assessment of critical thinking in third-year efl students' writings at hanam teachers' training college = đánh giá tư duy phê phán thể hiện trong bài viết của sinh viên năm thứ 3 ngành tiếng anh

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES






ĐOÀN THANH HƯỜNG






ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL THINKING IN THIRD-YEAR
EFL STUDENTS’ WRITINGS AT HANAM TEACHERS’
TRAINING COLLEGE



(Đánh giá tư duy phê phán thể hiện trong bài viết của sinh viên năm thứ
3 ngành tiếng Anh trường Cao đẳng sư phạm Hà Nam)




M.A Minor Thesis

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15




HANOI – 2010
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY ÒF POST GRADUATE STUDIES




ĐOÀN THANH HƯỜNG





ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL THINKING IN THIRD-YEAR
EFL STUDENTS’ WRITINGS AT HANAM TEACHERS’
TRAINING COLLEGE



(Đánh giá tư duy phê phán thể hiện trong bài viết của sinh viên năm thứ
3 ngành tiếng Anh trường Cao đẳng sư phạm Hà Nam)

M.A Minor Thesis




Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Phùng Hà Thanh, M.A






HANOI – 2010



v


TABLE OF CONTENT


Page
ACCEPTANCE
i
DECLARATION

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iii
ABSTRACT
iv
TABLE OF CONTENT
v
LIST OF FIGURE AND TABLES
viii


CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Statement of the problem
1
1.2. Research problems
2
1.3. Research questions
3
1.4. Scope of the study
3
1.5. Significance of the study
4
1.6. Design of the study
4

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
5
2.1. Conceptions of critical thinking
5

2.1.1. Critical thinking and logic
5
2.1.2 Critical thinking and cognitive psychology
7
2.1.3 Critical thinking and tool to gain desirable outcome
8
2.1.4 Critical thinking and critical inquiry
9
2.1.5 Critical thinking and universal intellectual standards
9
2.2 Critical thinking instruction
11
2.3. Argumentative writing and critical thinking
14


CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
17

vi
3.1. Samples and Sampling
17
3.1.1 Samples
17
3.1.2. Sampling
17
3.1.1.1. Participants
17
3.1.1.2. Topics
17

3.1.1.3. Raters
17
3.2. Data Collection
18
3.2.1. Instrument
18
3.2.2 Procedures
18
3.2.2.1 Design of the writing tasks
18
3.2.2.2 Essay tests administered and collected
19
3.3. Data analysis
20
3.3.1. Criteria of assessment
20
3.3.2. Procedures of assessment
21


CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
22
4.1. Reliability and validity of the assessment
22
4.1.1. Inter-rater reliability
22
4.1.2. Validity
23
4.2. The results of the assessment of critical thinking
23

4.2.1. The display of critical thinking in students’ argumentative writings
23
4.2.2. The numbers of arguments, evidence, refutations, and fallacies in 36
students’ argumentative writings.
24
4.2.3. The differences of critical thinking elements found in two groups of
writings
25
4.2.4. Types of arguments, evidence and fallacies found in each group of
argumentative writings
26
4.2.4.1. Types of arguments
26
4.2.4.2. Types of evidence
27
4.2.4.3. Opposition recognition and refutation
27
4.2.4.4. Types of fallacies
28

vii
4.3. Discussions
30
4.3.1. Types of arguments and evidence and the reflection of the influence of
familiarity on the quality of students’ critical thought
30
4.3.2. Opposition recognition and refutation and the reflection of the influence
of familiarity on the quality of students’ critical thought
32
4.3.3. Types of fallacies and the reflection of the influence of familiarity on the

quality of students’ critical thought
32
4.3.4. Other remarks
33


CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION
35
5.1. Summary of findings
35
5.2. Implications and recommendations
35
5.3. Limitations
37
5.4. Suggestions for further research
37


REFERENCES
39


APPENDICES

Appendix A: Collection of students’ essays
I
Appendix B: Rubrics for critical thinking elements
XXIV
Appendix B1: Types of arguments
XXVI

Appendix B2: Types of evidence
XXIX
Appendix B3: Opposition recognition and refutation
XXXIV
Appendix B4: Types of fallacies
XXXV
Appendix C: Rating guide
XXXIX
Appendix D: Holistic rating scale to mark an argumentative essay
XXXL






viii


LIST OF FIGURE AND TABLES





Page
Figure
Bloom’s Taxonomy
7
Table 1

Correlation of scores given by rater 1 and rater 2 on all 36 writing samples
22
Table 2
Correlation of scores given by rater 1 and rater 2 on writing samples on
familiar topic
22
Table 3
Correlation of scores given by rater 1 and rater 2 on writing samples on
unfamiliar topic
23
Table 4
Average score (Median) and score with highest frequency of appearance
(Mode) of all 36 writings given by each rater
24
Table 5
Average scores (Median) and scores with highest frequency of appearance
(Mode) of each group of writing pieces regarding topic given
24
Table 6
Total number and average number of each element of critical thinking
25
Table 7
Total numbers and differences of elements of critical thinking in writing
samples on familiar and unfamiliar topics
25



