AN ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL THINKING ASPECTS IN STUDENTS’ DISCUSSION TEXTS.

(1)

Yuli Rachmawati, 2015

AN ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL THINKING ASPECTS IN STUDENTS’ DISCUSSION TEXTS

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

A THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for Master’s Degree in English Education

By

Yuli Rachmawati

1302711

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

(2)

2015

by

Yuli Rachmawati

Submitted to English Education Study Program of School of postgraduate studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Magister Pendidikan degree

October 2015

Copy right is protected by law.

This thesis is not allowed to be copied partially or fully

by being copied, or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without the writer’s

(3)

PAGE OF APPROVAL

YULI RACHMAWATI

Approved by:

DECLARATION Supervisor I

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

NIP. 196609161990012001

Supervisor II

Iwa Lukmana, M.A., Ph.D

NIP. 196611271993031002

Head of English Education Study Program

Pupung Purnawarman, M.S.Ed., Ph.D

(4)

AN ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL THINKING ASPECTS IN STUDENTS’ DISCUSSION TEXTS

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to analyze critical thinking aspects reflected in students’ Discussion texts and find how students’ writing process contributed to students’ critical thinking aspects in students’ opinion. The critical thinking aspects examined in this study covered critical thinking elements mainly proposed by Emilia (2005) as well as critical thinking dispositions mainly proposed by Ennis (1996). This study employed a qualitative research design involving nine university students majoring in English Education. The data included students’ texts obtained through the students’ writing assignment and confirmation of critical thinking aspects obtained through interviews to the students. The texts were analyzed using a rubric synthesized from theories relevant to this study, while the interview results were analyzed by adapting the steps of analyzing qualitative data by Lodico et al. (2004). The findings revealed that all critical thinking aspects covered in this study appeared in the texts. High achievers’ texts presented more critical thinking aspects than medium and low achievers’ texts, particularly on argument and open-mindedness. The findings also showed that the students perceived that their writing process, particularly the pre-writing stage, contributed to all critical thinking aspects covered in this study. This study recommended that the teaching of Discussion texts should explore all stages of writing process, especially pre-writing stage, to help students write well-elaborated arguments.

Keywords: critical thinking aspect, critical thinking element, critical thinking

(5)

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis aspek-aspek berfikir kritis pada teks diskusi siswa serta menginvestigasi bagaimana proses menulis berkontribusi pada aspek-aspek berfikir kritis siswa dalam pandangan para siswa. Aspek-aspek berfikir kritis yang dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah elemen-elemen berfikir kritis yang sebagian besar diusulkan oleh Emilia (2005) serta disposisi berfikir kritis yang sebagian besar diusulkan oleh Ennis (1996). Penelitian ini menggunakan desain penelitian kualitatif yang melibatkan sembilan mahasiswa pada jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris. Data penelitian ini diambil dari teks diskusi siswa serta interview. Teks-teks tersebut dianalisis menggunakan rubrik yang disintesis dari teori - teori yang relevan dengan penelitian ini, sedangkan data dari interview dianalisis dengan mengacu pada langkah – langkah menganalisis data kualitatif yang diajukan oleh Lodico et al. (2004). Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa semua aspek berfikir kritis yang dibahas pada penelitian ini terdapat pada teks siswa serta tergambar pada interview terhadap siswa. Teks siswa peraih nilai tinggi menunjukkan lebih banyak aspek berfikir kritis dibandingkan teks peraih nilai tengah dan rendah, terutama dalam hal argumen dan sikap terbuka. Penelitian ini juga menemukan bahwa para siswa berfikir bahwa proses menulis mereka, terutama fase pre-writing, berkontribusi pada semua aspek berfikir kritis yang dibahas pada penelitian ini. Penelitian ini merekomendasikan pengajaran teks diskusi mengeksplorasi semua fase menulis, terutama fase pre-writing, untuk membantu siswa dalam menulis argumen yang terelaborasi.

Kata kunci: aspek berfikir kritis, berfikir kritis, elemen berfikir kritis, disposisi

(6)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES ... ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1. Background ... 1

1.2. Statements of problem ... 3

1.3. Aims of the study ... 3

1.4. Scope of the study ... 3

1.5. Significance of the study ... 4

1.6. Clarification of terms ... 4

1.7. Organization of the paper ... 5

BAB II THEORETICAL FOUNDATION ... 6

2.1. The concept of critical thinking ... 6

2.2. Critical thinking aspects ... 8

2.2.1 Critical thinking elements ... 9

2.2.1.1 Issue ... 9

2.2.2 Critical thinking dispositions ... 21

2.2.2.1 Attempt to take a position ... 22

2.2.2.2 Attempt to be well-informed ... 24

2.2.2.3 Attempt to be precise ... 26

2.2.2.4 Attempt to be relevant ... 27

2.2.2.5 Attempt to be open-minded ... 28

2.2.3 Critical thinking abilities ... 30

2.2.3.1 Recognize assumptions ... 31

2.2.3.2 Evaluate arguments ... 31

2.2.3.3 Draw conclusions ... 32

2.2.4 Summary of critical thinking aspects ... 33

(7)

