STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING IN WRITING AN ENGLISH EXPOSITION TEXT: a case study in a private university in ciamis.

(1)

STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING IN WRITING

AN ENGLISH EXPOSITION TEXT

(A CASE STUDY IN A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY IN CIAMIS)

A THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for Master’s Degree in English Education

By:

DEDEH ROHAYATI

1201025

ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

BANDUNG

(2)

STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING IN WRITING

AN ENGLISH EXPOSITION TEXT

(A CASE STUDY IN A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY IN CIAMIS)

Oleh

Dedeh Rohayati

S.Pd. Universitas Galuh Ciamis, 2007

Sebuah Tesis yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Magister Pendidikan (M.Pd.) pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

September 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian,

(3)

APPROVAL PAGE

“Students’ Critical Thinking in Writing an English Exposition Text”

A Thesis

This thesis has been approved by

Supervisor

Prof. Emi Emilia, M. Ed., Ph.D.

(4)

Dedeh Rohayati, 2014

Students’ critical thinking in writing An english exposition text (a case study in a private university in ciamis)

1.5 The Significanceof The Study ... 4

1.6 The Definitions of Terms ... 4

1.7Thesis Organization ... 4

CHAPTERII: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Definitions of Critical Thinking ……… 6

2.2 Elements of Critical Thinking in Writing an EnglishExposition Text…………... 7

2.2.1 Issue …...………..………. 7

2.4 Critical Thinking Dispositions………..………... 15

2.5Fallacies ……….... 16

2.6 Critical Thinking Assessment ……… 17

2.7 Definitions of Writing ……… 18

2.8 Characteristics of Writing ……….. 19

2.9 Principles of Teaching Writing ……….. 19

2.10 Argumentative Essay ……..…... 20

2.11 Exposition Text …………..………..…... 21

2.12 Linguistics Features of Argumentative Essay ………... 22

2.13 Previous Research on Critical Thinking ………. 24

2.14 Conclusion ……….……….. 27

CHAPTERIII: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1Research Designand Method ... 28

(5)

Students’ critical thinking in writing An english exposition text (a case study in a private university in ciamis) 4.1 Discussion of Analysis of Exposition Texts Written by Students ………. 39

4.1.1 Analysis of Text 1.1 ………. 39

4.1.1.1 The Schematic Structure and Purpose of Text 1.1 ………... 41

4.1.1.2 Linguistic Features of Text 1.1 ……… 47

4.1.1.3 Fallacies in Text 1.1 ………. 49

4.2 Summary of Analysis of Exposition Texts Written by Students ………... 69

4.3 Discussion of Analysis Data from Individual Interview.………. 73

4.3.1 Students’ Understanding of the Concept of Critical Thinking ……… 73

4.3.2 Students’ Understanding of Argumentative Essay ………. 79

4.3.3 Students’ Awareness of Potential Values of Critical Thinking in Writing an English Exposition Text ………... 80

4.3.4 Student’s Recommendations of Critical Thinking Development…..………. 82

4.4 The Implication of Research Result for Teachers ………..………... 84

(6)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu |perpustakaan.upi.edu

APPENDIX2: Sample of Students’ Document Texts ………. 100

APPENDIX 3: Elements of Critical Thinking in Text 1.1 ……….. 106

APPENDIX 4 : Elements of Critical Thinking in Text 1.2 ……….. 107

APPENDIX 5 : Elements of Critical Thinking in Text 1.3 ……….. 108

APPENDIX6 : Questions of Interview ………. 109

APPENDIX 7 : The Condensed Version of Interview Data from Low Achiever (Rani) ……… 110

APPENDIX 8 : The Condensed Version of Interview Data from Mid Achiever (Sofi) ……… 111 APPENDIX 9 : The Condensed Version of Interview Data from Low Achiever (Rihana) ..……… 112

(7)

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1 Sample Text of Exposition ……… 23

Table 4.1 Document Text (Text 1.1) ………. 40

Table 4.2 Document Text (Text 1.2) ………. 50

(8)

ABSTRACT

This study was aimed to investigate students’ critical thinking in writing an

English exposition text. In particular, the purpose of this study was to find out elements of critical thinking demonstrated by students in their writing an English exposition text.

Further, it was intended to find out students’ opinions about critical thinking reflected in their essays.

This study employed a qualitative research design, particularly a case study. To

obtain the data, students’ texts and interviews were used. The Third Year Students of English Department in private university in Ciamis were chosen as participants. They were 6 students of low, middle, and high achievers who were selected purposively. The

data of students’ texts were analyzed by using the theory of critical thinking movement proposed by Reichenbach (2001), Ennis (1996), and Chaffee et al (2002). These were

very valuable to assess students’ critical thinking. Moreover, interview data were

transcribed, categorized and coded into central themes, condensed, and interpreted into

a description form. This was aimed to provide a description of students’ points of view about the concept of critical thinking in writing an English exposition text.

The data from student’s texts show strengths and weaknesses. In term of strengths, students’ texts reflected all aspects of critical thinking in exposition text focused in this study including elements of critical thinking, critical thinking standards, and critical thinking dispositions. However, students’ texts were weakened by the frequent use of fallacies which resulted in illogical reasoning, such as equivocation and amphiboly, the most common fallacy made by students in this study. It suggested that students still need guidance in expressing effective and sound arguments. Moreover, the result of students’ interviews indicated that students still lack critical thinking knowledge. In order to have an adequate comprehensive knowledge of critical thinking in writing, in particular, they suggested critical thinking and written composition as separate, stand-alone courses or combining them, the two should be taught and combined into an integrated activity. It was recommended that the next research offer the various methodologies, especially, how to teach critical thinking and the technique of critical thinking assessment in order to provide the more enlightening critical thinking horizon.