1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the statement of the problem, research problems, research questions,
scope of the study, significance of the study, and design of the study.
1.1. Statement of the problem
From Socratic time, the ability to reason well has been regarded an important outcome of
education and training, and since 1980s, ‗critical thinking‘ has become a ‗buzzword‘ in the
intellectual circles (Fisher, 2001). Critical thinking is essential for everyone to perform
well not only in educational systems, but also in future workplaces, and social and
interpersonal contexts. Dewey (1933) pointed out learning to think is the central purpose of
education. Scriven (1985) acknowledged training in critical thinking should be the primary
task of education. They are among those who recognize human beings do not innately
possess the ability of thinking critically but acquire it through education.
Although ‗critical thinking‘ is universally accepted as a goal of education as it refers to
quality thinking, there remains a controversy around the ‗critical thinking‘ concept across
borders. As many scholars have claimed, critical thinking took roots in Western societies,
especially from the Greek culture with its related schools of academic thoughts and their
renowned philosophers. Atkinson (1997) believed that critical thinking is a tacit,
indefinable, socio-cultural practice and behavior that individuals in the U.S or Western
society subconsciously and naturally acquire. Nevertheless, many others have argued that
the social structures and values that developed in the East represented a different value
system from the West have created different conceptions of critical thinking. There is
‗individualism‘ in the West that inspires public debate, logical science with the focus on
objective observation; and there also is ‗collectivism‘ in the East leads to the individuality
suppression, more holistic view of reality with the focus on the group (Nisbett, 2003;
Davidson, 1998). These differences have put the ‗critical thinking‘ concept within the
matter of ‗culture specific‘. The students from the East may not apparently show up the
ability to reason well, but those claimed they lack critical thinking should reconsider the
cultural aspects. Gieve (1998) introduced the notions of monological critical thinking and
dialogical thinking, which pointed out the influences of education background and cultural
traits on the way Western and Eastern students exhibit their critical thinking skills. With
this approach, Gieve (1998) stated that critical thinking is hardly irrelevant or ill-suited to

2
non-Western ESL students and it has a significant and far-reaching value for students in
any society and culture. With his opinion, we return to the consensus among discussions
related, that human thinking is flawed and has to be improved with the support of
education. Thus, Western or non-Western students all have to undergo a learning process
before claiming themselves ‗critical thinkers‘.
As the central target of education in general, the development of critical thinking skills has
also become a key goal for educators in first and second language education in particular.
Teachers of English in EFL (English as Foreign Language) contexts, however, are often
constrained by the linguistic skills of their students in Asian countries like China, Japan,
Vietnam, etc. For example of writing skill, the learners‘ writing pieces always seem to
disappoint the instructors, especially when it comes to argumentative essays. Vietnamese
students, even at tertiary level, have been claimed to lack critical thinking since Eastern
learners of English are often characterized as lacking critical thinking characteristics due to
those perceptions mentioned above. Since both native speakers and non-native speakers
have to exert great effort to become ‗critical thinkers of English‘, this claim should be
examined carefully. Courses on argumentative writings and critical thinking share the
focus on arguments and argumentation. In most English language curriculums in Vietnam,
there is always a part for argumentative writing practice that integrated background of
Western arguments and critical thinking skills. To find out if Vietnamese students can
reason well the way native learners do or not, it is recommended to study their
argumentative writings.
As an EFL teacher from Hanam Teachers‘ Training College, the researcher of this paper
understand the importance of critical thinking to third year students majoring in English
since they are about to finish their study with much paper work to be done and
communication to be set. Thus, while assessing the students‘ skills of analyzing and
reasoning in a case study, the researcher wanted to explore whether third year EFL
students here displayed features of critical thinking in their English compositions and then,

whether content familiarity an influential factor on students‘ thinking process.

1.2. Research problems
This study focused on investigating and assessing the display of critical thinking in the
argumentative compositions of third year EFL students at Hanam Teachers‘ Training


3
College. Based on the evaluative views of both Western and non-Western raters, it would
reveal the extent to which Vietnamese students in their native culture context display their
critical thoughts. Then, the study would also examine the influence of familiarity on the
quality of those students‘ critical thought.
1.3. Research questions
Based on the statement of the problem, this study sought to answer the following two
major questions with the subdivided ones.
1. To what extent do third year EFL students at Hanam Teachers’ Training College
display critical thinking in their argumentative essays?
a. How well do the students reason in their argumentative writings according to the
raters‟ assessments?
b. How many arguments, pieces of evidence, refutations, and fallacies are there in 36
collected argumentative writings?
2. To what extent does familiarity affect the quality of critical thinking in those
students’ writings?
a. What are the differences of the critical thinking elements found in two groups of
writings?
b. What are the types of arguments, evidence and fallacies found in each group of
argumentative writings?
c. How do the results reflect the influence of familiarity on the quality of students‟
critical thought?

