A Comparative Study of Thinking Quality Between Chinese and American Junior Middle School Students From the Perspective of Key Competences of English Subject

Ziyun DONG, Jianjun YIN


The globalization and information tide in the 21st century have promoted the new demand for talents in social development, and the key competences education came into being under such an era. Subsequently, the “key competences” became the key word of the global educational reform under the background of the new era in the 21st century. The key competences documents promulgated by many countries have obvious consistency and similarity, but they are not completely identical. There may be some problems worthy of reflection behind the differences. As the largest developing country and the largest developed country in the world, the educational views of China and the United States have a profound impact on the world civilization and pattern. As far as English subject is concerned, although English education is foreign language education in China, not native English education or non-native English education in the United States, it is combined with the reality of English education in China. Comparing the similarities and differences in the field of thinking quality between Chinese and American junior middle school English education can promote the reform of domestic English education and improve its quality. Also, many teachers only pay attention to the cultivation of students’ language knowledge and skills in the English classroom at present, neglecting the cultivation of students’ thinking quality, so it is difficult to improve students’ thinking ability and thinking personality traits. Based on this, the paper aims to cultivate and develop thinking quality of junior middle school students from the perspective of key competences of English subject. Through a comparative study of the consistency and difference of thinking quality between Chinese and American junior middle school students by using the methods of literature research and comparative analysis, the paper pays more attention to the problems of thinking quality of junior middle school students in China. As a result, the corresponding solutions are discussed. The paper is divided into five chapters.
The first chapter is the introduction. The research background, research purposes, research significance, research problems and research methods are briefly described.
The second chapter is the literature review. It covers the research status and research trend of thinking quality at home and abroad.
The third chapter is comparative study. This part briefly introduces the framework of Chinese and American key competences, discusses in detail the consistency and differences of Chinese and American junior high school students’ thinking quality in the three dimensions of logic, criticism and innovation, and points out the similarities and differences.
The fourth chapter explores the essence of differences. From the perspective of English curriculum, this paper explains the reasons for the differences in thinking quality between Chinese and American junior high school students, including classroom teaching, reading and writing.
The fifth chapter is a reflection. It discusses the limitations of the cultivation of thinking quality of junior middle school students in China, draws lessons from useful experience, and initially explores the methods of cultivating thinking quality of junior middle school students, in order to enhance the comprehensive strength of the key competences of junior middle school students.


key competences; English subject; Sino-American junior middle school students ; thinking quality

Full Text:



Ai, J. (2010). College English teaching under the consideration of “language Game” thinking. Foreign Language Journal, (4)

Aloqaili, A. S. (2001). Perceptions of Saudi Arabian reading teachers of selected concepts related to schema theory. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio University, USA.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Baron, J. (1993). Why teach thinking? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42(3), 191-237.

Berlitz, P. (2000). Getting around. NJ: Berlitz Language, Inc..

Beyer, B. K. (1991). Teaching thinking skills: A handbook for secondary school teachers. London: Allyn and Bacon.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Michigan: David Mckay Company.

Borich, G. D. (1992). Effective Teaching Methods. New York: Merrill.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. NJ: Prentica Hall Regents.

Cai, Q. T. (2017). Core accomplishment and coherence and integration of school curriculum. Global Education Outlook, (1).

Chen, L. (2016). Eulogize “Student development core literacy system”. English Learning (teacher’s version), (1), 5-6.

Chen, Y. J, & Liu, D. J. (2016). A study on the construction of native English teaching theory based on the Core Literacy of English subject. Courses. Teaching Materials. Teaching Method, (3).

Cheng, V. M. (2010). Tensions and dilemmas of teachers in creativity reform in a Chinese context. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(3), 120-137.

Conklin, J. (2005). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Educational Horizons, 83(3), 154-159.

Cotton, K. (1988). Classroom questioning. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. www. nwrel. org/scpd/sirs/3/cu5. htm1.

Cui, Y. X., & Li, S. (2017). Teaching reform based on the cultivation of students’ core literacy. Contemporary Education and Culture.

Deng, Y. Y. (2003). A comparison of english education between China and the United States in the 21 st Century. Journal of Zhanjiang Normal University, (10)

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Rooks.

Hui, A. N. N., & Yuen, T. C. M. (2010). The blossoming of creativity in education in Asia: Changing views and challenges practices. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10 (5), 155-158.