(9)

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji berpikir kritis (critical thinking) mahasiswa dalam tulisan eksposisi berbahasa Inggris,, terutama untuk mengetahui unsur-unsur berpikir kritisnya. Selain itu, penelitian ini juga bertujuan untuk mengetahui pendapat mereka mengenai berpikir kritis dalam tulisan eksposisi berbahasa Inggris tersebut.

Penelitian ini menggunakan desain kualitatif khususnya metode studi kasus (case study) sehinngga untuk memperoleh data menggunakan analisis dokumen dan wawancara. Penelitian ini melibatkan enam orang mahasiswa tingkat tiga dari program studi Bahasa Inggris di sebuah universitas swasta di Ciamis yang dipilih secara sengaja (purposive). Mereka mewakili kemampuan mahasiswa yang tergolong low achiever,

mid achiever, dan high achiever, masing- masing dua orang. Kemudian, dokumen

dianalisa menggunakan teori berpikir kritis (Reichenbach, 2001; Ennis, 1996; and Chaffee et al, 2002). Ketiga teori tersebut digunakan untuk menilai berpikir kritis mahasiswa. Sedangkan data dari hasil interview kemudian dibuat transkrip, dikategorikan, dan dikodekan berdasarkan tema utamanya, diringkas, diterjemahkan, dan dituangkan dalam bentuk deskripsi. Hasil data interview ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pendapat mahasiswa mengenai berpikir kritis dalam tulisan eksposisi berbahasa Inggris.

Data dari dokumen mahasiswa menunjukan kekuatan dan kelemahan. Dari segi kekuatannya, dokumen tersebut menunjukan semua aspek berpikir kritis mahasiswa dalam tulisan eksposisi yang difokuskan dalam kajian ini, termasuk unsur-unsur berpikir kritis (elements of critical thinking), standar berpikir kritis (critical thinking

standards), dan watak berpikir kritisnya (critical thinking disposition). Namun

(10)

berbagai metodologi, khususnya metode pengajaran dan penilaian berpikir kritis.dalam rangka memperluas cakrawala keilmuan berpikir kritis yang telah ada.

(11)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter illustrates the introduction to the study which highlights the

background of the study. This chapter focuses on students’ critical thinking in

writing an English exposition text that mostly identifies the elements of critical

thinking reflected by students in writing an English exposition text, and to find out

students’ opinions about critical thinking in writing an English exposition text. The rest of this chapter elaborates aims of the study, research questions, scope of

the study, the significance of the study, definition of the terms and thesis

organization.

1.1 Background of the Study

Critical thinking has become a great concern among educators and educational

theorists today, including those who are involved in EFL context such as

Alwasilah (2001, p. 65), Brown (2001), and Emilia (2005, p. 165). Because of its

beneficial value, teaching English should be developed to foster students’ critical

thinking so that it enables the students to understand the hidden truth and to

uncover the essence of a message (Alwasilah, 2001, p. 65. Thus, English

classroom practices suggested by critical thinking seem to be worth carrying out

immediately in order to improve not only their learning in EFL but also critical

capacities (Emilia, 2001, p. 276). Since a number of “hot-topics” that addressed in

classroom demand critical thinking, students are encouraged to express their

points of view openly (Brown, 2001, p. 444). Parallel to the consensus above,

other experts have also necessitated the practice of critical thinking that should be

taught effectively in the classroom (Suherdi, 2012, p. 18; Reichenbach, 2001;

Crawford et al, 2005; Weil & Anderson, 2000; Kagan, 1999; Brookfield, 1987;

Browne & Keeley, 2007).

There are several research results regarding the implementation of critical

thinking taught in teaching English, in particular, in writing,eitherfrom Indonesia

(12)

Philippine (Flores, 2007). The first research is the one provided by Emilia

(2005). The research was conducted to 18 semester six student teachers of a

Bachelor Degree for 11 weeks in a tertiary EFL context in Indonesia. It reveals

that the students’ argumentative writing skills in English improve the achievement of argumentative genre which indicates their development in critical thinking.

Moreover, a research reported by Stapleton (2002) conducting in a

semester in an English writing class in Japan indicates that changes in society

resulted in a greater sense among a younger generation of Japanese to voice

(through writing, in particular) their ideas clearly, and to criticize the ideas of

others regardless their status. Another research investigated by Flores (2007) was

conducted to forty students of non- English department in Philippine. The

findings of the study show that the students’ argumentative papers demonstrate

relatively good level skill. Holistic score of 2 and 3 suggests that the papers are

relatively good attempts at developing a moderately well-developed argument

without having difficulties in stating their opinions.

However, those research results mentioned above still focus on a

predominantly argumentative writing in general; it does not emphasize the type of

argumentative genre, in particular, exposition text (as conducted in the present

study). Moreover, all participants in the study mentioned above are more than six

participants. Unlike the two other studies, namely Emilia (2005) and Stapleton

(2002) (see also Aliakbari & Sadighdaghighi, 2012) whose research participants

are in EFL context, Flores (2007), does not recruit participants under the context

of EFL; the participants are the students of non- English department and in ESL

context. The explanation above seems to provide an implication that it is still

very rare for critical thinking in writing an exposition text to be investigated.

Recalling critical thinking leads students to a higher level thinking

(Reichenbach, 2001; Kagan, 1999; Weil & Anderson, 2000), to have their own

reasoning and decisions (Crawford et al, 2005; Ennis, 1996, p. xvii), and to

become more self-reliant (Browne & Keeley, 2007), study emphasizes critical

thinking in writing an English exposition text is worth conducting. In addition, it

(13)

writing class in a tertiary level. Besides, an exposition text that is a complex skill

and thinking (Westwood, 2008, p. 56, p. 57) and as “a means to convey ideas of

our own” (Reichenbach, 2001, p. 213), needs higher-level thinking and ability to synthesize information (Chaffee et al, 2002), and also is useful to judge critical

thinking (Chaffee, 2000; Chaffee et al, 2002; Lipman, 2003 in Emilia, 2010, p. 4).