1.4. Scope of the study
Within the scope of this study, the researcher wanted to explore the well-know Western
concept of critical thinking. Since the knowledge related to this concept is boundlessly
varied, the researcher‘s attention only rested on the aspect that critical thinking refers to
reasoning ability in argumentation. That led to her choice of the argumentative writings as
the key samples for the study among many other types of writing tasks taught in the
Hanam Teachers‘ Training College‘s writing curriculum. The reason was that
argumentative writings get students involved directly and actively in argumentation
process by forming reasons, making inductions, drawing conclusions, and applying them to
the discussed issues.


4
Accordingly, the study investigated the argumentative writings by 36 Vietnamese college
students from a same classroom. All the students are in the first semester of their third year
studying. They were all participating in a course called ―English Writing 5‖, which
introducing writing skills for their fifth semester. The samples were the participants‘
compulsory writing tasks, which were told be part of their performance evaluation,
assigned by the instructor of the course.

1.5. Significance of the study
Through this study, the researcher hoped to gather and present useful knowledge about
critical thinking for those who have keen interest. People who come across this research
might gain some knowledge about the nature of critical thinking with different conceptions
across disciplines and insights which they might find helpful.
It is hopefully that the research results would be practical for students, lecturers, and
researchers. For the students, the study might generally raise their awareness of the
importance of critical thinking and its influence on such specific linguistic skill as writing.
For the teachers, it may provide original understandings of critical thinking and some
suggestions on the employment of critical thinking in teaching argumentative essays. For

the researchers, the paper would be a referential case for further studies on the related
issues.

1.6. Design of the study
This study collected 36 argumentative essays written by third-year EFL students at Hanam
Teachers‘ Training College. Those writings were then analyzed based on criteria informed
by the research problems and research questions mentioned above. The correlative
statistics provided the correlation coefficients to check the inter-rater reliability in
assessing students‘ argumentative writings quality in general as well as on each given topic
in particular. The descriptive statistics provided quantitative analysis to support the overall
assessment on students‘ reasoning ability displayed in their argumentative writings. They
also presented the raters‘ qualitative assessment on numbers, types and differences of
critical thinking elements in two groups of essays on two different topics.


5

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter consists of three parts: conceptions of critical thinking; critical thinking
instruction, and argumentative writing and critical thinking.
2.1 Conceptions of critical thinking
Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years
from Socrates time with an overwhelming number of definitions. Presenting a defining
statement of critical thinking is difficult as it presents different meanings for different
people and can be explored using different approaches. Thus, in order to develop an
overview on conceptions of critical thinking, it is essential to examine prominent
conceptions of critical thinking from different angles. There were some references to
literature but the emphasis was on language acquisition and the opinions of practitioners
and learners.

2.1.1 Critical thinking and logic
First of all, we should refer critical thinking to the communicative competence, which has
been examined under three main categories of skills, understandings and dispositions
rooted from logical basis. The pioneer scholar who has the influential role on logically
conceptualizing critical thinking in early days was John Dewey. He coined the term critical
thinking in the 1930s under the name of ―reflective thinking‖ and defined it as "active,
persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the
light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends" (as cited
in Fisher 2001, p.2). As commonly known, logic is the study of inference and in logic
instructions with such key terms as argument, premise, claim, reason and conclusion.
Arguments are claims defended with reasons. They are composed of one or more premises,
which are statements offered as reasons for accepting another statement or a further
unspoken one, and a conclusion, which is statement supported by reasons. With this well-
known definition, Dewey apparently referred to the basic logical structure of argument
with all the elements paraphrased, ‗any belief‘ as ‗premise‘, ‗grounds‘ as ‗reasons‘ and the
‗further conclusions‘ as inferences of our beliefs.


6
As acknowledged by de Bono (1982), most schools followed Dewey approach in equating
thinking with logic. The logic related conception largely focuses on the analysis of the
arguments and the construction of argument. Along with time and the scholastic
development, informal logic is sometimes presented as a theoretical alternative to formal
logic since it is concerned with the content and context of arguments more than their form.
Formal logicians when treating arguments always assume that the premises are right and
only focus on the form of the argument. Informal logicians, in contrast, take pain to
investigate whether the premises in the arguments are true or not and employ a fallacy
theory to check on their work. Accordingly, a well-formed argument can appear to be
logical but makes no sense while there is a good argument in which the conclusion is
supported by the premises even though it does not follow necessary form as validity

