Luận văn assessment of critical thinking in third year efl students' writings at hanam teachers' training college

The display of critical thinking in students’ argumentative writings 422.. The differences of critical thinking elemenis found in twa groups of writings 424, Types af arguments, eviden

VIETNAM NATIONAL ENIVERSITY, HANOT

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐÀN THANH IƯỜNG

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

TRAINING COLLEGE

(Đánh giá tư duy phê phán thễ hiện trong bai viết của sinh viên năm thứ

3 ngành tiếng Anh trường Cao đắng sư phạm Hà Nam)

M.A Minor Thesis

Field: English Linguistics

Code: @) 22 15

TTANGI- 20102

DOAN THANH HUGNG

ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL THINKING IN ‘THIRD-YEAR EFL STUDENTS’ WRITINGS AT ITANAM TEACTIERS’

TRAINING COLLEGE

(Đánh giá tư duy phê phán thể hiện trong bài viết của sinh viên năm thứ

3 ngành tiếng Anh trường Co đẳng sư phạm Hà Nam)

M.A Minor Thesis

Field: English Linguistics

Code: 60 22 15 Supervisor: Phùng IIà Thanh, M.A

TIANGI-— 2010

LA Scope of the study

1.5 Signtificanes of tho siuly

L.6 Design of the study

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Conceptions of critical thinking

2.1.2 Critical thinking and lagic

2.1.2 Critical thinking and cognitive psychology

2.1.3 Critical thinking and tool to gain desirable outcome

2.1.4 Critical thinking and critical inquiry

2.1.5 Critical thinking and universal intellectual standards

2.2 Critical thinking instruction

2.3 Argumentative writing and critical thinking

3.2.2.1 Design of the writing tasks

3.2.2.2 Essay tests administered and collected

3.3 Data analysis

3.3.1 Criteria of assessment

3.3.2, Procedures of assessmtcnt

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1, Reliability and validity of the assessment

4.1.1 Inter-rater reliahility

41,2, Validity

4.2, The results of the assessment of critical thinking

4.2.1 The display of critical thinking in students’ argumentative writings

422 The numbers of arguments, evidence, refutations, and fallacies in 36

students’ argumentative writings

423 The differences of critical thinking elemenis found in twa groups of writings

424, Types af arguments, evidence and fallacies found in each group of argumentative writings

4.2.4.1, Types of argumenis

424.2 Types of evidence

4.2.4.3 Opposition recognition and refutation

4.2.44, Types of fallacies

vii

43.1 Types of arguments and evidence and the reflection of the influence of 30

familiarity on the quality of students’ critical hought

4.3.2 Opposition recognition ani refutation and the reflection of the influence 32

of familiarity on the quality of students’ crittcal thought

4.3.3 Types of fallacies and the reflection of the influence of familiarity on the 32

quality of students’ critical thought

Appendix A: Collection of students’ essays I

Appendix B: Rubrics for critical thinking elements + Appendix BI: Typos of arguments AXVT Appendix B2: Types of evidence xrw Appendix B3: Opposition recognition and refutation xxx Appendix Bd: Types of fallacies xU Appendix C: Rating guide XE Appendix 1: Tolistic rating scale to mark an argumentative essay AM,

Correlation of scores given by raler 1 and raler 2 on all 36 writing samples

Correlation of scores given by rater 1 and rater 2 on writing samples on familiar topic

Correlation of scores given by rater 1 and rater 2 on writing samples on unfamiliar topic

Average score (Median) and score with highest frequency of appearance (Mode) of all 36-writings given hy cach rater

Average scores (Median) and scores with highest frequency of appearance (Mode) of each group of writing pieces regarding topic given

‘Yotal number and average number of each element of critical thinking

‘Total numbers and differences of elements of critical thinking in writing

sauples ơu familiar aad unfamiliar Lopivs

CIIAPTER I: INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the statement of the problem, rescarch problems, rescarch questions, scope of the study, significance of the study, and design of the study

1.1 Statement of the problem

From Socratic time, the ability to rsason well has boon regarded an important outcome of education and training, and since 1980s, ‘critical thinking’ has become a ‘buzzword’ mn the

intellectual circles (lisher, 2001) Critical thinking is essential for everyone to perform

well not only in educational systems, bul also in fulure workplaces, and social and interpersonal contexts Dewey (1933) pointed out leaming to think is the central purpose of education Scriven (1985) acknowledged training in critical thinking should be the primary task of education They are among those who recognize human beings do not innately possess the ability of thinking critically but acquizc it through education

Although ‘critical thinking’ is universally accepted as a goal of education as it refers to quality thinking, there remains 2 controversy around the ‘crilical thinking” concept across borders As many scholars have claimed, critical thinking took roots in Westem societies, especially from the Greek culture with its related schools of academic thoughts and their ronownad phiosaphos Atkinson (1997) bolicved that critical thinking is a tacit, indefinable, socio-cultural practice and behavior that individuals in the U.S or Westem society subconsciously and naturally acquire, Nevertheless, many others have argued that the social structures and values that developed in the Last represented a different value system from the West have ercaled different conceptions of critical thinking There is individualism’ in the West that inspires public debate, logieal science with the focus on objective observation; and there also is ‘collectivism’ in the East leads to the individuality suppression, morc holistic view of reality with the focus on the group (Nisbett, 2003; Davidson, 1998) ‘These differences have put the ‘critical thinking’ concept within the matier of ‘culture specific’ The students fiom the Fast may nol apparenily show up the ability to reason well, but those claimed they lack critical thinking should reconsider the cultural aspects, Greve (1998) introduced the notions of monological critteal thinking and dialogical thinking, which pointed out the influences of education background and cultural traits on the way Western and Rastern students exhibit their oritical thinking skills, With this approach, Gieve (1998) stated that etitical thinking is hardly isrelevant or ill-suited to

education ‘Thus, Westen or non-Westem students all have to undergo a leaming process

before claiming themselves ‘critical thinkers*

As the central target of education in general, the development of c1itical thinking skills has also become a key goal for educators in first and second language education in particular Teachers of English in RFT (English as Forcign Language) cơnl

, however, are often constrained by the lnguistic skills of their students in Asian countries like China, Japan, Vietnam, etc For example of writing skill, the learners’ writing pieces always seem to

disappoint the instructors, espevially when it comes to argumentative essays Viclnamesc

students, even at tertiary level, have been claimed to lack critical thinking since Eastem leamers of English are often characterized as lacking critical thinking characteristics due to those perceptions mentioned above Since both native speakers and non-native speakers have to cxert great cfffort to become ‘critieal thinkers of English’, this claim should be examined carefully Courses on argumentative writings and critical thinking share the focus om arguments and argumentation, In most English language curricuhums in Vietnam, there is always a part for argumentative writing practice that integrated background of

Western arguments and critical thinking skills ‘lo find out if Vietnamese students can

reason well the way mative leamers do or nol, il is recommended to study their

argumicntalive writings

‘As an EFL teacher fiom Hanam Teachers’ Training College, the researcher of this paper understand the importance of critieal thinking to third year students majoring in Linglish since they arc about to finish their siudy with much paper work to be done and communication to be set Thus, while assessing the students’ skills of analyzing and reasoning in a case study, the researcher wanted to explore whether third year EPL students here displayed features of cxitical thinking in their English compositions and then, whether content familiarity an influential factor on students’ thinking process,

1.2 Research problems

This study focused on investigating and assessing the display of critical thinking in the

argumentative compositions of third year KL students at Hanam ‘Teachers’ ‘raining

College Based on the evaluative views of both Western and non-Western raters it would

reveal the extent to which Vichnarne

studenls in their native culture comlext display their

critical thoughts Then, the study would also examine the influence of familiarity on the

quality of those students’ critical thought

1.3, Research questions

Based on the statement of the problem, this study sought to answer the following two

major questions with the subdivided ones

1 To what extent do third year EFI students at Hanam Teachers’ Training College display critical thinking in their argumentative exsays?

a How well do the students reason in weir argumentative writings according to the

raters’ assessments?

b How many arguments, pieces of evidence, refutations, and fallacies are there in 36

collected argumentative writings?