Since the study of exposition text is still rare and as it is worth conducting,

this research is conducted to fulfill the intention and thus the research aims to

investigate the elements of critical thinking that the students demonstrated in

writing an English exposition text and to find out the students’ opinions about

critical thinking in writing an English exposition text.

1.2 Aims of the Research

As previously mentioned, this study is aimed at obtaining two following

objectives.

1. To investigate the elements of critical thinking that the students demonstrate

in writing an English exposition text;

2. To find out the students’ opinions about critical thinking in writing an English

exposition text.

1.3 Research Questions

This study is intended to answer two following research questions.

1. What elements of critical thinking do the students demonstrate in writing an

English exposition text?

2. What do the students think about critical thinking in writing an English

exposition text?

1.4 Scope of the Study

The study focuses on the elements of critical thinking that students demonstrate in

their exposition texts, and the students’ opinions about critical thinking in writing

(14)

1.5 The Significance of the Study

The study is significant at least to three areas including theory, practice, and

professional aspects. Theoretically, the result of this study can hopefully enrich

the literature of critical thinking theory, in particular, exposition text. Further, it

can become an effort to integrate and synthesize perspective and approach from

different research areas regarding the development of critical thinking in writing.

Practically, this research can provide an alternative methodology in teaching and

assessing critical thinking. It is also expected that this study can encourage

academic practitioners to try to implement this method in their classroom and can

motivate the teachers and the students to engage the critical thinking in writing

process effectively. Professionally, this study is expected to become an effort to

prepare all parties (both students and academics practitioners) to be an agent of

change that needs to be survived in the world which keeps changing.

1.6The Definitions of Terms

 Critical Thinking is defined as a process, a goal of which is to make reasonable decisions about what to believe and what to do (Ennis (1996, p.

xvii).

 Writing is an English written communication which has been acquired through the proper instruction in learning the kind of genre text (Grabowski, 1996, p.

75 in Alderson & Bachman, 2002, p. 4).

 Exposition text is a type of argumentative essay that requires the student to investigate a topic; collect, generate, and evaluate evidence; and establish a

position on the topic in a concise manner

(http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/685/05/).

1.7 Thesis Organization

This thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapter I explains the introduction of

the study, focusing on the basic concept of the study and the reasons behind the

study. Chapter II consists of theoretical framework and reference of this study. It

(15)

the methodology of the study which consists of research design, method, research

setting, research participants, data collections, and data analysis. Chapter IV

comprises results and discussion. It contains the result of the study and its

findings. Chapter V explains the conclusions of this study including the

limitations of the study and recommendations for further studies. This chapter also

(16)

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology used in this study that comprises research

design and method, research setting, research participants, data collections, and

data analysis. This chapter is ended with conclusion.

3.1 Research Design and Method

The study employed a qualitative design since the characteristics of the present

study coincided with the qualitative design said by Holliday (2005, p. 5), Cohen et

al (2007, p. 461), and Silverman (2005, p. 10). First, this study was intended to

interpret the phenomena as supported by Holliday (2005, p. 5) who argued that the

mystery of people and realities of research setting can only be revealed

superficially by interpreting which attempt to make sense. Second, the study

worked with a small number of cases (Silverman, 2005, p. 9) and the obtained

data in this study were elaborated and written in a descriptive narrative (Cohen et

al, 2007, p. 461). Third, this study utilized interview to get closer and to provide a

deeper understanding of the object phenomena (Silverman (2005, p. 10).

Meanwhile, the method used in this study was a case study. The present

study exemplifies the characteristics of a case study as explained by Cohen et al

(2007, p. 253). First, the study concerns a rich description of case investigated in

this study. Second, a chronological narrative of case events is provided in this

study. Third, this study attempts to portray the richness of a case in a writing

report (ibid).

3.2 Research Setting

The research was carried out at the English Department of a private university in Ciamis -West Java, Indonesia. It is the only department in this private university

whose graduates are prepared to become English teachers.

There were several reasons why this research site, at tertiary level, was

(17)

research was carried out. It showed that the researcher’s accessibility to the

institution provides the ultimate chance for researchers to demonstrate their skill

of serious investigators and show their own ethical position with respect to their

intended research (Cohen et al, 2007, p. 55). Moreover, Emilia (2005, p. 73)

claimed that the familiarity between the researcher and the situation led to a more

natural conduct of research, that it avoided any students’ unnatural behavior

performances; despite their awareness of the study and the fact that the class was

set up for the purpose of research.

Second, the researcher decided it on the basis of relevance (Van Lier,

1988, p. 11; Cohen et al, 2007, p. 55). The relevance was also on the basis of

framework which needed the English as Foreign Language (EFL). The availability

of EFL in this institution provided the researcher the development of students’

language, in particular, writing a type of argumentative genre: exposition text.

This genre was required to be taught in this level since much of academic writing

had to be presented in argumentative essay (Chaffee et al, 2002, p. 39; Fahim &

Hastroodi, 2012). Since argumentative genre needed higher order thinking or

critical thinking ability, the students were expected to think more conceptually, to

write more analytically, and to read more critically (Chaffee et al, 2002, p. 4).

The last reason was that the inclusion of critical thinking in writing, at

tertiary level, will create a new generation with adequate “critical consciousness”

(Shor, 1993, p. 31). Since the world always keeps changing, the impact of this

study to the institution, in particular, critical thinking in general, is hoped that

students were prepared to be surviving in the future. This was relevant to the

current 21st century skill and the modern work environment which needs critical

thinking ability (Alwasilah, 2004, p. 165; Hirose, 1992, p.1; Suherdi, 2012, p. 18).