requirements.
Many relate critical thinking to informal logic due to its practical application to analyzing
argumentation. It is the attempt to develop logic to assess, analyze and improve ordinary
language, or everyday reasoning. The development of informal logic is tied to educational
goals: by the desire to develop ways of analyzing ordinary reasoning which can inform
general education. To this extent, the goals of informal logic overlap with those of the
Critical Thinking Movement in 1980s, which aims to inform and improve public
reasoning, discussion and debate by promoting models of education which emphasize
critical inquiry.
While critical thinking will include evaluation of arguments and hence require skills of
argumentation including informal logic, critical thinking requires additional abilities not
supplied by informal logic, such as the ability to obtain and assess information and to
clarify meaning. Many, especially Robert H. Ennis (1985) believed that critical thinking
requires certain dispositions. Understood in this way, "critical thinking" is a broad term for
the attitudes and skills that are involved in analyzing and evaluating arguments.
The list of dispositions includes such things as being open-minded, paying attention to the
total situation, seeking reasons, and trying to be well-informed. The four general sets of
abilities that are constitutive of critical thinking are clarity-related abilities, inference-
related abilities, abilities related to establishing a sound basis for inference, and abilities
involved in going about decision making in an orderly and useful way, often called
problem solving. When combined with the critical thinking dispositions, these four


7
categories are intended to cover comprehensively the process of deciding what to believe
or do, and he defined ―Critical thinking is reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on
deciding what to believe or do‖ (Ennis, 1985, p.45)

2.1.2. Critical thinking and cognitive psychology
The second noticeable conception of critical thinking derived from cognitive psychology

and the well-known Bloom‘s Taxonomy, which argues for a development of different
thinking levels and equates critical thinking with higher-order thinking. Bloom‘s (1956)
identified six major cognitive categories, which have provided the basis for future
taxonomies.
Figure: Bloom’s Taxonomy


Bloom defined higher order thinking skills as those that require analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation. Someone exhibiting cognitive skills of this level will categorize or classify
information, comparing and contrasting it in order to make a decision. Other characteristics
of higher order thinking include: combining, creating, designing, developing, evaluating,
justifying, and measuring. A student in an upper-division course should be able to
demonstrate all of these cognitive skills when thinking and reasoning through problems.
Critical thinking skills are an integral part of both higher and lower order thinking as
defined by Bloom. Critical thinking itself is defined as having skills to generate


8
information (lower order thinking) and using those skills to guide behavior (higher order
thinking). Critically thinking about a set of facts or other information in order to make an
informed decision requires the thinker to go through the six levels of cognitive thinking
defined by Bloom: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation. Major or life-changing decisions that are made without going through this
process may not be the best and may exhibit less than satisfactory results.
This conception is a good beginning, but it has problems. One is that the levels are not
hierarchical, as suggested by the theory, but rather are interdependent, and they should
come under a spiral process, not a linear one. For example, although synthesis and
evaluation generally do require analysis, analysis generally requires synthesis and
evaluation (Ennis, 1981)

2.1.3 Critical thinking and tool to gain desirable outcome
The third way to conceptualize critical thinking is to combine logic and cognitive
psychology approaches. Halpern (1996) defined critical thinking as ―the use of those
cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is
purposeful, reasonable, and goal-directed.‖ (p.33-34). It is also known as directed thinking,
against non-directed thinking, which is defined as daydreams, nightdreams, and other sorts
of thinking that are not engaged in for a specific purpose or do not involve the use of
critical thinking skills. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal
directed—the kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences,
calculating likelihoods, and making decisions when the thinker is using skills that are
thoughtful and effective for the particular context and type of thinking task. In a more
extensive observation, Halpern (2003) emphasizes that ‗all the cognitive levels are under
the power of that conception, and the “critical” element of critical thinking denotes the
evaluation of thought processes and their outcomes‘ (as cited in Phung, in press). Thus, the
final and most worthy target of thinking is to achieve a desirable outcome. However, the
problem is that, Halpern (2003) also noted that desirable decisions were embedded in a
system of values. Since ‗desirable‘ is a vague term, something that is desirable to one
person might be undesirable or even conflicting to others. One‘s desire has to be framed
within certain ethical and social boundaries. She also acknowledges that thinking is only a
means to solve specific problems in particular context. Thus, as Phung (in press) pointed


9
out, this conception does not fit in educational perspective since it touched upon daily life
matter and varied in different contexts.

2.1.4 Critical thinking and critical inquiry
The fourth conceptualization of critical thinking is more or less related to the critical
inquiry and critical literacy movement, which can be roughly understood as any kind of
investigation that attends to power relations and seeks to change the current situation of

oppression (Crotty, 1998, as cited in Phung, in press). As observed by Temple (2005), the
critical literacy movement contains many dimensions that people who advocated for
critical thinking found useful; however, the critical thinking movement promoted many
practices and principles that should be maintained, even as we entertain new practices. One
of the dimensions mentioned above is the premise that language is always used in some
context that includes power relationships. Thus, language becomes a form of politics. All
texts, including scripts for movies, television shows, and advertisements, are written by
someone for a purpose. Since those purposes are not often transparent, readers need to
develop and exercise their critical faculties to filter what they understand and believe from
texts. Temple (2005) also pointed out that ―We are constantly assaulted by language that is
not just unclear, but often deliberately deceptive and manipulative. Students need tools for
unmasking the true purposes of language within a particular context so they can both
understand its true meaning and, as necessary, free themselves from its pernicious effects.‖
Proponents of this conception with a view to embed socio-political component into critical
thinking provides opportunities to take advantage of the achievements not just for college-
level philosophy classes, but for all readers, even at lower levels. They passionately believe
that the study of the practical, even political, uses of language should be brought into the
school curriculum. These new focuses include sensitivity toward both the grammar of
obfuscation and the rules that ascribe roles and meanings to language and its users in social
settings. Critical discourse analysis is a subject matter that deals with these targets. In a
broader scale of education, as in critical pedagogy, those who promote critical thinking in
their classrooms will find those insights and tools useful and practical.