2.4. Discussion text and its relation to critical thinking ... 34

2.5. Writing process ... 37

2.6. Teaching critical thinking ... 40

2.7. Previous related studies ... 44

2.8. Concluding remark ... 46

BAB III METHODOLOGY ... 47

3.1. Research design ... 47

3.2 Research site and participants ... 47

3.3. Data collection procedure ... 48

3.4. Data analysis ... 50

3.5. Conclusion ... 52

BAB IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 53

4.1. Critical Thinking Aspects Reflected in Students’ Discussion Texts .. 53

4.1.1 Analysis of Critical Thinking Aspects Reflected in the Students’ Texts ... 53

4.1.1.1. Analysis of Text 4.1 ... 54

4.1.1.1.1. The Issue of Text 4.1 ... 57

4.1.1.1.2. The Arguments For and Against of Text 4.1 ... 59

4.1.1.1.3. The Conclusion of Text 4.1 ... 66

4.1.1.1.4. Summary of Analysis of Text 4.1 ... 68

4.1.1.2. Analysis of Text 4.2 ... 69

4.1.1.2.1. The Issue of Text 4.2 ... 72

4.1.1.3. Analysis of Text 4.3 ... 79

4.1.1.3.1. The Issue of Text 4.3 ... 80

4.1.1.4. Summary of Textual Analysis of Text 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3... 85

4.1.2. Discussion of Interview Data on Critical Thinking Aspects Reflected in the Students’ Texts ... 85

4.1.2.1. Critical Thinking Elements from Interview Data ... 86

4.1.2.1. Critical Thinking Dispositions from Interview Data ... 89

(8)

to Students’Critical Thinking Aspects in Students’ Opinion ... 92

4.2.1. Prewriting Stage ... 93

4.2.1. Drafting Stage ... 98

4.2.1. Rereading Stage ... 101

4.2.1. Peer-revision Stage ... 102

4.2.1. Self-revision Stage ... 103

4.2.1. Writing the final draft Stage... 104

4.3. Conclusion ... 104

BAB V CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 105

5.1. Conclusions ... 105

5.2. Limitations ... 106

5.3. Recommendations ... 107

REFERENCES ... 110

(9)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the introductory parts of the paper. It covers the background

of the present study, the statements of the problems, the aims of the present study, the

scope of the present study, the significance of the present study, the clarification of

terms and lastly, the organization of the paper.

1.1. Background

The ability to think critically brings potential benefits to the quality of human life.

Nowadays, critical thinking is a powerful tool to prepare students in the workplace,

particularly because it is closely related to important abilities such as analysis and

evaluation (see Erwin and Sebrell, 2003; Snyder and Snyder, 2008; Emilia, 2010;

Emilia and Safrina, 2010). In higher education, critical thinking is highly desirable,

even considered as the top priority (Grant, 1988; Reed, 1998; Ng, 2006; Kuhn, 1999;

Ennis, 1993; Moon, 2008; Dunn et al., 2008; Stassen et al., 2011; Qing, 2013; Feng,

2013; Sharadgah, 2014; Golpour, 2014; Perry, 2014).

As students in higher education are demanded to think critically, practices are

required for students to apply their critical thinking. Egege and Kutieleh (2004) as cited

in Djiwandono (2013) found that Asian students tend to lack critical attitude as well as

awareness of the principles of analysis and critique. Some studies also found that EFL

students often find difficulties in making good argumentative statements and have lack

of sufficient knowledge of critical thinking (see Alagozlu, 2004; Emilia, 2005; Nariza,

2014). In this regards, students, then, are required to be given tasks that can

accommodate and improve their critical thinking since teaching critical thinking is

closely related to the tasks given to the students (see Grant, 1988).

As language reflects thinking (Chaffee, 2009), students’ critical thinking can be

reflected through their writing. The writing process, given as a task to the students, can

(10)

students can practice and apply their critical thinking since it requires them to collect,

analyze, synthesize and evaluate information (see Paul, 1990; Liaw, 2007; Fliegel and

Hollan, 2011; Bekurs and Santoli, 2011; Vyncke, 2012; Sharadgah, 2014).

Critical writing in higher education is essential because students in higher

education are required to be able to go beyond basic writing into more advanced

elements of critical thinking (Nariza et al., 2014). To understand students’ critical

writing, analyses should be done. Analyzing students’ critical thinking is basic to

understand the extent to which students have been able to think critically that later leads

to select the right steps to enhance students’ critical thinking. The strengths and weaknesses of students’ critical thinking analyzed can inform educators of the aspects which require improvements. Additionally, improving students’ critical thinking can

also be done by understanding students’ opinion related to the way writing process

contributes to critical thinking. This will give insights into how writing process relates

to critical thinking.

In writing, one of text genres that requires critical thinking is a Discussion text.

This text genre reflects students’ critical thinking since the nature of the genre requires

the author to present arguments to convince the readers to believe in a certain point of

view by discussing the issue from two different perspectives (see Knapp and Watkins,

2005). This genre employs argumentative uses of language in which they will succeed

or fail only to the extent that they can be supported by arguments, reasons or

evidence, and that they are able to convince the readers only because they have a

rational foundation (see Toulmin et al., 1984).

Some studies have examined students’ critical thinking in writing. However

studies that include critical thinking elements and dispositions in students’ writing so

far have been very few, particularly in Indonesian context. Current research in this area

has been frequently focusing on critical thinking elements (Stapleton, 2001; Condon

(11)

it was revealed that students who can think critically can write better argumentative texts. In addition, critical thinkers’ writings tend to show more coherence and well-organized thoughts. Other studies have also attempted to reveal students’ critical thinking which is reflected in students’ texts. Nariza et al. (2014), for instance, found out that the investigated students could show their critical thinking in presenting

arguments, even though they often failed to maintain elements of argument

completely that consist of claim, reason, evidence, and conclusion.

Taking the issue above as the point of departure, studies concerning critical

thinking that include different aspects of critical thinking, particularly elements and

dispositions, need to be conducted. Therefore, the present study focuses on analyzing

critical thinking aspects reflected in students’ Discussion texts and the way students’

writing process contributes to students’ critical thinking aspects in students’ opinion.

1.2. Statements of problem

In regards to the issues mentioned earlier, the current study seeks to address the

following research questions.

1. What critical thinking aspects are reflected in students’ Discussion texts?

2. In students’ opinion, how does students’ writing process contribute to students’ critical thinking aspects?

1.3. Aims of the study

Regarding the issues investigated, the aims of the present study are

1. to analyze critical thinking aspects reflected in students’ Discussion texts.

2. to understand how students’ writing process contributes to students’ critical

thinking aspects in students’ opinion.