3.3 Research Participants

Participants of the research were six semester eight students of English

Department of Education in a private university of Ciamis, who had accomplished

(18)

Participants of the research were chosen because of accessibility as Van Lier

(1988).

Participants of the study were determined purposively in the research. It

was done by choosing certain individuals who were considered giving the

adequate data as suggested by Sugiyono (2005, p. 54). Further, six students were

chosen based on their GPA (IPK/ Indeks Prestasi Kumulatif) rather than gender:

two students were from low achiever (GPA<3), two students were from mid

achiever (GPA 3-3.5), and two students were from high achievers (GPA> 3.5).

This was employed because critical thinking was supported by the intelligence

which was in line with what was said by Wade & Tavris (2007, p. xxix).

3.4 Data Collections

The study utilized several techniques in collecting the data, among others, text

document of students’ exposition texts and interviews. Writing prompt was

provided to collect students’ exposition texts. Regarding interview, a set of questionnaires was employed to obtain the data. They will be illustrated separately

in the following sections.

3.4.1 Text Document of Students’ Exposition Texts

Text document of students’ exposition texts were analyzed to find out elements of critical thinking demonstrated by students in writing exposition text. It was

conducted by asking the students to write an exposition text. In this case, the

students were given a chance to choose one of the topics given by researcher (the

topic of Internet and Corrupts were preferable) based on controversial issues

because they were effective to trigger student’s critical thinking as claimed by

Chaffee et al (2002). The chosen topic on writing prompt was rather similar to

Flores (2007), Fahim & Hashtroodi (2012, p. 635), Jantrasakul (2012, p. 30), and

Samanhudi (2011) as can be seen below.

Write an exposition text which consists of 3-4 paragraphs (750 words) on a controversial issue with any topic of your choice below. Topics are as follows:

(19)

2. Global Warming (Automobiles should be limited for reducing global warming)

3. Internet (Parents should control the use of internet by teenagers) 4. Cell phones (Cell phones should be banned in school).

The topics above were “traditionally controversial in nature” (Samanhudi,

2011; Fahim & Hastroodi, 2012). They pertained to “highly capable of arousing

controversy and no answers can be held 100% correct or 100 % wrong for these

types of disputatious issues.” (

http://www.publishyourarticles.net/knowledge-hub/essay/135-most-controversial-essay-topics.html ). Although these issues were

supposed to be in question form (see Chapter II, Section 2.2), they have already

been given in a positive statement to simplify the process of writing and to assist

the students when developing the ideas.

Furthermore, there were three reasons why these topics were chosen. First,

corruption case was a public issue in Indonesia nowadays so that it always

becomes a hot topic in every information media of Indonesia. Second, global

warming has become a big concern for all people in the world since it has

contributed to the damage of the earth. Third, internet and cell-phones were

considered as means of communication for all people in the world which may

provide danger or benefits for mankind. Overall, the topics mentioned above were

adopted for they were considered controversial. Before writing process, the

students were informed to compose the written exposition text in 60 minutes

without any interference and direction.

Subsequently, the students’ essays were documented as proposed by many

experts such as Cohen et al (2007), McMilan & Schumacher (2001), Sugiyono

(2005), and Wallace (2001). These six essays were selected and collected based

on the number of selected respondents (see 3.4 Research Participants). Evidently,

in order to answer the first research question; to find out the elements of critical

thinking demonstrated by students, these exposition texts were then analyzed by

utilizing the elements of critical thinking proposed by experts: Chaffee et al

(2002), Ennis, (1996), and Reichenbach (2001). This analysis was believed to be a

(20)

3.4.2 Interview

In this study, a semi-structured interview was utilized in order to get a

comprehensive answer from participants (Emilia, 2005; Kvale, 1996, p. 5). It was

used for two reasons: (1) it allowed the sequence of themes and suggested

questions to be covered; and (2) in order to evaluate the answer and the story

conveyed, it was permitted that an openness to changes of sequence and forms of

questions at the same time (Kvale, 1996, p. 124).

The questions were leading questions which should link to the central

theme of the research and were guided by theory (Cohen et al, 2007; Kvale, 1996,

p. 158). The reason was that the leading questions were aimed at verifying the

interviewer’s interpretation and enhancing the reliability of the interviewee’s

answer (see the questions of interview in Appendix 6). In addition, interview

questions were tried out first to make sure that the questions were not ambiguous

(Emilia, 2011, p. 10; Kvale 1996).

Subsequently, questions asked in individual interview lasted about 10- 15

minutes or less than one hour as exemplified by Kvale (1996, p. 136). For this

reason, the questions in the interview consisted of seven questions (see Appendix

6). Another reason was that it was in line with Gleshne & Peshkin (Alwasilah,

2011, p. 157) who argued that less than one hour interview would suffice. In

conjunction to confirm that the information linked to what was meant by

interviewee and to give the chance for interviewee to say “I didn’t mean that”

(Kvale, 1996, p. 189), the transcription of interview was given back to the

interviewees.

In order to make the interview interaction and questions were available for

public scrutiny (Kvale, 1996, p. 24), the interview was recorded and transcribed

which resulted in a written text. Kvale said further that the written text was a

material for interpreting of meaning (1996, p. 27).

3.4.3 Triangulation

After collecting and analyzing the data, triangulation was used to test validity and

(21)

Maxwell (1996, 93), and Sugiono (2005). In this case, triangulation of the

research used two resources of data: students’ document texts and interview as

proposed by Cohen et al (2007) and Maxwell (1996). With regards to interview,

the transcriptions were written more verbatim to ascertain the validity (Kvale,

1996, p. 163) and were checked three times to maintain reliability (p. 166). In

addition, transcriptions were given back to the students in order to match between

what was said and what was written, and to give opportunity for the students to

say “I did not mean it” (Kvale, 1996, p. 189).