2.1.5 Critical thinking and universal intellectual standards


10
And the last, but never the least to mention here is the conception of critical thinking
developed by philosopher Richard Paul. He defined critical thinking as ―mode of thinking
about any subject, content, or problem in which the thinker improves the quality of his or

her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing
intellectual standards upon them." (Paul, Fisher and Nosich, 1993, p.4). As observed by
Fisher (2001), this definition is interesting because it draws attention to a feature of critical
thinking on which teachers and researchers in the field seem to be largely agreed. That is,
the only realistic way to develop one‘s critical thinking ability is through ‗thinking about
one‘s thinking‘, and consciously aiming to improve it by reference to some model of good
thinking in that domain.
Paul and Elder (2006), meanwhile, offered a list of what they call "elements of thought"
with purpose, information, inferences/conclusions, concepts, assumptions, points of view,
implications/consequences, and questions. Along with those are nine suggested qualities
that make messages optimally useful including clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance,
depth, breadth, logic, significance, and fairness. By implication, they refer to quality
questions of specification, amplification, kind/category, verification/validation degree,
magnitude, motive, detail, and questions designed to probe, challenge, and motivate.
However, what make this conception remarkable is that unlike those other ones which
merely touch upon one or two fields, such as logic, psychology or socio-political, this
conception is regarded transdisciplinary since the proponents can be said to set out the
shared criteria of critical thinking for all scholastic fields else where in the world.

To sum up this part, the researcher would like to refer to two remarkable observations
about dimensions of critical thinking. Out of the two, the latter is more preferable since it
has covered up all the conceptions we have mentioned so far.
First, according to Moon‘s (2004) there are dimensions of breadth, longitudinal, and
technical. Breadth dimension refers to narrow views of critical thinking which focus
primarily on the language of argument and reasoning, or broader, viewing the
characteristics of the critical thinker as leading to a way of operating in the world.
Longitudinal dimension, which acknowledges a person‘s past and encourages development
through construction of past and new knowledge. It involves studies of critical thinking at
a particular educational stage. Technical dimension is often characterized by lists of skills

11
or procedures (which may even be expected to occur in a particular order). There is also a
dimension that relates to the way in which critical thinking is viewed in relation to the
discipline of the learners and a dimension that relates to the origins of the researcher or
writer. Cognitive psychologists are likely to have a different view of critical thinking (often
as a form of problem solving) from the philosophers (who may see it as a form of logic)
from the educationalists.
From a quite different angle, Phung (in press) proposed a reconceptualization of critical
thinking as a six-dimensional construct that is psychological, logical, semiotic, socio-
political, methodological and educational because these dimensions correspond to the
factors regulating our thinking. She reasoned:
Focusing on informal logical reasoning the logical dimension points to the fact that
thinking is an inference process. The psychological dimension acknowledges thinking
as a psychological process, urging thinkers to understand the mental functions of the
human brain. The semiotic dimension denotes that thoughts are stored in and conveyed
through languages. The socio-political dimension refers to the influences of social
power relations on thinking. Systematic strategies and principles applied to thinking
form the methodological dimension, which consists of two overlapping components.
One includes strategies and principles that are used to guide thinking in every situation.
They cover all the above-mentioned dimensions and supposed to be insights from the
most relevant branches of studies such as informal logic, cognitive psychology,
semiotics, and critical discourse analysis. The other refers to technical theories used to
solve technical problems. Phung (in press).

2.2. Critical thinking instruction
Almost everyone agrees that one of the main goals of education, at whatever level, is to
help develop students‘ general thinking skills, including their critical thinking skills in
particular. Almost all of them also agree that students do not acquire these skills as much
as they could and should. That is why teaching critical thinking has become more and more

urgent worldwide. However, there is a big distance between defining what critical thinking
is and how to teach it. One cannot just push all the related theoretical wordings of
conceptions into their learners‘ head to turn them into critical thinkers. Still, as van Gelder
(2005) pointed out, college instructors often made the mistake of thinking that they could
teach critical thinking skills by teaching the theory of critical thinking. He recognized that
grasp of theory was an absolute necessity for advanced critical thinking but it was wrong
when one only taught theory, or overemphasized theory relative to practice. Skills are not a
natural outcome of theory and must be naturally develop through practice. However,


