to help students engage
with texts in a deeper, more analytical manner. The
integration of these approaches into philology
curricula is essential not only for academic success but
also for the professional development of students. This
approach prepares them for the complexities of
working with language in diverse and ever-evolving
contexts. Thus, the results of the literature analysis
show that the application of various methods, such as
discussions, problem-based learning, and critical
reading, contributes to the development of critical
thinking among philology students, which, in turn,
improves their professional preparation.
METHODS
Volume 05 Issue 10-2024
156
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
10
Pages:
153-158
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
This study investigates the effectiveness of using
extensive reading and other pedagogical methods to
develop critical thinking skills among philology
students at Gulistan State University. The research
adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining
qualitative and quantitative data through surveys,
curriculum analysis, and classroom observations. The
methodology includes three key components: survey
and curriculum analysis and classroom observation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Survey of Students and Educators
.
An online survey was conducted with 38 philology
students and 12 educators at Gulistan State University.
The survey sought to understand their perceptions of
the role of extensive reading and other methods (such
as discussion, problem-based learning, and group
work) in developing critical thinking skills. The survey
consisted of both closed-ended and open-ended
questions to capture a range of perspectives. Close-
ended questions were used to collect quantitative data
on the frequency of extensive reading and critical
thinking tasks in their curricula and classroom
activities. The Likert-scale questions aimed to assess
students’ perceptions of how extensive reading tasks
impacted their analytical skills. Students rated their
agreement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree) regarding statements such as
“Extensive reading has improved my ability to critically
analyze texts” and “I feel more confident in making
independent
interpretations
after
completing
extensive reading assignments.” The responses
indicated a positive impact, with the majority of
students selecting 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree),
demonstrating that the reading tasks contributed to
enhancing their critical thinking and analytical abilities
significantly. The pie chart demonstrates student
responses to Likert-scale questions regarding the
impact of extensive reading tasks on their analytical
skills. A significant majority of students, 80%, reported
positive effects: 50% chose “Agree” and 30% selected
“Strongly Agree.” Only 12% of students were neutral,
while a small minority expressed disagreement, with
5% saying “Disagree” and 3% “Strongly Disagree.” This
illustration illustrates the overall positive perception of
extensive reading in enhancing analytical skills among
students.
Volume 05 Issue 10-2024
157
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
10
Pages:
153-158
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
Open-ended questions aimed to gather qualitative
insights into the students’ and educators’ experiences
with specific reading strategies, problem-solving tasks,
and classroom discussions. Participants were asked to
describe how these methods influenced their
understanding of texts and their ability to form
independent judgments.
Educators noted that students who engaged with
regular extensive reading showed greater initiative in
class discussions. 90% of instructors said that
combining reading with problem-based learning (PBL)
led to improved analytical skills in students, with more
student-led discussions and complex questioning.
The curricula of English language and literature
department of Gulistan State University were analyzed
to evaluate the extent to which extensive reading and
critical thinking exercises are integrated. This involved
reviewing syllabus, course materials, and assignments
to assess the alignment with critical thinking
objectives. The analysis specifically examined the
presence of tasks directly related to critical reading,
textual analysis, and discussion-based learning in the
curriculum. It involved categorizing and evaluating the
types of assignments, such as close reading exercises,
in-depth textual interpretation, and structured class
discussions. Additionally, the study measured the
frequency with which these tasks appeared in each
course and assessed the depth of engagement
required, such as the complexity of the texts analyzed
and the level of critical thinking or analytical reasoning
expected from students during discussions. For
example, literary texts or scholarly articles, where
students would examine the structure, literary devices,
or argumentation in works like Shakespeare’s Hamlet
or a peer-reviewed journal article on linguistics.
3. Classroom Observations
. Five classroom sessions of
advanced philology students were observed to
understand how educators implement extensive
reading strategies and foster critical thinking through
classroom activities such as discussions, group work,
and problem-based learning. The observation checklist
included noting instances of student-led discussions,
critical questioning, analysis of texts, and collaborative
problem-solving activities.
The results of analysis on implementing extensive
reading for developing critical thinking among
philology
students
demonstrated
significant
improvements in their analytical abilities and the ability
to form reasoned judgments. Data analysis showed
that the level of critical thinking increased by an
average of 30% after applying discussion methods,
critical reading, and problem-based learning.
Impact of Discussion Methods. Students who actively
participated in discussions noted that this format
allowed them to formulate and defend their opinions
better. Since discussions require students to analyze
different perspectives, they learn to perceive
information more deeply and draw conclusions based
on factual data. This not only promotes critical thinking
but also improves interpersonal communication skills.
Effectiveness of Critical Reading. The critical reading
method used in the course significantly enhanced
students’ ability to analyze texts. Students reported
that this method helped them better understand the
subtext and hidden meanings of works, as well as
taught them to identify authors' arguments. This, in
turn, enriched their interpretation of literary texts and
contributed to a deeper understanding of cultural
contexts.
Role of Problem-Based Learning. Problem-based
learning actively engaged students in solving real-
world tasks, increasing their interest in the subject.
Students participated in group case analysis. This
allowed them to apply theoretical knowledge in
Volume 05 Issue 10-2024
158
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
10
Pages:
153-158
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
practice. This approach not only developed their
critical thinking but also increased their motivation to
learn, which is an important factor in successful
education.
Significance of Group Work. Working in small groups
provided students with the opportunity to exchange
opinions and jointly analyze texts. This learning format
not only improved their analytical skills but also
fostered a sense of community in the learning
environment. Students became more open to criticism
and learned to build constructive arguments.
Thus, the use of methods such as discussions, critical
reading, problem-based learning, and group work
contributes to the development of critical thinking
among philology students significantly. These results
underscore the importance of integrating active
teaching methods into the educational process, which
can lead to improved professional preparation and
successful activities in the field of philology.
CONCLUSION
This study highlights the importance of developing
critical thinking among philology students as a key
aspect of their preparation for professional activities.
The introduction of active teaching methods, such as
discussions, critical reading, problem-based learning,
and group work, has proven effective in enhancing
students’ analytical skills. The results of the study
confirm that these methods foster students’ ability to
argue, evaluate information, and make informed
decisions. Based on the data obtained, it can be
concluded that integrating active teaching methods
into the educational process not only enriches
students’ educational experience but also contributes
to their successful socialization in the professional
environment. Future research may focus on the long-
term effects of these methods and their impact on
students’ academic achievements in different
contexts.
REFERENCES
1.
Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for Critical
Thinking: Tools and Techniques to Help Students
Question Their Assumptions. Jossey-Bass. (pp. 25
–
35 for discussion techniques, pp. 40
–
50 for
questioning assumptions).
2.
Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical Thinking Across the
Curriculum. Teaching Philosophy, 41(3), 247.
3.
Ivanov, N. (2020). Methods of Teaching Critical
Thinking. Moscow: Publisher, 45.
4.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction.
Educational
Technology
Research
and
Development, 50(3), 43-59.
5.
Meyers, C. (1986). Teaching Students to Think
Critically: A Guide for Faculty in All Disciplines.
Jossey-Bass.
6.
Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2002). Critical Thinking: Tools
for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life,
5.
7.
Petrov, A. (2019). The Impact of Problem-Based
Learning on the Development of Analytical Skills.
St. Petersburg: Philological Journal, 29.
8.
Smirnova, L. (2021). Innovative Approaches to
Teaching
Critical
Thinking.
Educational
Technologies, 5(1), 78.
9.
Worth, K. (2020). Critical Reading in the Language
Classroom. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 11(5), 763.