3.5 Data Analysis

In this study, the data analysis was conducted before the research took place

(secondary data) as stated by Heaton (2004) such as the previous research data.

The previous research data was utilized because the present study had to be

carried out based on the preceding research. Meanwhile, students’ writing samples

and interview data were preceded through systematic series of analysis which were based on the purpose of the study; so that it fulfilled the conformity of the

purpose (Cohen et al, 2007, p. 461). Accordingly, the intended systematic series

of analysis included “coding and categorizing until theory emerged that explains

the phenomena being studied”.

As previously mentioned in Section 3.5, the data collections of this study

consisted of text document and interview. Therefore, the following section will

present the analysis of students’ exposition texts and interviews. The former, it

was analyzed by using critical thinking theory. The latter, it was analyzed through

transcribing, categorizing and coding, condensing, and interpreting (Kvale, 1996;

Miles & Huberman as cited in Cohen et al, 2007, p. 470; Sugiono, 2005, p. 91;

Alwasilah, 2000, p. 113).

3.5.1 Analyzing Students’ Exposition Texts

Students’ exposition texts were displayed into table to be analyzed as suggested by Maxwell (1996, p. 79), Miles & Huberman (1994), and Silverman (2005, p.

(22)

thinking (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2007, p. 483). In this study, the analyses of

students’ argumentative essays were divided into three steps: categorizing, coding,

identifying and evaluating (judging) the elements of critical thinking reflected in

students’ argumentative essays, and evaluating their critical thinking standards

and dispositions as claimed by Chaffee et al (2002) and Ennis (1996). These

essays were categorized and coded into low, middle, and high achievement. It was

conducted to understand the participants’ categories (Alwasilah, 2000, p. 113), as

well as the representation of their performances on critical thinking capacity.

Subsequently, the obtained data which were the representation of three

levels of achievement: low achiever (Rani), mid achiever (Sofi), and high achiever

(Rihana), were analyzed. The data were then evaluated by using the theory of

argumentative essay and exposition text as stated in Chapter II, Section 2.10

Argumentative Essay and Section 2.11 Exposition Text. It might be that the data

was an expected result because the students have produced proper exposition

texts, i.e. the texts conformed to its generic structure.

By utilizing the theory of critical thinking as proposed by many experts

(see Chapter II, Literature Review), the assessment was conducted. It was

valuable for identifying the elements of critical thinking reflected in students’

exposition texts written by low, mid, and high achiever students (see Chapter IV,

Section 4.1.1, Section 4.1.2, and Section 4.1.3). The next step was judging those

elements of critical thinking by using the critical thinking theory adapted from

Reichenbach (2001), Ennis (1996), and Chaffee et al (2002) to judge its relevance,

strengths and weaknesses. The reason was that these elements of critical thinking

were common in almost all good writing, especially, exposition text as a type of

argumentative essay.

The other step was judging the pattern of deductive reasoning and a few of

the most common informal fallacies in all texts collected in this study. Although

there were other criteria for evaluating arguments, it was decided to focus on these

because of their simplicity, transferability among other disciplines, and use in

(23)

(Hatcher, 1999, p. 173) that arrives at illogical or unsound argument (Zifana et al,

2014, p. 175).

With regards to elements of critical thinking, students were also able to

offer these elements in their writing. Based on three major elements of exposition

text (thesis element, arguments, and restatement of thesis element), they produced

elements of critical thinking in their texts (see Table 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3). Others

elements were also included in these three elements of exposition texts such as

evidence, reason and conclusion. Moreover, the various statements of the texts

produced by students indicated element of critical thinking which were also

essential. These statements were students’ opinions or assertions to express their

beliefs about the world (Reichenbach, 2001, p. 38). It could be that they were able

to reflect their critical thinking capacity despite the fact that their arguments were

not sound. This implied that students’ critical thinking standards and dispositions

are still underdeveloped.

As aforementioned in chapter II that the elements of critical thinking

should be supported by critical thinking standards ( Chaffee et al, 2002, p. 469;

Emilia, 2005, p. 25; Paul & Elder 2007, p. 21). They comprised clarity, logical

and relevance, accuracy, and precision (see Chapter II, Section 2.3 Critical

Thinking Standards). Based on the students’ texts, the elements of critical

thinking which were not supported by critical thinking standards emerged. These

led to a dangerous argument or fallacies that were also demonstrated by students.

Consequently, their argumentative essays were far from a sound argument

as previously mentioned. This unexpected result arose from illogical reasoning.

This type of false reasoning (pseudo reasoning) was often called fallacies:

arguments that were not sound because the reasoning had various errors (Chaffee

et al, 2002, p. 504; see also Chapter II, Section 2.5 Fallacies). This term of fallacy

was to be one of the aspects of critical thinking assessment. The purpose was to

find out the types of fallacy demonstrated in students’ exposition texts, among

other things, equivocation and amphiboly, and fallacy of deductive reasoning.

These were also to be the focus of critical thinking assessment: identifying and

(24)

Evidently, students’ texts were analyzed and put in rubrics. To follow

Samanhudi (2010), these texts were given some corrections, without changing the

ideas of the text, which were given in the bracket. This was done to make it easy

to be understood. The first document text was written by low achiever, namely,

Rani; the second document text was written by mid achiever, namely, Sofi; and

the third document text was written by high achiever, namely, Rihana. The name

of students was written under pseudonym.

The explanation above shows that although there are other criteria for

evaluating critical thinking, it was decided to focus on issue, thesis, argument,

reason, evidence, opinion, pattern of deductive and inductive reasoning, and

fallacies (see Chapter II, Literature Review). The critical thinking standards must

also be applied in evaluating these elements of critical thinking. The reason was to

develop intellectual traits, in particular, confidence in reason (Paul & Elder, 2007,

p. 17). However, students’ critical thinking standards that were reflected in their arguments still need improvement.