12
practice is more effective when supplemented by appropriate levels of theoretical
understanding. That is the reason why for years, keen educators have been trying hard to
find proper way to adopt the theoretical understanding of critical thinking into their
instructions to gain the most effective and productive effects.
As we have examined, the fifth critical thinking conception with Paul‘s model of universal
intellectual standards have addressed comprehensively all aspects of quality thinking.
Critical thinking from this view, as Phung (in press) pointed out “is not only about
cognitive capabilities but also about moral commitment to the critical standards and
traits‖. Accordingly, when students are taught of critical thinking, besides the knowledge
and thinking skills, they also have to learn about the intellectual standards, as well as
ethical and social values. This is great but quite an ambitious goal for educators of critical
thinking to reach because despite the universality of these intellectual standards, their
application in a specific context still depends on cultural features and other conditions.
Moreover, a thorough instruction of any subject requires systems of clear procedures to
evaluate the learners‘ achievements, which is vaguely shown in Paul and Elder‘s theory.
Their criteria are not widely applied into every critical thinking course book ever existed
because of the different cultural awareness, for example, criteria of fairness, clarity and
precision seemed to be viewed differently in Eastern and Western cultures.
The same situation happens to Bloom‘s taxonomy and the cognitive psychology related

conception. It is hard when we try to press it into a conceptual framework for teaching
critical thinking, as Ennis (1985) observed, ―the five concepts Bloom‟s introduced are too
vague to guide us in developing and judging critical thinking assessment [ ] What do you
assess when you test for ability to analyze?‖(p.45). As a result, since Bloom‘s taxonomy is
suitable for illustrating critical thinking as higher-order thinking, it fails to provide the
basics to construct a relevant instruction for teaching and learning critical thinking as a
subject matter.
The third and the fourth conceptions mentioned above seem more or less depart from the
teaching and learning activities to be use as main source or background for instruction
designing. The one proposed by Halpern as observed by Phung (in press) ―too broad and
too narrow from an educational perspective”, and the socio-political one is still on the way
to find its place in school curriculum. That is the reason why at present there are not many


13
course book or syllabus of critical thinking constructed based on those instructions. If there
are any, they are rarely used or used as complementary materials.
It is unarguably that there exists many other conceptions of critical thinking and some of
those may be developed and used in teaching critical thinking context. However, similar to
the ones mentioned lately, they do not occupy as large a proportion as logic in critical
thinking instruction and assessment. As Scriven and Paul (2004) observed, thinking is a
natural process, but left to itself, it is often biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, and
potentially prejudiced; excellence in thought must be cultivated. Thus, generally, critical
thinking instructions, either focusing on skills only or on skills integrated with subject
content, often aim at teaching students how to think critically, how to reason well.
Especially in language teaching, though many criteria or standards proposed by other
conceptions are necessarily important parts of critical thinking, reasoning always takes first
place. Logic deals with the quality of reasoning and the argument, and up to now, logic has
still been most dominant referential basis for constructing and designing critical thinking
course and course book. The first reason is that the application of logic was seen to

maximize the ‗objectivity‘ of critique and argument. When people teach critical thinking
skills based on logical basis, they benefit from available logic theory, which is a tool that
show ‗what is implicit in the concepts used [in argument] and to expose contradiction‘ de
Bono (1982, p.77, as cited in Moon, 2004, p.38). He also implied that logic may have held
its popularity because, while it was considered that students should be taught how to think,
other than logic there seemed to be little to grasp hold of and to then teach – ―what set of
rules for thinking was there, apart from logic?‖ (de Bono, 1982, as cited in Moon, 2004,
p.39) The second reason, logic, together with the emergence of its branch informal logic,
provides quite an exhaustive set of procedures for evaluating arguments with detailed
explanation of given terms like premise, conclusion, etc and a full theory of fallacies. As a
result, both the coach and the coached are beneficial from it. The instructors find it easier
to teach their learners with clear-cut concepts; the learners can evaluate their own
achievements via comprehensible criteria of diversified test and assessment forms. The
educational targets of the critical instruction thus will be systematically and effectively
assessed. The criteria of informal logic for appraising critical thinking is sure more clearly
defined than those by Bloom or Paul and Elder.


14
With those reasons mentioned above, though approaching critical thinking from logic (or
more exactly, from informal logic) is quite a narrow dimension, which focuses only on the
language of argument and reasoning, instructions designed on logical basis are still
considered the most proper one used and to be used on a widest scale.