2 To what extent does familiarity affect the quality of critical thinking in those students’ writings?

a What are the differences of the critical thinking elements found in two groups of

ject the influence of familiarity on the quality of students’

1.4, Scope of the study

Within the scope of this study, the researcher wanled to explore the well-know Western concept of critical thinking Since the knowledge related to this concept is boundlessly varied, the researcher's attention only rested on the aspect that critical thinking refers to reasoning ability in argumentation That led to her choice of the argumentative writings as the key samples for the study among many other types of writing tasks taught in the

Hanam ‘Teachers’ ‘Training College’s writing curriculum ‘The reason was that

argumenlalive writings gel siudonts involved ditcelly and actively in argumentation process by forming reasons, making inductions, drawing conclusions, and applying, them tơ

the discussed issues.

1.5, Significance pf the study

Through this study, the researcher hoped to gather and present useful knowledge about ctitical thinking for those who have keen interest People who come across this research might guin some knowledge about the nature of critical thinking with different conceplions across disciplines and insights which they might find helpful

It is hopefully that the research results would be practical for students, lecturers, and researchers For the students, the study might generally raise their awareness of the importance of critical thinking and its influcnec on such specific linguistic skill as writing For the teachers, it may provide original understandings of critical thinking and some suggestions on the employment of crilical thinking in teaching argumentative essays, For the researchers, the paper would be a referential case for further studies on the related

issues,

1.6, Desipn of the study

This study collected 36 argumentative essays written by third-year EFL students at Hanam

‘Teachers’ ‘Iraining College ‘Those writings were then analyzed based on criteria informed

by the research problems and research questions mentioned wbove, The corctalive statisties provided the comelahon coefficients to check the inter-rater reliability in

assessing students” argumentative writings quality in general as well as on each given topic

in particular The descriptive statistics provided quantitative analysis to suppoit the overall assessment on students” reasoning ability displayed in their argumentative writings They also presented the raters’ qualitative assessment on numbers, types and differences of critical thinking clements in lwo groups of sssays on we different topics

CHAPTER U: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter consists of three parts: conceptions of critical thinking; entical thinking instruction, and argumentative writing and oritical thinking,

2.1 Conceptions of critical thinking

Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years from Socrates time with an overwhelming number of definitions Presenting a defining statement of critical thinking is difficult as it presents different meanings for different people and can be explored using different approaches Thus, in order to develop an

overview on conceptions of critical thinking, it is essential to examine prominent

conceptions of critical thinking from different anglas Thore were some Teferonccs lo

literature but the emphasis was on language acquisition and the opinions of practitioners

and learners

2.1.1 Critical thinking and logic

Lirst of all, we should refer critical thinking to the communicative competence, which has teen examined under three main categories of skills, understandings and disposilions

rooted from logical basis The pioncer scholar who has the influential role on logically

conceptualizing critical thinking in early days was John Dewey He coined the term critical

thinking in the 1930s under the name of “Teflective thinking” and defined il as “acdéve,

persisterd, andl careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the

light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends" (as cited

in Fisher 2001, p.2) As commonly known, logie is the study of inference and in logic

instructions with such key terms as argument, premise, claim, reason and conclusion

Arguments are claims defended with reasons ‘hey are composed of one ar more premises, which are statements offered as reasons for accepting another statement or a further unspoken one, and a conclusion, which is sialemznl supporied by reasons With this well

known defimtion, Dewey apparently referred to the basic logical structure of argument

with all the elements paraphrased, ‘any belief” as ‘premise’, ‘grounds’ as ‘reasons’ and the

‘further conclusions’ as inferences of our belicfs,

development, informal logic is sometimes presented as a theoretical alternative to formal logic since it is concemed with the conlent and context of arguments more than their formn Formal logicians when treating arguments always assume that the premises are right and only focus on the form of the argument, Informal logicians, in contrast, take pain to invostigale whelher the promises in the arguments are truc or nol and cmploy a fallacy theory to check on their work, Accordingly, a well-formed argument can appear to be logical but makes no sense while there is a good argument in which the conclusion is supportad by the premises even though it docs not follow necessary form as validity

requirements

Many relate critical thinking to informal logic due to its practical application to analyzing argumentation It is the attempt to develop logic to assess, analyze and improve ordinary language, or overyday reasoning The development of informal logic is tied to educational goals: by the desire to develop ways of analyzing ordinary reasoning which can inform general education To this extent, the goals of informat Ingic overlap with those of the Critical Thinking Movement in 1980s, which aims to inform and improve public reasoning, discussion and debate by promoting models of education which emphasize critical inquiry

While critical thinking will include evaluation of arguments and hence require skills of argumentation including informal logic, ctitical thinking requires additional abilities not supplied by informal logic, such as the ability to obtain and assess information and to chirify meaning Many, espcvially Robert H Ennis (1983) belicved thal critical thinking requizes certain dispositions Understood in this way, “critical thinking" is a broad term for the attitudes and skills that are involved in analyzing and evaluating arguments

The list of dispositions includes such things as being open-minded, paying attcntion to the total situation, seeking reasons, and trying to be well-informed The four general sets of abilities that are constitutive of critical thinking are clarity-related abilities, infference- related abilities, abililics related to establishing » sound basis for inference, andl abilities involved in going about decison making in an orderly and useful way, often called problem solving When combined with the critical thinking dispositions, these four

categories are intended to cover comprehensively the process of deciding what to believe

or do, and he defined “Critical thinking is reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1985, p.45)

2.1.2 Critical thinking and cognitive psychology

The second noticeable conception of critical thinking derived from cognitive psychology and the well-known Bloom’s Taxonomy, which argues for a development of different

thinking levels and equates entical thinking with higher-order thinking Bloom’s (1956)

identified six major cognitive categories, which have provided the basis for future

taxonomies

Figure: Bloom's Taxonomy

fScoanitve domain ele

Bloom defined higher order thinking skills as those that require analysis, synthesis, and evaluation Someone exhibiting cognitive skills of this level will categorize or classify information, comparing and contrasting it in order to make a decision Other characteristics

of higher order thinking include: combining, creating, designing, developing, evaluating,

justifying, and measuring A student in an upper-division course should be able to

demonstrate all of these cognitive skills when thinking and reasoning through problems Critical thinking skills are an integral part of both higher and lower order thinking as

defined by Bloom Critical thinking itself is defined as having skills to generate

defined by Bloom; knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation Major or life-camging decisions that are made without going through this process may not be the best and may exhibit less than satisfactory results

