Multiple Document Reading in Japanese Undergraduate English Majors

The ability to assess information from multiple sources is crucial in academic writing (Moon, 2008). Japanese undergraduate writers tend to trust authoritative sources over anonymous ones in everyday topics in their L1 (Kobayashi, 2014) and can argue coherently on familiar social topics in English (L2) (Stapleton, 2001, 2002). However, how they handle unresolved debates in their field is unclear. This study examines how advanced third-year English majors resolve discipline-specific controversies in second-language theory. Using a mixed-methods approach, participants read conflicting articles on the CPH (critical period hypothesis), answered comprehension questions, wrote about their CPH beliefs, and underwent semi-structured interviews. The qualitative findings suggest that prior beliefs, personal experiences, and opinions heavily influence students’ perspectives, and encountering alternative viewpoints may not foster the expected critical engagement at this level.