2.3. Argumentative writing and critical thinking
This part aims at the relation between argumentative writing and critical thinking in
learning language and the way people use argumentative writing to assess critical thinking.
First of all, it is necessary to look at the definition provided by Baker & Brizee (2007,
para.1) ―Argumentative writing is the act of forming reasons, making inductions, drawing
conclusions, and applying them to the case in discussion; the operation of inferring

propositions, not known or admitted as true, from facts or principles known, admitted, or
proved to be true.” Accordingly, the key function of an argumentative essay is to show
that your opinion, theory, or hypothesis about something is correct or more truthful than
others. It is never easy to acquire skilled argumentation. One has an opinion does not mean
one can debate it successfully with someone else even though their point seems so rational
and logical. The definition has clearly explained the process of reasoning from the known
or assumed to the unknown forming reasons, making inductions, drawing conclusions, and
applying them to the discussed case. Without doing this you do not have an argument, you
have only an assertion, an essay that is just your unsubstantiated opinion.
Structurally, argumentative essays often begin with a statement of your assertion with its
timeliness, significance, and relevance in relation to some phenomenon. Next, it reviews
critically the literature about that phenomenon. The accompanied part illustrates how your
assertion is "righter" than others‘, including more reliable or valid methods that you
employed to explain the case. In another definition by Purdue OWL writing laboratory,
‗argumentative essay is a type of writing that requires students to go through steps of
investigating topic, collecting, generating and evaluating evidences to finally establish
their own stances in an appropriate manner‟. Accordingly, when writing an argumentative
essay, writers focus on presenting their argument successfully and convincingly to make
others to agree with their facts, share their values and accept their conclusions. Both those
two definitions called for the writer‘s ability to produce not just an understandable but


15
logical and convincing paper. Thus, the ability of reasoning and refuting well are what a
good argumentative essay writer should possess.
Since the ultimate goal of writing argumentative essay is to persuade readers to believe in
writers‘ point; writing then should be a real reflection of writers‘ thought and ideas. The
strategy of stating arguments, giving relevant supporting evidences and examples as well
as manners of refuting the counter-argument that a critical thinker employs will all be
presented in his argumentative essay. This implies that a good thinker makes a good writer

and a good critical writer makes a good argumentative paper. Sachs (2004) pointed out the
interrelation between critical thinking and writing, especially argumentative writing, a
process of doing critical thinking and a product communicating the results of critical
thinking. As such, one can use written argumentative texts to measure critical thinking
skill. Since this paper deals with the assessment of critical thinking in writing, it will now
provide a look of several general knowledge standardized essays tests for critical thinking.
As observed by Stapleton (2001), although critical thinking has received much attention in
the second language learning field, little attention has been paid to the critical thinking
assessment test. The existing critical thinking test tend to be test specific with criteria laid
out that specifically pertain to the content of the test itself. McPeck (1990) claimed to
know of at least 26 tests designed to measure critical thinking ability, but they are often
limited to multiple-choice instruments that do not allow any probing of reasoning behind
the examinee‘s answer. The textual analysis and scoring guides for testing critical thinking
quality in written discourse seem quite rare. One of the most widely used assessments of
critical thinking in writing is the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. It is a general
test of critical thinking in the context of argumentation and regarded as a diagnostic device
to identify specific area of reasoning or argumentation (Stapleton, 2001, p.514). ―It is the
only critical thinking test that asks students for a written response judging the quality of
reasoning in a piece of writing‖ (Hatcher, 1995, p.27, as cited in Paul, 2001, p.515).
According to the test‘s grading guides, there is a list of area of critical thinking
competence:
 Getting to the point
 Seeing reasons and assumptions
 Stating one‘s point


16
 Offering good reasons
 Seeing other possibilities (including other possible explanations)
 Responding appropriately

 Avoiding
 Equivocation
 Irrelevance
 Circularity
 Reversal of an if-then (or other conditional relationship)
 The straw person fallacy
 Overgeneralization
 Excessive skepticism
 Creditability problems
 The use of emotive language to persuade
Responding to Ennis-Weir Test of Critical Thinking, Stapleton (2001) agreed that general
concepts of critical thinking can be derived from this model, but like many other tests of
this sort, he thought those criteria seem content specific. He then proposed a model to
address that lack of adequate critical thinking tests by offering a scheme to assess any
argumentative passage. Raters follow this model to identify key elements of critical
thinking displayed in the given writing, assessing each paper for (a) number of arguments,
(b) extent of evidence, (c) recognition of opposing arguments, (d) corresponding
refutations, and (e) number of fallacies.
Both two models possess through time have proved their effectiveness. In this study, their
most applicable points will then be combined to make a measuring tool of critical thinking
in students‘ argumentative writing. Critical thinking could be assessed via argumentative
essays in terms of elements taken from Stapleton‘s proposal with related criteria provided
by Ennis-Weir. The process of assessing with the detailed explanation of the model will be
discussed in the next chapter.