1.4. Scope of the study

The present study focuses on analyzing students’ critical thinking aspects reflected in

(12)

writing process to students’ critical thinking aspects in students’ opinion. The critical

thinking aspects investigated in this study are limited to critical thinking elements and

dispositions which are elaborated in Chapter Two.

1.5. Significance of the study

The present study is expected to be beneficial theoretically, practically, and

professionally.

1. Theoretical Benefits

Theoretically, this study is expected to enrich studies in critical thinking area, particularly related to students’ critical thinking aspects reflected in the students’ Discussion texts. It is also expected to provide theoretical information on the

contributions of the students’ writing process to the students’ critical thinking in students’ opinion.

2. Practical Benefits

Practically, this study is expected to be significant to portray students’ critical thinking

abilities in writing. This description can reveal students’ critical thinking strengths and

weaknesses which provide information for better efforts in developing critical thinkers.

In addition, this study is expected to provide information on stages of writing process

which can foster students’ critical thinking to be applied in the classroom practices.

3. Professional Benefits

Professionally, this study is expected to increase awareness for teachers of the

importance of developing critical thinking in the classroom.

1.6. Clarification of terms

To avoid misconception, several terms in the present study are clarified as follows.

1.6.1.Critical Thinking

Dewey (Fisher, 2001: 2) explains critical thinking as “active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of

the grounds which support it and the further conclusions to which it tends.”

(13)

Aspects of critical thinking in this study cover critical thinking elements and

(14)

1.7. Organization of the paper

This paper is organized into five chapters as follows.

Chapter I: Introduction

The paper begins with Chapter I, in which it portrays the background of the present

study as well as provides the statements of the problems, the aims of the present study,

the scope of the present study, the significance of the present study, the clarification of

terms and the organization of the paper.

Chapter II: Theoretical Foundation

This chapter lays out the theoretical dimension of the present study. It covers the

theories relevant to the present study, which include the framework of critical thinking,

the critical thinking aspects, the theory of the Discussion text genre and the theory of

writing process.

Chapter III: Methodology

This chapter presents the methodology consisting of the research design, the research

site and participants, the data collection procedures and the data analysis used in this

study.

Chapter IV: Findings and Discussions

This chapter provides the findings and the discussions of the present study.

Chapter V: Conclusions, Limitations and Recommendations

This last chapter covers the conclusions, the limitations, and the recommendations of

the present study. It provides the conclusion and the limitations of the current study as

(15)

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology used in the present study. It elaborates the

research design, the research site and participants, the data collection procedures, the

data analysis and the conclusion of this chapter.

3.1. Research design

The present study employed a qualitative research design. This particular design is

considered to be appropriate for the present study for at least three reasons. The first is

by considering the function of a qualitative design, which is for “…exploring and

understanding the meaning of individuals or group ascribe to a social and human

problem” (Cresswell, 2009). In this case, the present study seeks to explore and

understand critical thinking aspects reflected in students’ Discussion texts as well as

how the students’ writing process contribute to students’ critical thinking in students’

opinion. The second is by considering the collected data for answering the research

questions. The nature of the data collected, which is in textual forms, requires the

research design to be qualitative (see Dornyei, 2005). The third is to do with the

analysis. The analysis carried out to present the answers for the questions posed in the

present study is interpretive which mirrors the product of the researcher’s subjective

interpretation of the data, which is grounded in empirical evidence captured in the data.

This is the nature of data analysis in qualitative method (Hatch, 2002; Dornyei, 2005).

3.2. Research Site and Participants

The present study involved nine English Education students in a university in

Kuningan, West Java, Indonesia. University level was selected since university

education is a socio-cultural phenomenon in which research about critical thinking is

necessary to be developed (McLean, 2006). The students participated in this study

(16)

when they were assigned to write Discussion texts by their lecturer. More detailed

elaboration on the writing program where the students were involved with is presented

in Appendix 1.

The students in the present study were selected using purposive sampling on the

basis of their achievement in their writing class, consisting of three high achievers,

three medium achievers, and three low achievers (see Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006). The

level of students’ achievements were obtained on the basis of their writing score and

consulted to the students’ writing lecturer to make sure that each student represents his/her achievement category (see Appendix 4).

3.3. Data collection Procedure

The data collection procedure was conducted in three steps using two different data

collection instruments, namely document analysis and interview. The first step was to

find out the level of students’ achievement to differentiate among high, medium, and

low achievers. This was done by analyzing document of students’ writing score and a

consultation with the students’ writing lecturer to confirm the students’ writing score.

The second step was to answer the first research question, which was to analyze

critical thinking aspects in the students’ Discussion texts. On the basis of the information gathered in the first step, students’ Discussion texts were collected. In

addition, a semi-structured interview was also conducted to gather the data as a

self-evaluation for critical writing done by the students. A semi-structured interview, as

Dornyei (2011) explains, enables the researcher to explore issues and follow interesting

developments from the interviewee because although the researcher comes with

guiding questions, he or she is able to ask more detailed information to elaborate the

issues in exploratory manner. Hence this kind of interview was potential to enrich the

collected data in the present study. The interview was adapted from a tool for critical

self-evaluation in writing devised by Cottrell (2005). This adaptation was done so that

(17)

practicality and clarity consideration, the interview was conducted in Bahasa

Indonesia.

A pilot study to two students out of the actual participants was conducted before

conducting the interview to the actual participants. This was to try out the interview

guiding questions so that they were understandable by the participants. A pilot study is

the antecedent work before the real study is done (Huang, 2009). One of its purposes

is to reduce lack of clarity (Taylor and Wallace, 2007). After the pilot study, revision

of the question items covering wording and question order was done on the basis of the

pilot study results and feedbacks from the participants.

These data collections which cover analysis of the students’ text and interview,

were to build validity of the data. A strategy to promote validity is to triangulate

different data sources by examining evidence from the sources and using it to build a

coherent justification (Creswell, 2009). Hence the data from the interview was to

confirm and enrich the data from the textual analysis.