Students’ critical thinking dispositions were also evaluated. According to

Ennis (1996, p. xviii), dispositions in writing referred to being clear about what is

written, thought, and said (see Chapter II, Section 2.4 Critical Thinking

Disposition). Of course, it had to link with the argumentative essay theory (see

Chapter II, Section 2.10 Argumentative Essay). Therefore, to follow Emilia (2005,

p. 85), the texts were then evaluated in terms of the schematic structure,

organization and purpose, and how well each element performed its function in

the text. Although it did not link significantly between the students’ interviews

and their exposition texts in term of critical thinking dispositions, the students

have demonstrated their critical thinking dispositions in their exposition texts.

Students’ critical thinking dispositions were indicated by their intention to

act and think in certain way at the right time with the right activity (Alwasilah,

2004, p. 165; Ennis, 1996, p. 9; Reichenbach, 2001, p. 14; Ritchart & Perkins,

2005, p. 785; see Chapter II, Section 2.4 Critical Thinking Dispositions). It

indicated that students comprehended the writing prompt which was given by the

(25)

exposition text in a proper fashion. In addition, they were also disposed to state a

position, and to offer evidence, reason, and conclusion (Reichenbach, 2001;

Ennis, 1996, p. 9, Paul & Elder, 2007, and Ritchart & Perkins, 2005, p. 785).

Among those dispositions mentioned above, it was unfortunate that they were not

disposed to be well-informed (Reichenbach, 2001; Ennis, 1996, p. 9, Paul &

Elder, 2007, and Ritchart & Perkins, 2005, p. 785). The reasons were that the texts

still lack sound argument and the frequent use of fallacies occurred. It indicated

that they required improvement in learning and producing a sound argument.

As previous mentioned, the text was interpreted and displayed as a whole

text that can be seen in Table 4.1, Table 4.2, and Table 4.3. The next section will

elaborate how interview data was analyzed.

3.5.2 Analyzing Interview Data

As a second data collection of this study, the recorded interviews were then

analyzed in several steps: transcribing, categorizing and coding, condensing, and

interpreting (Kvale, 1996).

First, the recorded interview was transcribed to render an incomplete

account of meanings which were expressed in the lived interview situation (Kvale,

1996, p. 50). During transcribing, names of participants were written under

pseudonym as aforementioned. This was done to guarantee the objectivity of the

researcher in analyzing the further data (Kvale, 1996). Then, transcriptions were

sent back to the participants so that the transcriptions were the same as what were

said by the participants.

Second, the transcriptions were categorized and coded into the theme of

the research or central themes and based on the formulated research question. This

categorization was based on the existed theory or built inductively (Alwasilah,

2000); that was the critical thinking theory and argumentative theory. Coding

was also conducted consistently for the equal phenomenon in order to define what

the data were about (Alwasilah, 2000; Charmaz, 2006, p. 43 in Liamputtong,

2009, p. 278; Kvale, 1996). After they were categorized and coded, the next step

(26)

1976, as cited in Cohen et al, 2007, p. 462). An extended process of clarification

and condensation might be necessary to arrive at the meanings intended by the

interviewee (Kvale, 1996, p. 50).

Third, interpretation was employed to re-contextualize the statement

within broader frames of references that might be provided by the entire interview

or by theory (Kvale, 1996, p. 193). In addition, it was to compare with the

background of the study (see Chapter I, Section 1

.

1 Background of the Study).

Fourth, the result of interview analysis through transcribing, categorizing

and coding, condensing, and interpreting was written and displayed individually

(see Appendix 7, Appendix 8, Appendix 9, and Appendix 10). This result of

interview analysis became the primary data of this study. The further step was to

present and discuss this result of interview data that will be elaborated in the

forthcoming Chapter IV, Data Presentation and Discussion.

3.6 Conclusion

This chapter has explained the aspects of methodology which were fully

implemented through justified methods. Those aspects of methodology embraced

research design, research setting, research participants, data collections, and data

(27)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY

The chapter delineates the conclusion of the study that will be initialized by an

account of research questions and research aims. Subsequently, conclusions are

presented through the information of the research results briefly. The chapter also

explains the limitations of the study and the recommendations for further study.

5.1 Research Aims

It has been stated previously in chapter one that this study was aimed at obtaining

two following objectives.

1. To investigate the elements of critical thinking that the students demonstrate

in writing an English exposition text.

2. To find out the students’ opinions about critical thinking in writing an English exposition text.

5.2 Research Questions

Based on the aims of the study mentioned above, the study was conducted to

answer two research questions as follows.

1. What elements of critical thinking do the students demonstrate in writing an

English exposition text?

2. What do the students think about critical thinking in writing an English

exposition text?

5.3 Conclusions

This thesis reported the result of a study of students’ critical thinking in writing an English exposition text. The study was to discover the elements of critical

thinking that the students demonstrated in writing an English exposition text and

(28)

By using two types of data collections techniques comprising students’ document texts and interviews, this study revealed two findings. First,writing an

exposition text assisted students to reflect their critical thinking capacity. The

process of writing an English exposition text represented the thought of critical

thinking proposed by Ennis (1996). They were able to “make reasonable decisions about what to believe and what to do “(Ennis, 1996, p. xvii). With regard to “what

to believe and to do”, it was represented initially in students’ judgments which offered in their thesis. Their judgments described the world in ways that evaluated

it on the basis of certain criteria (Chaffee et al, 2002, p. 393). Subsequently, they

acted in accordance with their own recommendations (Ennis, 1996, p. xvii). This

research finding was consistent with those presented by Emilia (2005),

Samanhudi (2010), Flores (2007), and Fahim & Hastroodi (2012).