17
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
This chapter recites the methodology conducted in the study, including samples and
sampling, data collection, and data analysis.
3.1. Samples and Sampling
3.1.1 Samples
The samples are purposively selected since the study only focused on one of many types of
writing tasks the students had learnt during all compulsory writing courses. The pieces
chosen are written by third year students since at the time the study was carrying, they
were working on argumentative writing in their Writing 5 course. The instructor of the
course, who worked independently with the researcher of this study, provided all 36
papers. The writing tasks were carried out under time pressure during class hours to be
submitted for the course‘s evaluation requirements. The whole set of 36 writing pieces will
be found in Appendix A.
3.1.2. Sampling
3.1.1.1. Participants
Due to the nature of the study, the researcher also took purposive samplings of 36 third-
year EFL students from one same group at Hanam Teachers‘ Training College. All
students were in the first semester of their third year with the ages ranging from nineteen to
twenty-one, they all come from parts of Hanam province. All of them were taking a course
call Writing 5, and were being taught by a same teacher with same curriculum, activities
and evaluation system.
3.1.1.2. Topics
With the approval and assistance from the instructor of the Writing 5 course, 36 students
were accidentally divided into two sub-groups of equal number then each group was
assigned with writing topics prepared beforehand by the researcher. There are two topics,
one of which was familiar to the majority of Vietnamese people while the other deemed
unfamiliar. Accordingly, half of the randomly selected participants worked on the familiar
topic and the other half on the unfamiliar one. One noticeable factor is that prior to the
testing time, students had been provided with several topics including the two topics used

in this study.
3.1.1.3. Raters


18
Due the subjectivity required in any assessing process, the study relied on the working of
two separate raters to read and score all the writing samples. Those two raters were
deliberately invited based on their cultural background, working experience and
specialized teaching areas. The first rater (or rater A for convenience) is a Vietnamese
teacher who has been teaching critical thinking for years. The second rater (rater B) is an
experienced Australian teacher who has taught English to both native and non-native
learners. Both neither work at the college where this research was conducted nor have
direct contact with the students here.
3.2. Data Collection
3.2.1. Instrument
Best and Kahn (1993, as cited in Ghonaim, 2005) regarded documents among the most
significant sources for data collection. This source helps bring more insightful information,
thus increasing the reliability of the study findings. Since the study focused on evaluating
students‘ real reflection of critical thinking ability in their writings rather than their
perceptions in general, the researchers made a decision to use students‘ essay tests as a
main instrument.
3.2.2 Procedures.
3.2.2.1 Design of the writing tasks
Before explaining the writing tasks as main source to collect data for this study, the
researcher would like to clarify the term ―familiarity‖. It relates to theories on schemata
and knowledge structures. Rumelhart (as cited in Stapleton, 2001) described schemata as
prototypes of memory arising from familiar experiences that individuals use to interpret
related knowledge. When people are given information, those who already know can
develop their knowledge by organizing related principles and notions and link to its
application. On the other hand, the schemata of people who find the information new may

contain certain ideas about the situation but lack knowledge of related principles and their
application.
The familiar topic requires students to respond to the statement “Tobacco companies
should compensate smokers who have become ill as a result of smoking”. The issue of
smokers‘ demand of compensation was selected because of the following reasons. Firstly,
it was always one of the most frequently used topics in writing at any level, although the
question was modified a little. Secondly, people keep talking about smoking largely on


19
media means with its pros and cons, and the public attention has recently directed to the
rights of consumers with many as cases in which the buyers and users filed the producers.
All of the information sources related to the issue seemed close and rich enough for the
students to get used to the tone of such kind of debate and easily develop their own
arguments. The third reason was that among many topics assigned as homework, when
informally asked by the researcher „which topic would you be most ready to work on?‘ 33
out of 36 students picked the topic on smoking.
For the unfamiliar topic, the legalization of prostitution was chosen. Students were asked
to respond to the statement. “Prostitution should be legalized because it brings a lot of
benefits”. This topic was deemed unfamiliar because prostitution is forbidden in Vietnam
and people quite often avoided talking about this. As an Eastern culture, the question of
whether or not should prostitution be legal hardly ever occur to Vietnamese, let alone
discuss about it openly. Another reason for choosing it was the fact that few students
voluntarily worked on such topic.
It is believed that those two topics would provide participants a good opportunity to use
critical thinking skills to explore the topics‘ complexities. As Stapleton (2001) pointed out,
a potential criticism of using familiar content to elicit critical thinking is that it encourages
well-rehearsed reasons and evidence absorbed through exposure to the media, schooling,
and parents. Such exposure can build prejudices that tend to hinder effective critical
thinking because they can block out alternative viewpoints. On the other hand, Glaser

(1984) claimed that people having little familiarity with a topic lack the schemata with
which to infer further knowledge. (as cited in Stapleton, 2001). As such, it is presumed that
the benefits of schemata evoked by a familiar topic to outweigh its potential hindrance.
Therefore, the main aim of choosing both a familiar and unfamiliar topic was to explore
how students‘ rich schemata with regards to compensation for smokers with their schemata
on legalization of prostitution, which was supposed to be poorer. It was hypothesized that
rich schemata would enhance critical thinking abilities.
3.2.2.2 Essay tests administered and collected
Before doing the argumentative writing tests, the students were given several topics to
prepare at home, some of them were considered familiar to them and some were
unfamiliar. As agreed by the course instructor, the researcher inserted the two to-be-tested
topics into the students‘ homework. They had been advised to collect information from