The third step was to answer the second research question, which was to find out

how writing process contributed to the students’ critical thinking aspects in students’

opinion. A semi-structured interview was conducted to all selected students. The

interview to the students was selected as the data collection instrument since it helps to

understand the participants’ thinking of what they think they do (Fraenkel and Wallen,

2006). In addition, it is difficult to observe students’ opinion on how writing process

contributed to the students’ critical thinking aspects. Therefore the best way to understand unobservable phenomenon is through questioning (see Chamot, 2004). This

interview was devised based on Gardner and Johnson’s (1997) theory of writing

process. Because of practicality and clarity consideration, the interview was conducted

in Bahasa Indonesia. It was all recorded by a voice recorder and transcribed to make

the analysis easier and more accurate. The data collection procedure was summarized

(18)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

3.4. Data analysis

To obtain the answers to the research questions, a textual analysis and an analysis to

the data from the interview were conducted. The first, the textual analysis to the

students’ texts was conducted. This was to analyze the critical thinking aspects Consultation to the

writing lecturer Document analysis:

Students’ writing score

Selecting Participants: Differentiating among three high achievers, three

medium achievers and three low achievers

Document analysis: Textual analysis on students’

Discussion texts

Analyzing critical thinking aspects in the students’ texts

A semi-structure interview to the students, adapted from

Cottrell’s (2005) critical thinking self-evaluation

Investigating how students’ writing process contributes to students’ critical

thinking aspects

A semi-structure interview to the students based on Gardner and Johnson(1997)

(19)

reflected in the students’ Discussion text. The analysis was done by developing appropriate categories to illuminate what is being investigated (Fraenkel and Wallen,

2006). In the context of the present study, the analysis was done according to the

categorization of critical thinking aspects which cover critical thinking elements

suggested by Emilia (2005) and others relevant to this study as well as critical thinking

dispositions proposed by Ennis (1996) and others relevant to this study, which have

been elaborated in Chapter Two. To make the analysis easier a rubric summarizing the

way to analyze critical thinking aspects was made on the basis of the theory in Chapter

Two (see Appendix 2). The presentation of the textual analysis was adapted from

Chaffee (2002), the example is as follows.

The second, the collected data from the interview conducted was analyzed by

adapting the steps of analyzing qualitative data by Lodico et al. (2004). The first was

to prepare and organize the data in which the interview recordings from the nine

participants were transcribed. The second was to review and explore the data. This was

done by reading through all the transcribed interview investigating the possible critical

thinking aspects investigated as well as the students’ writing process that the

participants have gone through. The third was to code the data into categories. Lodico

et al. (2004) define coding as “…the process of identifying different segments of the

data that describe related phenomena and labeling these parts using broad category

names.” The collected data were categorized on the basis critical thinking aspects used

(20)

in the present study (Ennis, 1996; Emilia, 2005; and other relevant to the present study

– see Chapter Two) and the students’ writing process by Gardner and Johnson (1997). In this stage, the data were put in the following table, which was modified from Connor

and Gibson (1998). Below is the sample of interview data which was analyzed and

translated into English.

Table 3.1 Coding Interview Data

Interviewer/

Student Question / Responses Codes

I What did you do before writing?

WS. Prewrting; brainstorming and

mind mapping S1 Before writing a Discussion text I made a plan using

brainstorming and then mind mapping, and yeah I started writing.

I What did you do in brainstorming and in mind

mapping? WS. Brainstorming:

choosing ideas S1 In brainstorming, there is a selection of ideas which

are related to the topic….

taken from the interview conducted to the students. These interview scripts, which were

provided in Chapter Four, were translated into English for the purpose of clarity and

practicality. Then the data were interpreted. Lincoln and Guba (1985) in Lodico et al.

(2004: 313) explain that interpreting qualitative data involves “…making sense of the

“lessons learned” by looking for their larger meaning”. Interpretation in the present study was done by relating the ﬁndings to previous studies and to relevant theories explained in Chapter Two.

3.5. Conclusion

This chapter has presented a detailed description on the methodology used in the

(21)

the data collection procedures and the data analysis. The findings and discussion of this

(22)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents three main points. The first is the conclusion of the study.

The second is the limitations of the study. The third is the recommendations for

teaching and learning practices as well as for further research on critical thinking

aspects in students’ texts.

5.1. Conclusions

In conclusion, the Discussion texts analyzed in the present study show critical thinking

aspects covered in this study. Though some texts do not show complete aspects of

critical thinking covered in this study, overall critical thinking aspects have been

demonstrated across the texts and realized by the students. These critical thinking

aspects cover critical thinking elements and critical thinking dispositions.

In regards to critical thinking elements covered in the present study, which

cover issue, argument, reason, fact, opinion, and conclusion, the textual analysis which

is supported by the interview results displays critical thinking elements. High Achiever

Text shows more and varied elements compared to Middle Achiever Text and Low

Achiever Text. In addition, despite High Achiever Text demonstrates more and better

elaborated arguments compared to the others, all texts analyzed still lack

well-elaborated arguments. Many arguments were presented alone without well-elaborated by

reason, fact, and opinion.

Moreover, the texts analyzed supported by the interview result show aspects of

critical thinking dispositions, which cover attempt to take a position, to be

well-informed, to be precise, to be relevant, and to be open-minded. High Achiever Text

displays better attempts to be open-minded, compared the Middle Achiever Text and

Low Achiever Text. Furthermore, the texts analyzed still need improvements to be

(23)

In terms of the relationship between students’ writing process and critical thinking aspects in students’ opinion, it is concluded that students’ writing process

contribute to students’ critical thinking aspects. These contributions are found between six stages of writing process i.e. prewriting, drafting, rereading, peer-revision,

self-editing and writing the final draft and critical thinking aspects covered in this study.

Students believed that their writing process contributes to critical thinking aspects

covered in the present study. From the data, it was revealed that the more students got

close to the final draft, the less they show critical thinking aspects. In fact the beginning

stage, the prewriting stage, had the most contributions to critical thinking aspects

covered in this study. This stage contribute to all critical thinking elements and

dispositions. Hence it is concluded that this stage is important to the development of

students’ critical thinking aspects.

5.2. Limitations

The present study has some limitations which can be improved for better studies in the

future. This includes the limitation in terms of critical thinking aspects used in this

study, which only cover critical thinking elements and dispositions. These two aspects

limit the present study, despite the fact that the literature shows several other aspects

such as critical thinking skills (see Glaser, 1941: 5 as cited in Fisher, 2001). In addition,

the critical thinking elements and dispositions used in this study are only some of many

other critical elements and dispositions available in the literature. The selection of these

aspects are based on the suitability to the genre of the text focused in this study.

The limitation also covers the textual analysis, which probably raises different

analysis by different researchers, particularly for fact and opinion element, as Cottrell

(2005) suggests that people’s opinions can vary about what is a fact and what is an opinion. However the present study has attempted to promote the analysis validity by

establishing clear differences between fact and opinion synthesized from theories (see

Appendix 2) and triangulating the textual analysis to the interview results (see Section

(24)

Another limitation of this study is also related to the data collections. In

understanding students’ opinion on the contributions of students’ writing process to

critical thinking aspects, this study only conducted an interview to the students without

observing the students’ writing process. Observing the actual writing process might provide richer and more reliable data. Therefore the data will better capture the

contributions of students’ writing process to critical thinking aspects.

Additionally, this study only takes students’ final draft in writing to be analyzed.

It is better if all students’ writing drafts and writing process are analyzed so that

students’ improvements in writing and students’ critical thinking can be better

captured. It is because, by nature, critical thinking is a process, not an outcome and it

can never be finished in some final, static manner (Brookfield, 1987).

Furthermore, this study has time limitation. Capturing students’ critical thinking

comprehensively is difficult (see Brookfield, 1987) and it requires a long period of

time. Time is very critical in measuring critical thinking. This study cannot capture the

whole critical thinking aspects since to do so needs a long period of time.

The last but not the least, this study is limited to give insights on critical thinking

aspects reflected in the students’ texts. This study is not sufficient to capture students’

weaknesses and challenges in critical thinking in writing. Understanding these

weaknesses and challenges will give valuable information for helping students improve

their critical thinking.

5.3. Recommendations

The findings of the present study offer several pedagogical implications and

considerations for further research. In terms of pedagogical implications to consider,

firstly, even though the findings in the present study reveal that the students’ writings

have demonstrated critical thinking elements covered in this study, improvements are

still required in relation to the elaboration of arguments in the Discussion text. To

follow Martin (1985 as cited in Emilia, 2005) who states that a mature example of a

(25)

argument is elaborated to form a paragraph, then it is suggested that the teaching and

learning processes make sure that the authors of a Discussion genre write

well-elaborated and mature arguments.

Secondly, as the findings of this study show that though critical thinking

dispositions are demonstrated in the texts, the texts still lack attempts to be

well-informed. Therefore, the teaching and learning process should inform, teach, and make

sure that the students’ writings are well-informed.

Thirdly, students should be made aware of the existence of critical thinking

aspects in writing. Hence, they can pay attention to these aspects when writing,

particularly in the arguing genre. By realizing these aspects, the students will possibly

evaluate their own writing and set their standard based on these critical thinking

aspects. Hence it is expected that the students are able to show better critical thinking

aspects in their writing.

Next, it is recommended that critical thinking be taught and practiced. It is

because critical thinking is teachable and transferrable (see Brookfield 1987; Feng,

2013). Since writing is a process through which students can practice and apply their

critical thinking since it requires them to collect, analyze, synthesize and evaluate

information (see Paul, 1990; Liaw, 2007; Bekurs and Santoli, 2011; Vyncke, 2012;

Sharadgah, 2014), explicit teaching and practicing critical thinking through writing is

recommended.

The last but not the least, the findings of this study suggest that pre-writing

stage has great contributions to students’ critical thinking aspects. Therefore, teaching writing should include the pre-writing stage and other stages should be improved so

that students practiced their critical thinking in every stage of their writing process.

In terms of recommendations for further study, the present study offers four

recommendations. Firstly, as critical thinking aspects covered in the present study are

only limited to critical thinking elements and dispositions, further studies can explore

other aspects of critical thinking. In addition, impending studies can investigate critical

(26)

Secondly, the text genre focused in the present study is only a Discussion text.

More exploration on critical thinking to other genres is recommended as it enriches

studies on critical thinking in text genres. Therefore it will be useful to understand

critical thinking in various text genres as it can help writers to be better critical thinkers.

Thirdly, as the present study only focuses on the critical thinking in writing, a

comprehensive study for each language skill, not only in writing, but also in listening,

speaking, and reading is considered to give valuable information especially for learners

and teachers.

The last but not the least, the limitations of this study offers recommendations

for further study to be more comprehensive. Studies that capture students’ critical

thinking is suggested to use observation to students’ learning, involve students’ writing

drafts and writing process, capture students’ weaknesses and challenges in thinking

(27)

References

Alagozlu, N. (2007). Critical Thinking and Voice in EFL Writing. British Virgin Islands: The Asian EFL Journal Press. The Asian EFL Journal, Volume 9, Number 3. [Online] available at:

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_2007_EBook_editions.pdf. (June 11th 2015)

Alwasilah, A. C.& Alwasilah, S.S (2007). Pokoknya Menulis. Bandung: PT Kiblat Buku Utama

Barnet, S. & Bedau, H. (2002). Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing: A Brief

Guide to Argument (7thed.) Boston and New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s

Baron, J. & Sternberg, R.J. (1987). Teaching Thinking Skills Theory and Practice.

New York: W.H. Freeman and Company

Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J.M. (2011). Critical thinking A Student’s Introduction. New York: McGraw Hill

Bekurs, D & Santoli, S. (2011). “Writing is Power: Critical Thinking, Creative Writing, and Portfolio Assessment” [Online] available at:

http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol102004/ santoli.pdf (February 17th₂₀₁₅₎

Bernstein, D.S. (2009). “Precision Writing” in Mechanical and Manufacturing

Engineering Graduate Studies Newsletter 6(1) 1-8 [Online] available at:

https://umanitoba.ca/faculties/engineering/departments/mechanical/pdf/Graduate _Newsletter-issue-6.pdf (July 9th 2015)

Blake. (2015). Discussion Texts: Structure and Features of Discussion Texts. [Online] available at:

http://literacy4life.wikispaces.com/file/view/Discussion+texts+Stage+2+Pt+1.pdf (July 7th 2015)

Bouton, D.T. (2008). Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking in the Community College Classroom: An Examination of the Beliefs of Exemplary Instructors. A

Dissertation [Online] available at:

http://www.cpcc.edu/pd/resources-1/doctoral-research-group/dissertations/dbouton_dissertation.pdf (November, 8th 2014) Bowell, T & Kemp, G. (2002). Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide (2nd_ed)_._London

and New York: Routledge

Brookfield, S.D. (1987). Developing Critical Thinkers. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Browne, M.N. & Keeley, S.M. (2007). Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to

Critical Thinking (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson

Chaffee, J. (2002). Critical Thinking, Thoughtful Writing (2nd ed). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company

Chaffee, J. (2009). Thinking Critically (10th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning

Chamot, Anna Uhl. (2004). “Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching”. In Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching [Online], Vol. 1

(28)

Chen, Y.L., ChengY.Y, Liu, K.S. & Tsai, H.P. (2007). Development of the Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory [Online] available at: http://www.ora.nsysu.edu.tw/attendance/files/864_2.pdf (Auguat 3rd 2014) Christie, F. & Derewianka, B. (2008). School Discourse. London: Continuum Cohen, E.D. (2009). Critical Thinking Unleashed. Lanham: Rowman & littlefield

Publishers, Inc.

Cohen, L, Manion, L, & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed). New York: Routledge

Commeyras, M. (1993). “Promoting Critical Thinking through Dialogical-Thinking

Read” The Reading Teacher. 46(4) 486-494 [Online] available at: http://e-resources.pnri.go.id:2056/docview/203271633?pq-origsite=summon (August 14th

2014)

Condon, W. & Riley, D. (2004). “Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities”g

Assessing Writing 9 (2004) 56–75 [Online] available at:

http://survey.csuprojects.org/uploads/j-/gh/j-ghOAtIJA2e4H7I1TLx-Q/Assessing-WritCritThink.pdf (February 17th 2015)

Connor, H. & Gibson, N. (1998). A Step-by-step guide to Qualitative Data Analysis.

[Online] available at: http://www.pimatisiwin.com/uploads/1289566991.pdf (July 2nd 2015)

Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and

Argument. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed

Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage

Dam, T. and Volman, M. (2004). “Critical thinking as a citizenship competence:

teaching strategies” Learning and Instruction 14 359–379 [Online] available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.233026 (September 25th 2014)

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

Derewianka, B & Jones, P. (2012). Teaching Language in Context. Victoria: Oxford

Djiwandono, P.I. (2013). ‘Critical Thinking Skills for Language Students’ TEFLIN

Journal 24 (1) 32 – 47 [Online] available at:

http://www.academia.edu/4870543/CRITICAL_THINKING_SKILLS_FOR_LA NGUAGE_STUDENTS?login=rachmawatiyuli@gmail.com&email_was_taken= true (September 18th)

Dornyei, Z. (2011). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative,

Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Dunn, D. S., Halonen, J. S. and Smith, R. A. (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking in

Psychology: A Handbook of Best Practices. Sussex: Blackwell

Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Printer Publishers, Ltd.

Emilia, E. (2005). A critical genre-based approach to teaching academic writing in a

tertiary EFL context in Indonesia. Doctoral Dissertation in Faculty of Education

(29)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Emilia, E. (2008). Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: CV. Alfabeta

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

Emilia, E. & Rodliyah, R. (2009). Analysing Students’ Critical Capacity Using the

Transitivity System of SFG. A Paper presented in the 56th TEFLIN Conference

Emilia, E. (2011). Pendekatan Genre-based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris:

Petunjuk untuk Guru. Bandung: Rizqi Press

Ennis, R.H. (1993). “Critical Thinking Assessment” Theory into Practice 32(3) 179-186 [Online] available at: http://e-resources.pnri.go.id (August 14th 2014) Ennis, R.H. (1996). Critical Thinking. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Ennis, R. H. (2011a). The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical

Thinking Dispositions and Abilities. [Online] available at:

http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/documents/TheNatureofCriticalThink ing_51711_000.pdf (October 18th 2014)

Ennis, R. H. (2011b). Twenty-One Strategies and Tactics for Teaching Critical

Thinking. [Online] available at: http://www.criticalthinking.net/howteach.html

(October 18th 2014)

Ennis, R. H. (2011c). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective Part I. Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines, 26, 1 (Spring), 4-18.

Epstein, R. L. (2006). Critical Thinking (3rd ed). Ontario: Thomson Wadsworth

Erwin, T.D. & Sebrell, K.W. (2003).´”Assessment of Critical Thinking: ETS’s Tasks in Critical Thinking” JGE: The Journal of General Education 52 (1) 50-70 [Online] available at: http://e-resources.pnri.go.id (August 14th 2014)

Facione, P. A. (2011). ‘Critical Thinking: What it is and Why it counts’ Insight

Assessment p.1-28 [Online] available at:

http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1922502/Critical-Thinking-What-it-is-and-why-it-counts.pdf (February 26th 2015)

Fahim, M. & Barjesteh, H. (2012). “Effects on Critical Thinking Strategy Training on Male/Female EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension” English Language

Teaching 5(1) 140-145 [Online] available at: http://e-resources.pnri.go.id:2056/docview/993153634/fulltextPDF?accountid=25704

(August 14th 2014)

Feng, Z. (2013). ‘Using Teacher Questions to Enhance EFL Students’ Critical Thinking Ability’. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching 2(2). 147-153 [Online} available at: www.sciedu.ca/jct (September 25th 2014)

Fisher, A. (2001). Critical Thinking An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fliegel, R. & Holland, J. (2011). Rhetoric and Critical Thinking. Annual Meeting

Teagle/Spencer Project Duke University. [Online] available at:

https://assessment.trinity.duke.edu/documents/RhetoricCT.Duke.2011-Fliegel.pdf (February, 17th₂₀₁₅₎

(30)

http://www.google.co.id/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad =rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fojs.uwindsor.ca% 2Fojs%2Fleddy%2Findex.php%2Finformal_logic%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F2 383%2F1825&ei=92TdU_rMBImjugSf6YC4CA&usg=AFQjCNFjKwIEC43iW F65NrfmJ7s6mBa6CQ&bvm=bv.72197243,d.c2E (August 3rd₂₀₁₄₎

Forood, S. M. and Farahani, A. A. K. (2013). “A Comparative Study between the

Performance of Iranian High and Low Critical Thinkers on Different Types of

Reading Comprehension Questions” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3 (9) 1710-1716 [Online] available

at:http://e-resources.pnri.go.id:2056/docview/1459588838/fulltextPDF?accountid=25704. (August 5th 2014)

Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, Norman N. (2006). How to Design and Evaluate Research

in Education. New York: McGraw Hill

Freeley, A.J and Steinberg, D.L. (1989) Argumentation and Debate: Critical

Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making (12th_ed,)_._{Australia: Wadsworth}

Gardner, J. & Johnson. (1997). Stages of the Writing Process.[Online] available at: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/instrctn/in5lk11-1.htm (June 11th, 2015)

Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Gerd Stabler

Goldman, J.P. (1995). Editing Yourself. {Online] available at:

https://www.globalhivmeinfo.org/Gamet/Gamet%20Library/1021_Clear%20writ ing%20tips.pdf (July 9th 2015)

Golpour, F. (2014). Critical thinking and EFL learners’ performance on different

writing modes. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 103-119. [Online] available at:

http://paal.kr/download/18_1/07_Golpour.pdf (February 6th 2015) Grant, G. E. (1988). Teaching Critical Thinking. New York: Praeger

Gupta, K., Iranfar, S., Iranfar, K., Mehraban, B. and Montazeri, N. (2012). ” Validity and Reliability of California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) in

Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences” Edu R Med S 1(1) 6-10 [Online] c8Rg&bvm=bv.72197243,d.c2E (August 3rd 2014)

Halliday, M.A.K & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of

language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deakin University Press

Hammond, E.U. (1989). Critical Thinking, Thoughtful Writing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

(31)

Hofreiter, T. D. (2005). Teaching and Evaluation Strategies to Enhance Critical Thinking and Environmental Citizenship Skills. a Thesis presented to the graduate school of the University of Florida

Huang, Yu-Fang Yvonne. (2009). The Relationship Between College Students’ Learning Strategies and Their English Speaking Proficiency. Tesis pada Department of Applied English. [Online], Available at:

http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/13112011640406.pdf

Kanik, F. (2010). An assessment of teachers’ conceptions of critical thinking and

practices for critical thinking development at seventh grade level. A thesis submitted to the graduate school of social sciences of middle east technical

university [Online] available at:

http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12612523/index.pdf (November, 8th 2014) Kirby,G.R., Goodpaster, J.R. & Levine, M. (1999). Critical Thinking. Boston:

Pearson

Knapp, P. & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar Technologies for Teaching and Assessing Writing. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd Leone, J.M. (2007). Strategies for Reading Fact and Opinion. [Online] available at:

http://swcta.net/davis/files/2011/09/Reading-Proficiency-Lesson-5.ppt (June 19th

2015)

Liaw, M.L. (2007). “Content-Based Reading and Writing for Critical Thinking Skills

in an EFL Context” English Teaching & Learning 31 (2) 45-87 [Online] available at: http://candle.ntcu.edu.tw/profile/vitae/20070827185727.pdf (February 17th 2015)

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lodico, M.G., Spaulding, D.T. and Voegtle, K.H. (2004). Methods in Educational

ResearchTheory to Practice. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass

Mason, M. (2008). Critical Thinking and Learning. Malden: Blackwell Publishing McLean, M. (2006). Pedagogy and the University Critical Theory and Practice.

London: Continuum

Moon, J. (2008). Critical Thinking: an Exploration of Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge

Nariza, S, G. & Salam, U. (2014). Critical Thinking in Literature Review Writing

Section of Students’ Theses. [Online] available at:

http://download.portalgaruda.org/article.php?article=142047&val=2338&title=C ritical%20Thinking%20in%20Literature%20Review%20Writing%20Section%2 0of%20Students%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2%20Theses (February 6th₂₀₁₄₎

NG, C. S. L. (2006). “Approaches to evaluate critical thinking disposition” APERA

Conference [Online] available at:

http://edisdat.ied.edu.hk/pubarch/b15907314/full_paper/1237266257.pdf (March 6th 2015)

(32)

Paul, R.W. (1990). Critical Thinking How to Prepare Students for a Rapidly

Changing World. California: Foundation for Critical Thinking

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and

Tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press

Perry, D.K. (2014). Exploring critical thinking skills among undergraduate agriculture education and studies students. A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty [Online] available at:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.4056&rep=rep1&t ype=pdf (March 6th 2015)

Potts, B. (1994). ‘Strategies for Teaching Critical Thinking’. Practical Assessment,

Research & Evaluation, 4(3). [Online] available at:

http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=4&n=3 (September 25th 2014)

Price, B. & Harrington, A. (2010). Critical Thinking and Writing for Nursing

Students. Exeter: Learning Matters

Qing, X. (2013).”Fostering Critical Thinking Competence in EFL Classroom” Studies in Literature and Language 7 (1) 6-9 [Online] available at: http://e-resources.pnri.go.id:2056/docview/1445000075/fulltextPDF?accountid=25704 (August 5th 2014)

Reed, J. H. (1998). Effect of a model for critical thinking on student achievement in primary source document analysis and interpretation, argumentative reasoning, critical thinking dispositions, and history content in a community college history course. A dissertation submitted to College of Education, University of South

Florida. [Online] available at:

https://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/JReed-Dissertation.pdf (November, 8th 2015)

Reichenbach, B. R. (2001). Introduction to Critical Thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill

Ruff, L.G. (2005). The Development of Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions in Year College Students: Infusing Critical Thinking Instruction into a First-Year Transitions Course. A Doctoral Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the

Graduate School [Online] available at:

http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/3155/1/umi-umd-2975.pdf (August 3rd 2013)

Rumpagaporn, M.W. (2007). Students’ critical thinking skills, attitudes to ICT and

perceptions of ICT classroom learning environments under the ICT schools pilot project in Thailand. A Research Portfolio submitted to School of Education,

University of Adelaide [Online] available at:

https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/37896/1/02whole.pd f (February 26th₂₀₁₅₎

Salibrici, M.M. (1999). “Dissonance and Rhetorical Inquiry: A Burkean Model for

Critical Reading and Writing” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42(8)

628-637 [Online] available at:

http://e-resources.pnri.go.id:2056/docview/216934521/fulltextPDF/

(33)

Shihab, I.A. (2011). “Reading as Critical Thinking” Canadian Center of Science and

Education 7(8) 209-218 [Online] available at: http://e-resources.pnri.go.id

(August 14th 2014)

Schneider, V. (2002). Critical Thinking in the Elementary Classroom: Problems and Solutions. [Online] available at: http://eps.schoolspecialty.com/EPS/media/Site-Resources/downloads/articles/critical_thinking-schneider.pdf (December 12th, 2014)

Schleppegrell, M.J. (2008). The Language of Schooling A Functional Linguistics

Perspectives. Taylor & Francis e-Library

Scott, D. & Morrison, M. (2006). Key Ideas in Educational Research. London: Continuum

Sharadgah, T.A. (2014). “Developing Critical Thinking Skills through Writing in an

Internet-Based Environment” International Journal of Humanities and Social

Science 4(1) 169 - 178 [Online] available at:

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_1_January_2014/19.pdf (February 17th, 2015)

Shidrah, N. (2012). Developing critical thinking skills in tertiary academic writing through the use of an instructional rubric for peer evaluation. A thesis submitted

to University of Canterbury [Online] available at:

http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/6866/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf (November, 8th )

Snyder, L.G. & Snyder, M.J. (2008). ‘Teaching critical thinking and Problem solving skills’. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal 1(2) 90-99 [Online] available at:

http://reforma.fen.uchile.cl/Papers/Teaching%20Critical%20Thinking%20Skills

%20and%20problem%20solving%20skills%20-%20Gueldenzoph,%20Snyder.pdf (January 13th 2015)

Spiller, D & Ferguson, P.B. (2011). Teaching Strategies to Promote the Development

of Students’ Learning Skills. [Online] available at:

http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/pdf/booklets/14_TeachingStrategies.pdf (September 25th 2014)

Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students: Insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written

Communication, 18(4), 506-548.

Stark, I.L. (2008). Concepts in Composition. Taylor & Francis e-Library

Stassen, M.L.A., Herrington, A., & Henderson, L. (2011). “Defining Critical Thinking in Higher Education” To Improve the Academy Vol 20. [Online]. Available at:

http://people.umass.edu/mstassen/Bio/Defining%20Critical%20Thinking%20in %20Higher%20Education.pdf (March 11th 2015)

Sudarwati, T.M. & Grace, E. (2005). Look Ahead An English Course for Senior High School Students Year XI. Jakarta: Erlangga

(34)

Suherdi, D. (2013). Buku Pedoman Penyelenggaraan Pendidikan Profesi Guru

Bahasa Inggris Buku Ajar Pemantapan Kompetensi Akademik 3.1 Bandung:

Celtics Press

Taylor, P.C. & Wallace, J. (2007). Contemporary Qualitative Exemplars for Science

and Mathematics Research. Dordrecht: Springer

Thadphoothon, J. (2005). Promoting Critical Thinking in Language Learning Through Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: A Preliminary

Investigation. Submitted to School of Languages and International Studies and Tourism, Division of Communication and Education, University of Canberra.

[Online] available at:

http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/file/264d5c23-6a00-98fe-f08e-b82a83ebb9e7/1/full_text.pdf (November, 8th 2015)

Thai, M.D. (2009). Text-based Language Teaching. New South Wales: Mazmania Press

Tilbury, C. Osmond, J. and Scott, T. (2009). “Teaching critical thinking in social

work education: a literature review” Refereed Articles 31-50 [Online] available at:

http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/38225/65228_1.pdf; jsessionid=C71CF6FB624CF0870A862429645DF0A5?sequence=1 (October 18th 2014)

Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An Introduction to Reasoning (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Valis, G.A. (2010). Reason to Write: Applying Critical Thinking to Academic

Writing. Charlotte: Kona Publishing and Media Group

Vyncke, M. (2012). The concept and practice of critical thinking in academic writing:

an investigation of international students’ perceptions and writing experiences. A Dissertation in King’s College London. [Online] available at:

http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/ sites/ec/files/M%20VYNCKE_0.pdf (February 17th 2015)

Watson, G & Glaser, E. (2009). Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal

Development Report. [Online] available at:

http://www.cpstrat.com/samplereports/Cognitive_WatsonGlaser.pdf (October 6th 2014)

Watson, G & Glaser, E. (2012). Watson-Glaser™ Critical Thinking Appraisal User