‘This conception is a good beginning, but it has problems, One is that the levels are not hicrarchical, as snggesicd by the theory, bul ralher are interdependent, and they should come under a spiral process, not a linear one For example, although synthesis and evaluation generally do require analysis, analysis generally requires synthesis and

evaluation (Ennis, 1981)

2.13 Critical thinking and tool to gain desirable outcome

The third way to conceptualize critical thinking is to combine logic and cognitive psychology approaches Halpem (1996) defined critical thinking as “the usc of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome It is purposshil, reasonable, and goal-directed.” (p.33-34) Lis alsa known as directed thinking, against non-cirected thinking, which is defined as daydreams, nightdreams, and other sorts

of thinking that are not engaged in for a specific purpose or do not involve the use of critical thinking skills Tl is used lo describe thinking that

dir

pumposefiil, reasoned, and goal

d—the kind of thinking involved in solving problents, formulating inferences,

calculating likelihoods, and making decisions when the thinker is using skills that are

thoughtfill and effective for the particular context and type of thinking task In a more extensive obscrvation, Halpem (2003) emphasizes thal ‘all he cognitive levels ave under

the power of that conception, and the “critical” element of critical thinking denotes the

evaluation of thought processes and their outcomes’ (as cited in Phung, in press) Thus, the

final and most worthy target of thinking is te achicve a desirable outcome However, the

problem is that, Halpern (2003) also noted that desirable decisions were embedded in a system of values Since ‘desirable’ is a vague term, something that is desirable to one person might be undasirable or even conflicting lo others Oue’s desire has Lo be framed

within certain ethical and social boundaries She also acknowledges that thinking is only a

means to salve specific problems in particular context ‘hus, as Phung (in press) pointed

out, this conception does not fit in educational perspective since it touched upon daily life

matter and varied in different contexts,

2.14 Critical thinking and critical inquiry

The fourth conceptualivation of critical thinking is more or Tess related to the critical

inquiry and critical literacy movement, which can be roughly understood as any kind of

investigation that attends to power relations and seeks to change the current situation of oppression (Crotly, 1998, as cited in Phun

ctitical literacy movement contains many dimensions that people who advocated for

ctitical thinking found useful; however, the critical thinking movement promoted many

practices and principles that should be maintained, even as we enizrtain new practices One

of the dimensions mentioned above is the premise that language is always used in some context that includes power relationships Thus, language becomes a form of politics All texts, including scripts for movies, television shows, and advertisements, are written by somcone for a purposc Since those purposes are not often transparent, readers need to

develop and exercise their critical faculties to filter what they understand and believe from

texts Ternple (2005) also pointed oul thal “We are constanily assaulted by language that is nol just unclear, but often deliberately deceplive anul manipulative Students need tools for umnasking the true purposes of language within a particular context so they can both understand its true meaning and, as necessary, free themselves from its pernicious effects.” Proponents of this conception with a view Lo embed socio-political component into critical

thinking provides opportunities to take advantage of the achievements not just for college-

level philosophy classes, but for all readers, even at lower levels ‘hey passionately believe that the study of the practical, even political, uses of language should be brought into the school curriculum These new focuses include sensitivity toward both the grammar of obfuscation and the rules that ascribe roles and meanings to language and its users in social

scttings Critical discourse analysis is a subject mattcr that deals with these targets In a

broader scale of education, as in critical pedagogy, those who promote critical thinking in their classrooms will find those insights and tools useful and practical

2.1.5 Critical thinking ond universal intellectual standards

‘And the last, but never the least to mention here is the conception of critical thinking developed by philosopher Richard Paul He defined crificat thinking as “node of thinking about any subject, content, or problem—in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfidly taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards wpon them." (Paul, Fisher and Nosich, 1993, p.4) As observed by Fisher (2001), this definition is interesting because it draws attention to a feature of oritical thinking on which teachers and researchers in the field seam to be largely agreed ‘I’hat is, the only realistic way lo devctop one’s critical thinking ability is throngh ‘thinking aboul one’s thinking’, and consciously aiming to improve it by reference to some model of good thinking in that domain

Paul and Fleder (2006), meanwhile, offercd a list of what they eall "“olemonts of thought” with purpose, information, inferences/conelusions, concepts, assumptions, points of view, implications/consequences, and questions Along with those are nine suggested qualities that make messages optimally useftl including clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, loxic, significance, and fairness, By implication, they refer to quality questions of specification, amplification, kind/category, verification/validation degree, magnitude, motive, detail, and questions designed ta probe, challenge, and motivate However, what make this conception remarkable is that unlike those other ones which merely touch upon one ar two fields, such as logic, psychology or socio-political, this conception is regarded trausdisciplinary since the proponents can be said to sel out the

shared criteria of crifical thinking for all scholastic ficlds else where in the world

‘To sum up this part, the researcher would like to refer to two remarkable observations about dimensions of critical thinking Oul of the two, the latter is more preferable sinoe il has covered up all the conceptions we have mentioned so far

First, according to Moon’s (2004) there are dimensions of breadth, longitudinal, and technical Breadth dimension refers to narrow views of ciitical thinking which focus primarily on the language of argument and reasoning, or broader, viewing the characteristics of the critical thinker as leading to a way of operating in the world Lougitudinat dimension, which acknowledges a porson’s past and sncourages development through construction of past and new knowledge It involves studies of critical thinking at

a particular educational stage ‘echnical dimension is often characterized by lists of skills

11

or procedures (which may even be expected to occur in a particular order) ‘There is also a dimension thal relales ta the way in which critical thinking is viewed in relation to the disciplme of the leamers and a dimension that relates to the origins of the researcher or writer, Cognitive psychologists are likely to have a different view of critical thinking (often asa form of problem solving) from the philosophers (who may see il as a form of logic) from the educationalists

From a quite different angle, Phung (in press) proposed a reconceptualization of critical thinking as a aix-dimensional construct thal is psychological, logieal, scmiolie, sncio- political, methodological and educational because these dimensions comespond to the factors regulating our thinking She reasoned:

Focusing on informat logical reasoning the logical dimension poinis lo the fiet thal thinking is an inference process The psychological dimension acknowledges thinking

as a psychological process, wging thinkers to understand the mental functions of the hmman brain Ihe semiotic dimension denotes that thoughts ars stored in and conveyed through languages The socio-political dimension refers lo the influences of social power relations on thinking Systematic stralcgics and principles appliod to thinking form the methodclogicel dimension, which consists of two overlapping components (ne includes strategies and principles that are used to guide thinking in every situation

‘They cover all the above-mentioned dimensions and supposed to be insights fom the most relevant branches of studies such as informal logic, cognilive psychology, semiotics, and critical discourse analysis, The olher rsfers to lechmical thoorics used lo solve technical problems, Phung (in press)