Hunkins, F. P. (1969). Effects of analysis and evaluation questions on various levels of achievement. The Journal of Experimental Education, (38), 45-58.

Jiang, F. (2017). Based on the core accomplishment, reconstruct the standard of good class. Chinese Language Construction, (3).

Ke, J. N. (2010). The cultivation of innovative thinking in college English Teaching. Journal of Nanjing Institute of Political Science, (1).

Li, H. L. (2013). A study on the multi-dimensional training model of college english creative thinking ability-- taking the innovative experimental class of Shenyang University of Aeronautics and Astronautics as an example. Higher Agricultural Education, (7), 76-78.

Li, K. F. (2017). The construction of the evaluation index system of college students’ “national identity” core literacy. Party Building and Ideological Education in School, (05).

Li, L. (2016). Integrating thinking skills in foreign language learning: What can we learn from 56 teachers’ perspectives? Thinking Skills and Creativity, (22), 273-288.

Li, Q. H. (2017). A new probe into the teaching of discipline core literacy: taking Primary School English as an example. Shanghai Education and Scientific Research, (3).

Li, Y. X., & Sun, Y. (2011). College English teaching and critical thinking training. Journal of Hebei Normal University.

Liang, J. W., & Wang, X. M. (2017). The connotation and training mode of discipline core literacy. Foreign Primary and Secondary Education, (2)

Lin, C. D. (2017). Construct the core accomplishment of students’ development in China. Study of Beijing Normal University (Social Science Edition), (1).

Liu, Y. S. (2017). The limitation of “Core Literacy”: also on the changes of educational goals in ancient and modern times. Global Education Outlook, (1).

Long, M., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions, in Seliger & long: Classroom oriented in second language acquisition (pp.268-286). Rowley: Newbury House.

Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction procedures greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, (6), 1-13.

Mcpeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. Oxford: Robinson.

Ornstein, A. (1988). Questioning: The essence of good teaching. NASSP Bulletin, 499(11), 17-19.

Pearson, P. D. (1985). Changing the face of reading comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, (38), 724-738.

Qatipi, S. (2011). Questioning and its true values in the process of learning and teaching to promote critical thinking. Problems of Education in the 21th Century. (38), 71-81.

Rybold, G. (2010). Speaking and thinking: Understanding oral problem solving efficacy in second language learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly), (3), 3-14.

Shi, J. M. (2014). Core accomplishment: in order to cultivate people with all-round development. People’s Education, (10).

Song, L. Q., & Tian, L. L. (2017). The new way for the development of students’ core Literacy in the era of Internet. Audio-Visual Education in China, (1).

Song, X. Y. (2016). The improvement of the way of asking questions in junior middle school English class. Teaching and Management, (25).

Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Tarman, B. (2015). Examination of the cognitive level of questions in social studies textbooks and the views of teachers based on bloom taxonomy. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, (1), 213-222.

Wang, W. (2018). A comparative study on the core literacy of Chinese and American students. Shandong Normal University.

Wilen, W. W. (1987). Question, questioning techniques, and effective teaching. Washington, D. C. : National Education Association.

Williams, F. E. (1972). A total creativity program for individualizing and humanizing the learning process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Wintergerst, A. C. (1994). Second language classroom interaction. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Wragg, E. C. (1984). Classroom teaching skill. New York: Nichols publishing Company,. Print.

Wu, K. Y. (1993). Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. RELC Journal, 24(2), 49-67.

Zhao, X. H. (1998). An investigation and analysis on teacher talk of university in English reading class. Foreign Language World, 17-23.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/11473


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Ziyun Dong

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Share us to:   


  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

1. Register yourself in Journal B as an Author

  • Find the journal you want to submit to in CATEGORIES, click on “VIEW JOURNAL”, “Online Submissions”, “GO TO LOGIN” and “Edit My Profile”. Check “Author” on the “Edit Profile” page, then “Save”.

2. Submission

Online Submission: http://cscanada.org/index.php/ccc/submission/wizard

  • Go to “User Home”, and click on “Author” under the name of Journal B. You may start a New Submission by clicking on “CLICK HERE”.
  • We only use four mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases: caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net; ccc@cscanada.net; ccc@cscanada.org

 Articles published in Cross-Cultural Communication are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).


Address: 1055 Rue Lucien-L'Allier, Unit #772, Montreal, QC H3G 3C4, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mail:caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net

Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture