Effects of heterogeneous and homogeneous groypings on the improvement of critical thinking in efl collaborative writing a case study at quy nhon university m a

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY –HOCHIMINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE EFFECTS OF HETEROGENEOUS AND HOMOGENEOUS GROUPINGS O

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY –HOCHIMINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

EFFECTS OF HETEROGENEOUS AND HOMOGENEOUS GROUPINGS

ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF CRITICAL

THINKING IN EFL COLLABORATIVE WRITING:

A CASE STUDY AT QUY NHON UNIVERSITY

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature

in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

By

NGUYEN THI MINH TRAM

Instructed by

Bui Thi Thuc Quyen, PhD

HO CHI MINH CITY, DEC 2019

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY –HOCHIMINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

EFFECTS OF HETEROGENEOUS AND HOMOGENEOUS GROUPINGS

ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF CRITICAL

THINKING IN EFL COLLABORATIVE WRITING:

A CASE STUDY AT QUY NHON UNIVERSITY

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature

in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

By

NGUYEN THI MINH TRAM

Instructed by

Bui Thi Thuc Quyen, PhD

HO CHI MINH CITY, DEC 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without the guidance and support from my supervisor and family, this thesis would not be possible This section is specifically for expressing my great gratitude towards their continuous assistance and love during the time of carrying out the research

First, I would like to thank my parents for their love and supporting every decision of my life My husband and my son are also two other people that I can’t forget to say thanks During the time of pregnancy and childbirth, my husband is the one who has always provided me as much assistance as possible and my son has brought me much energy and confidence to complete my studying

Second, I would also like to give sincere thanks to Dr Bui Thi Thuc Quyen

- my supervisor, for all of her invaluable support, helpful guidance and patience Her empathy to my delay has greatly encouraged me to complete the thesis If it weren’t for her supervision, I couldn’t finish the work

Third, my gratitude must also be extended to my cooperating teacher, who allowed me to implement my research in her classroom I am also grateful for the warm-hearted assistance of Foreign Language Department - Quy Nhon University Not only did I have an extremely beneficial experience in the classroom but I also received a lot of encouragement and useful advice throughout the experiment

Fourth, I would like to express my gratitude to the participants who spent their valuable time joining the experiment in class and online and the interviewees who were willing to share their feelings and opinions

Last but not least, I would like to thank my reader for their interests and comment on this study

ABSTRACT

In the 21st century where information has become easily available and accessible, education has shifted its attention to teaching students how to process and think critically about the information they receive Welcoming the changes that education constantly witnesses, the field of English Language Teaching (ELT) has embraced the integration of critical thinking into teaching and learning practices In the present study, the relationship between critical thinking and argumentative writing was focused on It has been claimed that collaborative learning which stimulates the active exchange of ideas within small groups not only increases interest among the participants but also promotes critical thinking

One of the important aspects of learning and teaching through collaboration is the group composition or grouping “who with whom” The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping on students’ critical thinking level in writing argumentative essays through collaborative learning In collecting the data, the researcher used both quantitative and qualitative approach by grouping the participants into three grouping types (homogeneous low-student groups, homogeneous high-student groups and heterogeneous groups) to work with each other and write argumentative essays individually Some of the participants were then invited to take part in the interview to have a deeper understanding of the cooperation among members in both grouping types

The researcher scored essays, using the rubric and codes the data based on the research questions The data was presented descriptively and are supported qualitatively by the excerpts of interviews and related theories The results demonstrated that there was an improvement in learners’ critical thinking level

heterogeneously However, low-level students in heterogeneous groups achieved higher level of improvement than those in homogeneous groups This revealed that collaborative learning could be especially beneficial for low students It is hoped that the findings of the present study will give teachers deep insights into group compositions in collaborative learning courses, and will help them make better group experiences for students

TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF TABLES ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 B ACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 1

1.2 P URPOSE OF THE STUDY 5

1.3 S IGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 6

1.4 S COPE OF THE STUDY / D ELIMITATIONS 6

1.5 O UTLINE OF THE THESIS 7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 9

2.1 CRITICAL THINKING 9

2.1.1 Definition of critical thinking 9

2.1.2 Types of critical thinking skill 11

2.1.3 Critical thinking disposition 11

2.1.4 Characteristics of a critical thinker 13

2.2 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING 15

2.2.1 The use of Toulmin model in education 15

2.2.2 Argumentative writing as a vehicle for promoting critical thinking 17

2.3 COLLABORATIVE WRITING 21

2.3.1 Defining collaborative learning 21

2.3.2 Collaborative writing: The definition and its distinguishing features 26 2.3.3 The patterns of interaction in collaborative writing 27