2.2 Critical thinking instruction

Ahnost cveryone agrees thai ons of the main goats of education, al whatever lovdl, i6 lợ help develop students’ general thinking skills, including their critical thinking skills in particular Almost all of them also agree that students do not acquire these skills as much

as they could and should, That is why icaching critical thinking has become mors and mors urgent worldwide, However, there is a big distance between defining what critical thinking

is and how to teach it ne cannot just push all the zelated theoretical wordings of conceptions into their leamcrs’ head to tum them into eritical thinkers Still, as van Gelder (2005) pointed out, college instructors often made the mistake of thinking that they could teach critical thinking skills by teaching the theory of critical thinking He recognized that grasp of theory was am absolute neesssily for advanced eritical thinking bul iL was wrong when one only taught theory, or overemphasized theory relative to practice Skills are nota natural outcome of theory and must be naturally develop through practice However,

practice is more efifective when supplemented by appropriate levels of theoretical understanding That is the reason why for years, keen cducalors have bi en trying hard to find proper way to adopt the theoretical understanding of critical thinking into their instructions to gain the most effective and productive effects

As we have exarnmed, the ifth crilicat thinking conceplion with Paul's model of universal

intellectual standards have addressed comprehensively all aspects of quality thinking

Critical thinking from this view, as Phung (in press) pointed out “is nor anly about cognitive capabilities but also about moral commitment to the critical standards and

traity” Accordmgly, when students are taught of critical thinking, besides the knowledge

and thinking skills, they also have to learn about the intellectual standards, as well as cihical and social values This is grcal bul quite an ambitions goal for cducalors of critical

thinking to reach because despite the universahty of these intellectual standards, their application in a specific context still depends on cultural features and other conditions

Moreover, a thorough instruction of any subject requires systems of clear procedures to

evaluate the Icarners’ achicvements, which is vaguely shown in Paul and Elder's theory

‘Their criteria are not widely applied into every critical thinking course book ever existed because of the different cullural awareness, for example, criteria of [ainmess, cÏarily and

precision seemed fo be viewed differently in Eastern and Wester cultures

‘The same situation happens to Bloom’s taxonomy and the cognitive psychology related conception Tl is hard when we Iry lo press iL into a conweptual framework for teachings

critical thinking, as Ermis (1985) observed, “the five concepts Bloom's introduced are toa vague 10 guide us in developing und judging critical thinking assessment | { What do you assess when you test for ability to analyze?(p.45) As a result, since Bloom’s taxonomy is

suitable for illustrating crifieal thinking as higher-order thinking, iL fails to provide the

Dasies to construct a relevant instruction for teaching and leaming critical thinking as a

subject matter

The third and the fourth eonccptions mentioned above scem more or less depart from the

teaching and learning activities to be use as main source or background for instruction designing ‘he one proposed by Halpem as observed by Phung (in press) “too broad and tno narrow from an educational perspective”, and the socio-political one is still on the way

to find its place in school curriculum That is the reason why at present there are not many

13,

course book or syllabus of critical thinking constructed based on those instructions If there

ave any, they are rarely used or used as complementary materials

It is unarguably that there exists many other conceptions of critical thinking and some of

those may be developed and used in teaching critical thinking context However, similar to the ones mentioned lately, they do nol occupy as large a proportion as logic in critical

thinking instruction and assessment As Scriven and Paul (2004) observed, thinking is a natural process, but left to itself, it is often biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, and

potentially prejudiced, excellence in thonght must be cultivated Thus, generally, eritival

thinking instiuctions, either focusing on skills only or on skills integrated with subject content, often aim at teaching students how to think critically, how ta reason well

Especially in language teaching, though many crileria or standards proposed by other

conceptions are necessarily important parts of critical thinking, reasoning always takes first place Logic deals with the quality of reasoning and the argument, and up to now, logic has

still been most dominant referential basis for constructing and designing critical thinking

course and course book The first reason is that the application of logic was sccn to

maximize the ‘objectivity’ of critique and argument When people teach critical thinking skills hased on logical basis, they benefit from available logie theory, which is a loal that show ‘whal ix anphett in the concepis used fin argument] and lo expose contradwtion’ de

Bono (1982, p.77, as cited in Moon, 2004, p.38) He also implied that logic may have held

ils popularity because, while il was considered thal students should be laugh how Lo think,

other than logic the

med lo he litls to grasp hold of and to then teach — “what set of niles for thinking was there, apart from lagic?” (de Bono, 1982, as cited in Moon, 2004, p.39) The second reason, logic, together with the emergence of its branch informal logie, Provides quite an exhaustive scl of procedures for evaluating arguments with detaited explanation of given terms like premise, conclusion, etc and a full theory of fallacies As a result, both the coach and the coached are beneficial from it The instructors find it easier

to teach their lcamers with clear-cut conccpts; the Learners can evaluate their own achievements via comprehensible criteria of diversified test and assessment forms ‘The educational targets of the critical instruction thus will be systematically and effectively assessed, The criteria of informal logic for appraising critical thinking is sure more clearly

detined than those by Bloom or Paul and Elder.

With those reasons mentioned above

2.3 Argumentative writing and critical thinking

‘This part aims at the relation between argumentative writing and critical thinking in learning language and the way poople use argumentative

First of all, it is necessary to look at the definition provided by Baker & Brizee (2007,

propositions, not known or admitied as irue, from facts or principles known, adnitted, or

proved to be true.” Accordingly, the key function of an argumentative essay is to show

that your opinion, theory, or hypothesis about something is correct or more truthful than

others Itis never casy to acquire skilled argumentation Onc has an opinion docs not mean

one can debate it successfully with someone else even though their point seems so rational and logical The definition has clearly explained the process of reasoning from the known

or assumed to the unknown forming reasons, making mductions, drawing conclusions, and

applying them to the discussed case Without doing this you do not have an argument, you have only an assertion, an essay thal is just your unsubstantiated opinion

Struclurally, argumentalive essays ofien begin with a statement of your assertion with ils

timeliness, significance, and relevance in relation to some phenomenon Next, it reviews

ctitioally the literature about that phenomenon ‘I'he accompanied part illustrates how your assertion is “tighter” than ofhers’, including more reliable or valid methods thal you

employed to explain the case In another definition by Purdue OWL writing laboratory,

‘argumentative essay is a type of writing that requires students to go throught steps of aivestigating topic, collecting, generating and evaluating evidences to finally establish their own stances in an appropriate manner’ Accordingly, when writing an argumentative

essay, writers focus on presenting their argument successfully and convincingly to make

others to agree with their facts, share their valus:

two definitions called for the writer’s ability to produce not just an understandable but

and accept their conclusions Both these

logical and convincing paper ‘hus the ability of reasoning and refitting well are what a

relevant supporting evidences and examples as well

as manners of refuting the counter-argument that a critical thinker employs will all be presented in his argumentative essay ‘This implies that a good thinker makes a good writer and a good critical wriler makes a good argumentative paper Sachs (2004) painted oul the interrelation between critical thinking and writing, especially argumentative writing, a process of doing critical thinking and a product communicating the results of critical

thinking As such, one cart use writlen argumentalive lexts to measize critical thinking

skill Since this paper deals with the assessment of critical thinking in writing, it will now provide a look of several general knowledge standardized essays tests for critical thinking