Second, there were several aspects of critical thinking that existed in

students’ texts. These were elements of critical thinking (arguments, issue, thesis,

reason, conclusion, opinion, and evidence), critical thinking standards, and critical

thinking dispositions in their exposition text. However, they did not explore them

explicitly and verbally in their interview. Regarding critical thinking dispositions,

they offered reason, conclusion, and evidence in their texts successfully. The

reason and conclusion were established to make an argument and to support the

thesis. In addition, critical thinking standards such as relevance and clarity were

shown in their texts; all texts committed the generic structure and the purpose of

exposition text.

This study also found that there are still fallacies occurred in their texts

such as equivocation and amphiboly. Thus, students’ critical thinking standards and dispositions were still underdeveloped and poor; and therefore it needed

improvement and guidance.

Meanwhile, their inability to elaborate the terms elements of critical

thinking, critical thinking standards and dispositions explicitly were due to a lack

of critical thinking theory. The reason was that they were not equipped with the

theory of critical thinking at the beginning (Cottrell, 2005, p. 11; Howe & Warren,

(29)

sound and an effective argument (Ennis, 1996; Chaffee et al, 2002; Reichenbach,

2001). Accordingly, the sound argument was supported by logical reasoning or

valid argument. Meanwhile, an effective argument was made by a qualified thesis

and a careful use of cue words indicating reason and conclusion. Therefore, it

could be that this finding was relevant with what has been found by Samanhudi

(2010); the verbalization of students’ critical thinking was less sophisticated and

explicit.

Third, the finding was related to the second research question regarding

the students’ opinions about critical thinking in writing an English exposition text. The finding revealed that students’ answers or opinions were a stimulation of their critical thinking capacity (Browne & Keeley, 2007). However, their answers were

not consistent with those definitions in literature (Chaffee et al, 2002; Ennis,

1996; Reichenbach, 2001). This links with that claimed by Reichenbach (2001)

that it was due to their limited knowledge of the issue of critical thinking.

Regarding writing an argumentative essay, particularly in expository genre, they

seem difficult to produce an effective argumentative writing (Flores, 2007).

Realizing this matter, the students recommended the teaching of critical thinking

in the classroom. In other words, they suggested that critical thinking and written

composition as separate, stand-alone courses or combining them, the two should

be taught and combined into an integrated activity (Emilia, 2005, p. 268; Hatcher,

1999, p. 171).

5.4 Limitations of the Study

There were some limitations of the study; the major one was dealt with the

evaluation of critical thinking, in particular, in assessing the texts document

written by students. The text document was evaluated alone by the researcher

since it is still difficult to involve other teachers or assessors who had

comprehensive knowledge of critical thinking in writing. In addition, the

interview was also conducted by the researcher herself. It indicated that the

(30)

researcher. This resulted in “potential loss of the objectivity” (Emilia, 2005, p.

283).

Besides, the method of data inquiry was also simple; it used only students’ texts document and interviews. If only observation and teaching program were

involved to collect the data, this study might be intriguing. In other words,

multiple data collection techniques were possible to conduct in order to improve

the study.

However, there were also some efforts of tactics to overcome this problem.

Among other things, the students’ texts document were analyzed by using the

theory of critical thinking proposed by Chaffee et al (2002), Ennis (1996), and

Reichenbach (2001) as the main theories used in this study.

5.5 Recommendations for Further Studies

Despite the limitations, this study recommends several aspects as follows: (1) due

to the scarcity in method of critical thinking assessment, it is recommended for

other alternative criteria to be employed; (2) other alternative of research designs

are recommended to improve the theory that has underpinned this study; (3) study

emphasizing critical thinking in writing exposition texts should be tried out in a

different contexts and levels. The emergence of various research results may

contribute to the development of critical thinking and writing, in particular, in

writing an exposition text; and (4) further studies can also attempt to propagate a

creation society or community which is potential to be an agent of change and

(31)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alderson, J. C. & Bachman, L. F. (2002). Assesing Writing.

Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Aliakbari, M. & Sadighdaghighi, A. (2012). Performance- Based Assessment of

Students’ Critical Thinking Skill: The Case of Iranian MA and BA TEFL

Students. International Conference on Language, Medias, and Culture, 33, 55-60.

Alwasilah, C. (2000). Pokoknya Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.

Alwasilah, C. (2001). Writing is Neglected in our School. Alwasilah, C (2001).

Language, culture, and education. Bandung: Andira.

Alwasilah, C. (2004). Perspektif Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Indonesia dalam

Konteks Persaingan Global. Bandung: CV ANDIRA.

Barjesteh, H & Vaseghi. (2012). Critical Thinking: A Reading Strategy.

Developing English Reading Comprehension Performance. Sheikhbahaee EFL Journal, 1(2), August 2012, 21-34.

Baron, J. B. (1987). Evaluating Thinking Skill in the Classroom. In J. Boykoff & R. J. Sternberg, Teaching Thinking Skills in the Classroom. Theory and

Practice (p. 221- 247). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Brink_ Budgen, R. (2000). Critical Thinking for Students. Learn the Skills of

Critical Assessment and Effective Argument. 3rd Edition. Oxford: How To

Content.

Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing Critical Thinkers- Challenging Adults to

Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting. California: Open

University Press.

Critical Thinking. Eight Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

(32)

Chaffee, J., McMahon, C., & Stout B. (2002). Critical Thinking Thoughtful

Writing. Second Edition. USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Clouse, F. B. (2008). The Students’ Writer. Editor and Critic. SeventhEdition. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Cohen, L., Manion L., & Morrison K. . (2007). Research Method in Education. Sixth Edition. New York: Routledge.

Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical Thinking Skill- Developing Effective Analysis and

Argument. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Davidow, B. (2013). Comma before “including”?

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/108122/comma-before-including, date of access: 2nd December 2014.

Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring How Texts Work. Newton: PETA.

Eemeren, F.V., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (2002). Argumentation.

Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc.

Emilia, E. (2005). A Critical Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Academic

Writing in a Tertiary Efl Context in Indonesia. Deakin University:

Unpublished Thesis.

Emilia, E. (2008). Menulis Thesis Dan Disertasi. Bandung: ALFABETA, CV.

Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching Writing- Developing Critical Learners. Bandung: Rizky Press.

Emilia, E. (2012). Pendekatan Genre-Based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris:

Petunjuk Untuk Guru. Bandung; Rizky Press.

Emilia, E. 2011. Teaching Academic Writing: A Critical Genre- Based Approach

in an EFL Context. Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Writing.

Emilia, E. & Christie, F. (2013). Factual Genres in English. Learning to Write,

(33)

Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Lisnguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical Thinking. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Ennis, R. H. (2003). Critical Thinking Assessment. In D. Fasko, Jr. Critical

Thinking and Reasoning. Current Research, Theory, and Practice (p. 293-

312). USA: Hampston Press Inc.

Fahim, M. & Hashtroodi, P. (2012). The Effect of Critical Thinking on

Developing Argumentative Essays by Iranian EFL University Students.

Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3 (4), 632-638, July 2012.

Finland: Academy Publisher Manufactured.

Fasko, Jr., D. (2003). Critical Thinking: Origins, Historical development, Future Directions in Critical Thinking and Rreasoning . Current Research,

Theory, and Practice, p. 13. USA: Hampston Press Inc.

Fliegel, R. & Holland, J. (2007). Assessing Critical Thinking through Students’

Writing.

(http://cet.usc.edu/resources/teaching_learning/material_docs/John_Hollan

d__Richard_Fliegels_presentation.ppt. date of access: 23rd November

2013).

Fliegel, R. & Holland, J. (2007). Rhetoric and Critical Thinking.

http://assessment.aas.duke.edu/documents/RhetoricCT.Duke.2011-Fliegel.pdf, date of access: September, 1st 2014.

Flores, E. R. (2007). Thinking Skills Reflected in the Argumentative Essays of Freshman College Students: A Descriptive Analysis. The Asia

Pacific-Education Researcher, 16 ( 1), 33-44. Retrieved from

http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/journals/taper/pdf/200706/Flores.pdf,

date of accessed: 11TH July 2013.

Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. ( 2007). How to Design And Evaluate Research in

Education. Sixth Edition. Mc Graw Hill.

Fowler, B. (1996). Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking. Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum Project. Longview Community College, lee’s Summit, Missouri-USA, 1-6.

Gardiner, J. H. (2004). The Making of Argument. Retrieved from

http://booksiread.org, date of accessed: 3rd August 2004.

Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. An

(34)

Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory And Practice Of Writing: An Applied

Linguistic Perspective (Applied Linguistics And Language Study). London:

Longman.

Harmer, J. (2007a). The practice of English Language Teaching. Fourth Edition. Cambridge: Pearson Longman.

Harmer, J. (2007b). How to teach English. England: Longman.

Hatcher, D. L. (1999).Why Critical Thinking Should be Combined with Written

Composition. Retrieved from

http://amr.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/viewFile

/2326/1769 , date of acces: 5th May 2014.

Heaton, J. (2004). Reworking qualitative Data. London: SAGE Publications.

Hirose, S. (1992). Critical Thinking in Community College. ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges Los Angeles CA, p. 1- 5.Retrieved from

http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed348128.html , date of

access: 27th July 2001.

Holliday, A. (2005). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.

Howe, R. W. & Warren, C. R. (1989). Teaching Critical Thinking through Environmental Education. ERIC/ SMEAC Environmental Education Digest No. 2. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and

Environment Education Columbus OH, 1-5.

Inch, E. S., Warnick, B., & Endres, D. (2006). Critical Thinking and

Communication- The Use of Reason in Argument. Fifth Edition. Boston:

Pearson Education Inc.

Jantrasakul, Prapai. 2012. Utilizing critical thinking-based EFL lessons: A means to improve language skills and encourage student engagement in Thai EFL

classes, in Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper)

ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol 3, No 6, 2012, p. 22-32. Retrieved from

http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/1633/1586, date

of access:16-7-2013.

John, A. M. (2003). Genre and ESL/ EFL Composition Instruction. In K. Barbara,

Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing (p. 195-217). New

(35)

Kagan, M. (1999). Higher-Level Thinking Questions- Personal and Social Skills. San Clemente: Kagan.

Knapp, P. & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar. Technologies for

Teaching and Assessing Writing. Sydney: UNSW Press Book.

Kustini, Siti. 2010. Engaging Critical Thinking in the Teaching of Reading. Unpublished Thesis: UPI

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research

Interviewing. California: Sage Publication.

Langan, J. (2005). College Writing Skill with Readings. Sixth Edition. New York: McGraw- Hill. Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative Research Method. Third Edition.Australia: Oxford University Press.

Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative Research Method. Third Edition.Australia: Oxford University Press.

Lingga, H. D. (2013). Advanced English Grammar for TOEFL Preparation.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/130328830/Advanced-English-Grammar-for-TOEFL-Preparation, date of access: 1th December 2014.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relation. Mapping Culture. London: Equinox Publishing Limited.

Mairs, J. (2013). What's the difference between specially and especially?

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/what-s-the-difference-between-specially-and-especially, date of access: 2nd December 2014.

Maxwel, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design. An Interactive Approach. USA: Sage Publication.

Mcleod, S. (2012). Zone of Proximal Development.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-of-Proximal-Development.html,

date of access: 2nd December 2014.

McMilan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education. AConceptual

Introduction. Fifth Edition. Boston: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.

McPherson, E. (1979). Language Arts in the Community College: A Process Model in Three Language-Arts Curriculum Models- Pre Kindergarten

through College, p. 188-202. Illinois: National Council.