As observed by Stapleton (2001), although eritical thinking has received much attention in the sceond language learning ficld, little attention has been paid to the critical thinking assessment test ‘The existing critical thinking test tend to be test specific with criteria laid out, thal specifically pertain to the conter of the Lest itself MePeck (1990) claimed to know of at least 26 tests designed to measure critical thinking ability, but they are often limited to multiple-choice instruments that do not allow any probing of reasoning behind the exaninee’s answer The lexlual analysis and scoring guides for lesting crilical thinking qualily i wrilten diseeus

critical thinking in writing 1s the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test It is a general test of critical thinking in the context of argumentation and regarded as a diagnostic device

mm quite rare, One of the most widely used assessments of

to identify specific avea af reasoning or argumentation (Slaplclon, 2001, p.514) “It is the

only critical thinking test that asks students for a written response judging the quality of

reasoning in a piece of writing” (Ilatcher, 1995, p.27, as cited in Paul, 2001, p.51%) According te the test’s grading guides, there is a list of arca of critical thinking competence:

» Getting to the point

* Sccing reasons and assumptions

© Siating one’s point

* Offering good reasons

¥' ‘The use of emotive language to persuade

Both two models possess through time have proved their effectiveness In this study, their most applicable points will then be combined to make a measuring tool of critical thinking

in students’ argumentative writing, Critical thinking could be assessed via argumentative essays in terms of elements taken from Stapleton’s proposal with related criteria provided

CHAPTERIH: METHIODOLOGY This chapter recites the methodology conducted in the study, including samples and sampling, data collection, and data analysis

3.1 Samples and Sampling

submitted for the coursc’s cvaluation requirements The whole sct of 36 writing picccs will

and cvalualion system,

31.12 Tapies

With the approval and assistance fiom the instructor of the Writing 5 course, 36 students

were accidentally divided into two sub-groups of equal number then cach group was

assigned with writing topies prepared beforehand by the researcher There are two topics, one of which was [amitiar lo the majorily of Vietnamese people while the other deemed unfamiliar Accordingly, half of the randomly selected participants worked on the familiar topic and the other half on the unfamiliar one One noticeable factor is that prior to the testing time, students had been provided with several topics including the two topics used

in this study

3.113 Raters

Due the subjectivity required in any assessing process, the study relied on the working of

two separate raters to read and score all the writing samples Those bwo raters were

deliberately mvited based on their cultural background, working experience and specialized teaching areas ‘Ihe first rater (or rater A for convenience) is a Vielnamese leacher wha has been leaching critical thinking for years The second rater (rater B) is an experienced Australian teacher who has taught English to both native and non-native learners Both neither work at the college where this research was conducted nor have

dircel contact with the students hers

3.2.1, Instrument

Rost and Kalm (1993, as citod-in Ghonaim, 2005) regarded documents among the most significant sources for data collection This source helps bring more insightful information, thus increasing the reliability of the study findings Since the study focused on evaluating students’ real reflection of critical thinking ability in their writings rather than their porecptions in gencral, the rescarchers made a decision to usc students’ essay tests as a

main instrument

3.2.2 Procedures

3.2.2.) Design of the writing tasks

Before explaining the writing tasks as main souree to collect data for this study, the

researcher would like to clarify the term “familiarity” Tt telales lo theories on schemala

and knowledge structures Rumelhart (as ciled in Stapleton, 2001) dascribedt schemata as prototypes of memory arising from familiar experiences that individuals use to interpret related knowledge When people are given information, those who already know can

develop their knowledge by orgarizing tolatod principles and notions and tink Io its application, On the other hand, the schemata of people who find the information new may contain certain ideas about the situation but lack knowledge of related principles and their application,

‘The familiar topic requires students to respond to the statement “Tebacco companies should compensate smokers who have become ill as a result of smoking’ ‘Vhe issue of sinokers’ damand of compensation wes scloctait because of the following reasons, Firstly,

it was always one of the most frequently used topics in writing at any level, although the question was modified a little Secondly, people keep talking about smoking largely on

were asked

For the unfamiliar topic, the legelization of prostitution was chasen, Studer

to respond to the statement “Provtituion should be legalized because it brings a lol of benefits” his topic was deemed unfamiliar because prostitution is forbidden in Vietnam and poopls quite often avoided talking about this As an Fasten onlluro, the question of whether or not should prostitution be legal hardly ever occur to Vietamese, let alone discuss about it openly Another reason for choosing it was the fact that few students voluntarily worked on such topic

It is belicved that those two topics would provide participants a good opportunity to usc ctitical thinking skills to explore the topies’ complexities, As Stapleton (2001) pointed out,

4 polential criticism of using Camnitiar content ta elicit critical thinking is thal it encourages well-ehearsed reasons and evidence absorbed through exposure to the media, schooling, and parents Such exposure can build prejudices that tend to hinder effective crifical thinking because they can block oul allermilive viewpoints On the other hand, Glaser (1984) elaitned that people having Tilfle familiarity with a lopie lack the schomata with

which to infer further knowledge (as cited in Stapleton, 2001) As such, it is presumed that the benefits of schemata evoked by a familiar topic to outweigh its potential hindrance Therefore, the main aim of choosing both a fariliar and unfamiliar Lopic was to explore how students’ rich schemata with regards to compensation for smokers with their schemata

on legalization of prostitution, which was supposed to be poorer It was hypothesized that tích schemata would cnhanec critical thinking abilities

3.2.2.2 Essay tests administered and collected

Before doing the argumentative writing tests, the students were given several topics to

Frepars al home, some of tham wore considered farnitiar lo them and some were unfamiliar, As agreed by the course instructor, the researcher inserted the two to-be-tested topics into the students’ homework ‘They had been advised to collect information from

Internet and read materials related to the assigned topics hefore actually composing their

own writings on onc of therm int the tost

The essay tests were carried out at the end of the course, with the time allowed of 60 minutes and under the strictly observation of the instructor and the researcher ‘he Participants did nol know which of the given lopics they were going lo work on imbil the testing time The ones who wrote on familiar topic and the ones who wrote on unfamiliar topic were randomly selected,

hơn the tasting lime was up, the studonts submittsd their work The roscarcher collected all the 36 writing pieces were then made mto identical hard copies and soft copies of Microsoft Word files for the purposive retention and the assessment process of the study

Evidence: The ways a wiiter provides evidence to support a reason can come in many forms, including personal experience, research studies, statistics, citation, analogies,

pointing out consequences, and precisely defining words Pieces of evidence are isolated and categorized accordingly

Recognition of opposition and Refutation They are participants’ recognition of the

mmultisided nature of the issues in question and their attempt to refute them

Fallacies: Fallacies are sirmply understood as flaws in argments They describes the

different types of errors in reasonmg, occur when the reason does not adequately support

the claim in one or the other way Ramage and Bean (as cited in Stapleton, 2001) identify

three broad types of fallacics bascd on appeals to pathos, cthos, and logos Pathos fallacies

are flaws in the relationship between what is argued and the audience ‘They include appealing ta stirring symbols, provincialism, appealing to emotional premises, and red herving Elhos fallacies are [laws im the relationship of the argument and the characler of

those involve in the argument) They are appeal to false authorities, attacking the

character of the arguer, and straw person Logos fallacies are flaws in the relationship

21

between the claim and the reasons or evidence in an argument ‘hey are named as urelevance, false analogy, hasty generaltcation, slippery stope, oversimplication, and begging the question The specific types of fallacies found in the students’ writings will be explained and analyzed in the next chapter, with reference to Dowden (2007)

3.3.2 Procedures of assessment

Each writing sample was assessed blindly by two raters for an overall view of students’ reasoning ability displayed via their argumentative pieces ‘I'he raters gave marks based on their own perception of argumentation and their leaching experien

They ware supplicd with the 36 essays samples (Appendix A), the rubuics for critical thinking elements (Appendix B) and a rating guide (Appendix C) For further consultation, they also had a holistic raling scale for argumentative writing (Appendix 1D) provided by the instrucior af the writing couse The scores both raters give 36 writing samples on both familiar and unfamiliar topics will then be analyzed for inter-rater reliability Then, rater A took exclusive charge of assessing those 36 writing samples for the elements of critical thinking based on the combined model of Ennis-Weir and Stapleton The reason the rater B did not join this assessment process according to him was his self-declared limited knowledge of critical thinking Since rater A has been tramed intensively to teach critical thinking skill for tertiary students with years of experiences, her assessments are assumed to be reliable and persuasive enough She provided data of elements of critical thinking appear in both writing samptes of famitiar and unfanitiar lopic They woutd then be categerived and

measures used here sought to detect this ‘weak sense’ of critical thinking.

CIIAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS This chapter deals with the results of the study along with discussions rclated to the findings

4.1, Reliabillty and Valldity of the Assessment

45} Inter-rater Relichiiity

Table 1 shows the interrater reliability of the assessments of both raters on students? overall reasoning quality ‘'he inter-rater reliability of both raters’ assessments on writing samples on familiar topic and unfamiliar lopie are displayed in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively

Table 1: Correlation af scores given by rater 1

and rater 2 on all 36 writing samples

**, Gorrelafion ïs significat at the 0.01 level (2-tailed),

Table 2: Correlation of scores given by rater 1 and rater 2 on writing

samples on familiar topic

familiar topie | familiar topic

23

Table 3: Corvelation of scores given hy rater } and rater 2 on writing

samples on unfanutiar topic

~, Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailee)

By using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS), we have Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 respectively represented the correlation coefficienls Pearsơn r = 712, r 729 andr 717 for scores on the total 36 argumentative writings, for scores on writings

on familiar topic and for scores on writings on unfamiliar topic ‘The correlation cocflicionts indicated the great significance of the agreement belwaen two raters on

assessing overall reasoning quality of all 36 students”

ssays and on assessing botl groups

of writings Accordingly, it can be said that the results given by two raters are significantly correlative and the study proved acceptable validity

442, Validity

Because this case study is not designed to be generalized, we would consider ats internal validity, which largely rested on the choice of raters for assessing students” critical thought quality, Both raters wore language teachers deliberatcly invited based on their qualifications, working experiences and specialized background related to teaching writing skill and critical thinking skill Moreover, two raters had no direct influence on the participants with thair isolating as

ssing process during the time this study was conducted The study, thus, can be regarded as having shown proper validity

4.2, The results of the assessment of critical thinking

4.2.1, The display of critical thinking in studenus’ argumentative writings

Irom Table 4 below, generally, the average mark (Median) rater A gave all 36 papers was

4.8 with the most popular mark (Mode) was 3.75, meanwhile, rater B gave an average

score (Median) of’ 5 with the most frequently seen (Mode) mark of 5 Based on the holistic

rating scale (Appendix 1D) giving the score range from 1 to 9 that two raters consulted

when giving scores to the students? writings, their score sel oflen fell within the middle

part of the scale It proves, when being assessed by two different people of different

cultures, students’ writing pieces do display certain grasp of critical thinking with the most

popular scores revolved around average scores

Table 4: Average score Median} and score with highest frequency of appearance (Mode)

of all 36 writings given by each rater

RatrA Rater B

Particularly, from Table 5, the average scores (Median) of 18 writings on familiar topic

and other 18 on unfamiliar topic given by both raters were 3.75, 4.25, 4.25 and 5 while the

sores with highest ficquency of appearance (Mode) were 4, 4, 4.5 and 5, respectively

Table 5: Average scores (Median} and scores with highest frequency of appearance

Mode) of each group of writing pieces regarding iopic given

As the two tables above indicated, there definitely existed critical thoughts in students?

writing samples considering the whote sampling of 36 cssays as well as two scparaled

groups on two differen, topics Third year RFT students at Henam Teacher Training

College did have an average grasp of critical thinking and reasoning in their written

argumentation,

4.2.2, The numbers of arguments, evidence, refutations, and fallacies in the 36 students’

argumentative writings,

‘Table 6 below provides the total numbers and average number of each element of eritical

authentic experiences on critical thinking instructions

Table 6: Total munber and average number of each element of critical thinking

or refutation, as well as had 1.2 fallacies These raw resulls, as observed, only reveal the amount of output from each student, that is, the number of critical thinking elements, without revealing its quality We are now having separate looks at the two groups of

argumicntalive writings on two Lopies given

42.3 The differences of critical thinking elements found in two groups of writings

Table 7: Total Numbers and Differences of Elements of Critical Thinking in Writing

Samples on Kamiliar and Unfamiliar Topics

Familiar | Unfamiliar | Difference

The results in Table 7 reveal that participants who wrote on the familiar topic included 25

arguments and 10 pieces of evidence more than these writing on the unfamilar topic

Lowever, it is interesting to observe that ons of the listed elements of critical thinking was

on unfamiliar topic Besides, according to Table 7, participants writing on familiar topic

made fewer fallacious arguments than the ones writing on unfamiliar topic with the difference of 26 fallacies Although the slatistics appear lo suggest thal familiarity with a

topic enhances the number of arguments, evidence pieces and fallacies, it says little about

the participants’ ability to recognize other viewpoints and refute them

424, Types of arguments, evidence end fallacies found in each group of argumentative writings

424.1 Types of Argument

Appendix Bl shows the total of arguments for both funiliay and imfaniliar Lopics In

responding to the familiar topic statement, “Tobacco companiey should compensate smokers who have become ill as a result of smoking”, 41 arguments come under eight

distinct types with two provided by those who agrsed with the statement and six by those

disagreed By agrccing with the topic, the writers emphasized the (a) The dunger of

smoking and (b) The irresponsibility of tobacco companies with three further subdivided arguments, The rest of arguments, a remarkable large amoum, shows the disagreement

with the statement and the embedded prompt “smokers who have become il as a result of

smoking” ‘he writers disagree with the statement because of six main reasons: (7) Individual choice accompanies individual responsibility, (2) The dangerous effects of smoking are well known, (3) Tobaeea industry is permitted hy law, (4) Tobaceo companies

bring benefits io countries, (5) Tobacco companies warn smokers about the danger of

smoking, and (6) The rule of demand and supply

On the other hand, in responding fo the unfamiliar lopic statement, ““Prostiution should

be legalized because it brings a lot of benefits” there is only one argument counted as

showing the agreement, that mentioned the financial benefits of legalization of prostitution

with two further subdivided picces of reasoning The remained arguments fall within three

different opinions against legalization of prostitution because it (1) Degrade the human society, (b) Threaten the women's lives, and (c) Cause other social evils and serious diseases According lo those data, tol only the lolal number of argunienis in writings on

farniliar topic but also the number of argument types is higher than those in the ones on

unfamiliar topic

were able lo include three forms o|

of repetition

4.2.4.3 Opposition Recognition and Refitiation

Appendix B3 presents the opposition viewpoints and refutations taken from writings on

both familiar and unfamiliar topics For unfamiliar topic writings, there are two opposite viewpoints recognized and refuted, while there is none in fantiliar topic writings Although the number is quite small, the parkicipanis wriling on unfamiliar topie did allempl lo give

the counterarguments about the benetits of legalized prostitution and refute them, showing

their prominence in argumentation over the others who worked on familiar topic without

no recognition or refutation allempls al all Since both writing tasks just asked participants

to respond to a short statement with a little prompt embedded under time pressure, it is not

expected that the opposite viewpoints recognition and refatations would be of any large

amount However, as mentioned above, participants writing on the unfamiliar topic still

managed to present two opposition viewpoints then refuted them to support their arguments, whereas the number of refutations in familiar topic writing is zero (Appendix B3) Tl can be assured thal almosl no participants of both tepies paid proper allention on

recognizing and refuting opposite viewpoints, which put their argumentation quality at

average level Nevertheless, as the statistics showed, the participants writing on unfamiliar

cment of critical thinking

above, the fallacies found in the unfamiliar topic writings were fonr times Irigher than those in the familiar topic ones (34 against 8) In addition, the variety of fallacies in unfamiliar topic writings is also ereater than in the familiar topics Generally, the prevalent

fallacics related to Maw: m the relationship be! ween Lhe chim and the reasons or evidences

in an argument, the logos ones Both groups of writings had fallacies categorized as

slippery slope and irrelevance While the fallacious arguments from writings on familiar lopic wers only confined to those Iwo Lypes, participants of the other writing topic

committed four more types, which are false analogy, hasty generulization, straw man and overgeneralization It seems that content familiarity of the given topic played some role in

enabling participants avoid making argumentative errars

Many of the crors of rcasoning fiom legalization of prostitution topic fell in the

“oversimplication” and “false analogy”, categories, which may indicate that participants,

in their zeal to support ideas, failed to recognize thal they had gone beyond a point of

reasonableness They might refer to some sources for their argumentation, but their

reasoning were still too simple, as in ‘Prastitutian detrimentally affect society in the form

of broken marriages, divorce rate will inerease hecause men are usually flirtatious so it is easy for women in prostitution industry to seduce them’ Sometimes the reasons linked to

isrational comparison due to writers’ simplified knowledge of the issue, one of the fallacies

of this kind are ‘Like ad! other professions, prostiution also brought diseases and bad consequences to heman bodies’

Writings on both topics saw the presence of irrelevance fallacy, which presents details or

facts that are off the paint and do not support the thesis For example, in familiar topic writing, the student wrote ‘The tobacco companies not only make bi profit but also produce important item on the market it is usefid in festivals, weddings, fimerals, etc’ It did not support the given opinion about why the tobacco company should not compensate the smokers The same crrors found in writings on unfamiliar topic, enc of those sevcral

students committed was the idea that legalized prostitution ‘is a way to attract many

workers in rural areas where average income is quite low This led to labor shortages in

29

agriculture it alsa attracted many workers wha don’t want to move their hands and brain They are so lacy and dependent on others.’ when trying 1o argue against its: benefits

Instead of giving the counter evidence, the students ran on with the facts about lazy or

dependent people with low income and from rural areas Ihe presence of this type of

fallacy, as the critical thinking instruclor rater observed, might result from participants”

carelessness in making argumentation or superficial background of the problem

Another common type of fallacy participants of bath topies generate was slippery slope ‘lo understand this kind of fallacy, suppose someone claims thal a first step Gn a chain of

causes and effects, or a chain of reasoning) will probably lead to a second step that m tum

will probably lead to another step and so ơn umtil a final step ends in trouble Lf the hikelihoad of the rouble occuring is exaggeraled, the shppery slope fallacy is commilled

In case of the familiar topic, many participants favor the argument ‘If smokers can get

compensation from tobacco companies, what comes next? Lawsuits against drinks

manufactures over cirrhosis of the liver?/An action against the dairy industry by heart-

disease sufferers?’ According to the rater, ‘if is @ slippery slope fallacy because forcing

tobacco mampfackirers to compensate does not necessarily lead to wine or dairy maméfacturers to compensate their customers, toa’ In wrilings on umfarniliar lopic,

participants also made this type of evror with about twice as many numbers of slippery

slope fallacy listed It could be said that the facts were either too exaggerated or the writers were (oo irmocent te produce their assumption A good example is “Legafization of prostitution could make our fanilies broken because some people ‘either wife or hushand)

couldn't bear a fact that their spouse hay another person They would be very sad and do

negative things It could make our families broken because some people (either wife or Iushand) couldn't hear a fact that their spouse has another person They would be very

sad and do negative things When the families are broken, the children lose their father or

mother and lack the care from their parents They are too hurt to develap normally as

other children They would lack the confidence and not believe in good things in their life’

‘The writers certainly cannot be sure how many percent of probability the first thing, legalized prostitution, might cause the last in chain, the lack-of-confidence generation

Two other types of fallacies found exclusively in writings on unfamiliar topic were hasty

generalization and siraw moan If the former reveals participants’ insufficient or

unrepresentative evidence, the latter let us know those who work on this topic does not

really understand the problem they were discussing and tried hard to attacked their

distorled under:

ding For cxammple of hasty generalization, a participant writes “We

don't have any reason to consider it dlegal, both sides agree with what they trade’, with

the unprovided resources the information is taken, it was unreliable to jump to such absolute conclusion For example of straw man, when wriling ‘Pimps and traffickers are wonsformed into third party business and leyitunale sexual enirepreneurs’, instead of proving the argument that legalization of prostitution brings less benefits than harm, the student jusl focused on how the pimps and traffickers could benefit from and faited to gain

the rater’s approval

4.3, Discussions

43.} Types of arguments and evidence and the reflection of the influence of familiarity

on the quality of students’ critical thought

Although the data appear to indicate that the participants had a grasp of critical thinking at

some level, the analysis below provides spccific insights that arose from the study Onc

such insight concerns levels of argumentation or the depth of knowledge, which is “an important factor in determining a learner's ability to display innovative thought since it is

directly linked to critical dunking’, Browne & Keeley (1994, cited Stapleton, 2001, p.544)

‘The levels of argumentation are perhaps best illustrated via reference to the writing on legalization of prostilulion AHhough iL may appear obvious thal arguments suclias “carese other social evils and serious diseases”, “degrade the human society’, and “threaten the

wamen’s lives” occupy three different levels, some model is needed to determine in what

way their depth varies As Stapleton (2001) argued, “although depth of thaughts cannot be objectively measured, if argonents can be classified into hierarchical levels of abstraction

some comparatively conclusions might be reach” (p.525) Then he presented the famous

model of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which depicts the way in which humans behave

with respect to their nceds The model has five levels, beginning with “physical needs” at

the base and advancing up through four more stages of needs: “safety,” “social,” “esteem,” and “self realisation.” “Physical needs” include food and other immediate survival basics,

“safety needs” include avoiding pain and injury, “social needs” refer lo ompanionship and

love, “esieen: needs” encompass attributes such as responsibility and self-respect, and

“realization needs” include such abstract notions as independence, creativity, and

of the three examples given above, “censse other social evils and serious diseases”,

“degrade the Iuman society”, and “threaten the women's lives”, the first clearly fits into Maslow’s second level, safety needs, the second and the last arguments best match the social needs level

‘The writings on the familiar topic of compensation for smokers can also be analyzed using Maslow’s model Concerns abou the harm of smoking to the first-hand and sceond-hand smokers appear to be related to safety as well as social needs, Other arguments that appeared in this set of writings referred to notions of legal right of the tobacco companies and individuat smoker's responsibility, which appear lo most closely matched with sociat and esteem needs, respectively

Results trom the unfamiliar topic writings show similarities to the pattem in the familiar topic essays Participants supported their opinions with reasons and evidence, although there wore significantly fewer arguments and less evidence There were also large differences in the relative quality of the arguments Specifically, the variety of responses and the presented knowledge in the legalization of prostitution samples were shallower than in the ones on compensation for smokers Those who disagreed with the prompt wrote almost exclusively about how prostitution facilitates social evils or diseases, whereas the few who agreed spoke largely of the financial benefils Both arguments fall into Maslow’s second lowes! level in the hierarchy of needs model

With those remarks on the depth of knowledge in both sets of wntings, it can still be seen clearly that the writing samples did demonstrate a findamental understanding that opinions require supporl Participants working on both topics ineided a varicly of types of evidence, showing an understanding that reasons need to be backed up with proof of some sort, The broad variety of evidence used in the familiar topic essays, including experience, explanation, facts, consequences, citations, and rescarch studies, They are all acceptable evidence types in critical thinking texts, suggests some intuitive understanding of what constitutes justifiable proof Again, the volume and variety of different pieces of evidence used both lo agree and to disagree with the prompt (Appendix B2) indicals that participants were not simply summoning up well-rehearsed responses that they had used in the past or had heard used by others For unfamiliar topic, participants also supplied several types of

evidence, similer to the essays written for ths familiar topic, although most of this evidencs was focused al the safely needs Ievel, thal is, concern that legalization of prostitution causes more social evils and diseases

Itis tue that some of the arguments and evidence used are widely discussed in schools and the media However, the diversity of tevels of reasoning from practical to abstracl again suggests an element, which articulate the awareness of argumentation among the participants, that is, “a vaice that individuates a writer from all other writers” (Elbow,

1999, p.335, as cited in Slaploton , 2001, p.527)

43.2, Opposition Recognition and Refutation and the reflection of the influence of

familiarity on the quality of students’ critical though

Literature on critical thinking frequently emphasized the importance of going beyond simply supporting opinions with reasons and evidence Giving full consideration to other points of view and refiuting them if one does not agree is another erucial step, Mean scores show that participants did less well in this area, especially in refuting opposing views However, this widely accepted account of critical thinking may be unsound, Recognizing opposing views in writing does not necessarily indicate that writers have given those views deep consideration Inslzad, they could simply be isolating aspects of the opposing side and creating a “straw man” argument without sincere reflection, Browne& Keeley (1994,

as cited in Stapleton, 2001) This is especially so in a writing assignment for which there is

a Timit on the manber of words and put under time pressure, Although this remains a concern, the results point in a different direction When writing about legalization of

prostitution, participants identified two distinct opposing viewpoints, while participants

working on the other topic failed to identify any Refutations, although limited to only few

of the participants, sornctimss displayed considerable sophistication or inside knowledge 43.3, Types of fallacies and the reflection of the influence of familiarity on the quality of

students’ critical thought

Fallacies of several different types were found in roughily one third of the participants’ essays on both topics All of these could be categorized into the conventional types such as irrelevance, hasty generalization, oversinplication, slippery slope, false analogy and straw

man Again, the cxistonos of these fallacies in recognizable forms suggests some similarity with what might be expected from first language students The greater numbers of fallacies

33

in the unfamiliar topic writings with the typical types may be explained by the insufficient

backgroud knowledge they have duz to the topic unfamiliarity

Although a large amount of fallacies was found in the participants’ writings of both topics

in this study, it is important to note that that they are also common in the writing of native speaking students Raines and Zarmel (1997, p80, as ciled in Stapleton, 2001, p.528) asked, “who are these LI stsdents wha have a relatively easier time in writing clasves?

They are certainly not the students wha poyndate the camposition courses at public, urban

institutes in the U.S where we teach” In short, il can be sail thal nol only Visknam

or Asian students, but many other second language learners also have those problems in generating and formulating ideas into sound, cogent arguments

4.3.4, Other remarks

While supplying arguments to suppott one’s reasoning is relatively easy, finding solid supporting evidence requires research of proper resources, especially if one 1s writing an argument at tertiary level Considering the pattem established by the number, variety, and depth of arguments, the cvidcnec supplicd for the familiar topic was considerably greater than that of the unfamiliar, It was explained that, by being more frequently exposed to the mass media with many discussions Taised by both Vietnamese and non-Vistnamese, and being close to the existing facts and figures, participants were able to supply evidence from

a wider variety of sources for the discussed issue of compensation for smokers ‘hus they could cover many problematic aspects wilh fewer fallacies, from the personal danger to sogial sulfer, from the individnal rosponsibility to the cconomic tule of supply and demand, etc, all of those they have read, heard, and even deeply discussed with fiends or classmates ‘They were well aware of the dangerous impacts of smoking, the stand they look when arguing and had belter undersiamding of many aspeets relaled to the discussing issue Remarkably, a majority of students disagree with the compensation, This can be said to reflect the common Vietnamese traditional attitude and practice Unlike the Westem consumerism attituds concerned about consumers? rights and benefits, most Vietnamese still hesitated when it comes to ask producers or sellers for compensation However, some individual did go further than the old way of thinking to address the

consumerism allilude and articulale their rights by agrecg with the stalement

On the other hand, particrpants writmg on the unfamiliar topic focus on few social impacts

of legalization of prostitution with repetitive or fallacious reasoning All the arguments

about financial benefits or the widespread of social evils and diseases they provided

or websi

appasenily extracted from foreign information sources of online artic s, which

supplied the reasoning with third-party analysis When they did not understand it clearly

and deeply, their reproduced arguments will be weak or shallow As the rater further

pointed oul, “some writers failed to write a topic sentence that adequately convey an

argument Others, wstead, staried anvther point m the seme paragraph without even having finished the point given in the topic sentence, and then attenypted to finish it”.