2.3.4 The elements of collaborative learning 30

2.4 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON THE EFFECT OF HETEROGENEOUS AND HOMOGENEOUS GROUPING IN COLLABORATIVE LEARNING 32

2.5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 37

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 38

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN 38

3.1.1 Quantitative research 39

3.1.2 Qualitative research 39

3.2 RESEARCH SETTING 40

3.2.1 The context of the study 40

3.2.2 The description of argumentative writing course 42

3.2.3 Participants, instructors, and raters 43

3.2.4 Group demographics 44

3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS 44

3.3.1 Writing prompts 44

3.3.2 The scoring rubric for assessing critical thinking in essays 45

3.3.3 Semi-structured interviews 46

3.4 THE PROCEDURE OF GROUPING AND COLLECTING DATA 47

3.4.1 Grouping procedure 47

3.4.2 The procedure of data collection 47

3.4.3 The procedure of data analysis 48

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS 49

4.1 THE FINDINGS OF QUANTITATIVE STUDY 49

4.2 THE ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE STUDY 61

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS & PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 69

5.1 CONCLUSION 69

5.2 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 70

5.3 LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 72

REFERENCES 74

ELT : English Language Teaching

L1 : First or Native Language

L2 : Second or Foreign Language

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 A model of dyadic interaction 27

Figure 2 Conceptual Framework of the study 36

Figure 3 The element structure of critical thinking 45

heterogeneous students at both pre- and post-tests 53

heterogeneous students at both pre- and post-tests 55

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Group demographics 43

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of grouping strategy and ability level 49

Table 3 Paired sample t-test for heterogeneous high students 49

Table 4 Paired sample t-test for heterogeneous low students 50

Table 5 Paired sample t-test for homogeneous high students 51

Table 6 Paired sample t-test for homogeneous low students 51

Table 7 Paired sample t-test for heterogeneous low, heterogeneous high, homogeneous high, and homogeneous low students 52

Table 8 Independent t-test for low homogeneous and heterogeneous students 54

Table 9 Independent t-test for low homogeneous and heterogeneous students 56

Table 10 Independent t-test for low and high students in heterogeneous groups 57

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

In today’s modern society, English, a lingua franca, has become one of

the prerequisites to be academically and professionally successful Of the four skills (i.e listening, reading, writing and speaking), Banat (2007) pointed out that writing is invaluable for helping students communicate and understand how the parts of language go together, adding that writing is one of the four major language skills that need to be mastered by language learners However, anything of value requires great effort While stressing the importance of writing skill, it should also be noted that writing is generally regarded as a difficult skill and a complex task (Graham, Harris & Mason, 2005) This might results from the fact that writing does not only require the mastery of linguistics such as grammar, vocabulary, stylistic conventions, etc but also involves the conceptual judgment and critical thinking According to Heaton (1988), it is complicated and sometimes difficult to teach writing skills which require “mastery not only

of grammatical and rhetorical device, but also of conceptual and judgmental elements”

Among four different modes of writing (i.e descriptive, narrative, expository, and argumentative writing) proposed by Richards and Schmidt (2010), it is maintained that novice writers should begin with the simplest mode, that is, the descriptive essay, and gradually move towards learning the most complicated one, that is, the argumentative mode To put it more simply, the argumentative essays requires learners who study English as a Foreign/ Second Language (EFL/ESL) to possess more higher-order skills Richards and Schmidt

further defined argumentative writings as compositions which “attempted to support a controversial point or defend a position on which there is a difference

of opinion” (p 337) As such, the ability to write an argumentation composition crucially depends on EFL/ESL learners’ being equipped with an intellectual capacity for thinking in a critical manner Critical thinking, promoted by Paul (as cited in Fahim & Mirzaii, 2014), has three broad categories: reflective, creative, and critical Critical thinking skill is regarded to be the most effective writing skill in argumentative writing, as Fahim and Mirzaii (2014) argued that the ability to write argumentatively depends on the students' critical thinking skill and they also concluded that having critical thinking in higher education is crucial and plays a significant role in understanding the learning process Therefore, the most significant precondition for the proper teaching of argumentative writing is that of fostering critical thinking (CT)

In order to response to the question of how to promote CT in writing classes, it is essential to take the origin of the problem into consideration, that is, what ‘writing’ actually means As Brown (2001) asserts, “Writing is indeed a thinking process” (p 336), that is, writers produce a final written product after a process of doing CT Therefore, active learning is of utmost importance in stimulating the language learners to think critically (Burbach, Matkin, & Fritz, 2004; Tedesco-Schneck, 2013; Walker, 2003) However, the Ministry of Education and Training (MoET) of Vietnam (2009) admitted that in the setting

of Vietnamese higher education, lecture-based teaching, a kind of traditional teaching method, continues to be the most prevalent instructional approach It is

a fact that Vietnamese students, specifically students at higher education institutions, are being hindered from developing the ability to make judgments

about different aspects of a particular issue as a consequence of passive learning (Director, Doughty, Gray, Hopcroft, & Silvera, 2006)

In addition, sociocultural theories indicate that the person and the world need to be connected, so students’ learning is not something that goes within themselves only but also in the world he or she communicates with (Lantolf, 2000a) In other words, students do not learn in isolation, but through interacting with others around them Therefore, numerous studies have attempted to demonstrate that collaborative learning (CL) in writing classes is one of the best ways to create this “process” environment (Mohamed, Nair, Kaur, & Fletcher, 2008; Ismail & Maasum, 2009; Nudee, Chatupote, & Teo, 2010; Ahmadi, Motallebzade, Fatemi, 2014) Facing with the new situation, Harman and Nguyen (as cited in Dat, 2014, p 35) reported that in recent years, Vietnamese lecturers in universities and colleges “have been urged to move from passive to interactive teaching modes and systems of problem-based learning, that encourage the active participation of students and deeper levels of learning.” However, in a study which set out to determine perceptions of Vietnamese teachers and students towards CL, Thanh (2011) reported that almost Vietnamese teachers and students did not agree with collaborative learning’s being more effective than the traditional teaching and learning approach (i.e the students are passive listeners absorbing information from teaching materials and teachers) He also explained that this failure of using CL might result from students’ passive engagement As defined by Coates (as cited in Trowler, 2001), one of the manifestations of engagement is active and collaborative learning To put it another way, student engagement plays a crucial role in the success of collaborative learning

In parallel with the emphasis on the importance of collaborative learning

in the class, a question of equal or greater significance centers around the effect

of the composition of the group, that is, grouping “who with whom” There are two major grouping methods, including heterogeneous (i.e of the mixed types) and homogeneous (i.e of the same type) grouping There is a wide range of different categories which the class can be based on to determine the structure of groups such as students’ language proficiency, personalities, interests, familiarity, and others In heterogeneous groups, students in one group may differ on the basis of race, gender, learning ability, previous academic performance, or other relevant characteristics (Slavin, 2010) In homogeneous groups, students on one group have similar learning abilities, previous academic performance, or other cognitive characteristics In this study, the students’ level

of critical thinking is taken into consideration for grouping with the aim of investigating whether heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping helps to promote students’ CT while working collaboratively However, previous researchers have expressed different views about the effects of heterogeneous and homogeneous ability-grouping on student learning Some researchers believe heterogeneous grouping benefits student learning more than homogeneous grouping (Larson et al, 1984; Arends & Kilcher, 2010; Miller, Witherow, and Carson, 2012) Whereas, other researchers have supported homogeneous grouping For example, Baer (2003) has shown that students in homogeneous groups perform better than those in heterogeneous groups Homogeneous grouping can positively influence high and average ability students while it does not affect low ability students Therefore, there is a need for the researcher to carry out this study to compare the effect of grouping on the

basis of the students’ initial CT level, i.e., heterogeneity and homogeneity on promoting CT in the context of Vietnam Moreover, in order to maximize Vietnamese students’ opportunities when working with a group, it is also necessary to examine how much the students are satisfied with collaborative learning and their attitudes towards other members in their group

1.2 Purpose of the study

This study is conducted in order to examine the effect of heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping on promoting critical thinking in collaborative writing Due to the fact that the question of whether heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping is more advantageous to students’ learning is still debatable, especially in Asian (Vietnamese) cultures, the present study aims at investigating how grouping types influences the students of various CT level in their ability to think critically and their interactions in the collaborative

environment Generally, the study will answer the following questions:

1/ Are there any statistically significant changes in the CT level of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups of the participants through collaborative writing?

2/ Are there any statistically significant changes in the CT level of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups among low-level students?

3/ Are there any statistically significant changes in the CT level of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups among high-level students?

4/ How do the participants of various CT level interact with each other in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups?

1.3 Significance of the study

This study is aimed to discover how much high-level and low-level students promote their critical thinking level through collaborative writing when grouped homogeneously and heterogeneously The result of the study is expected to be useful for the teachers who have been struggling to find the better way to employ collaborative learning in their class and the students who have found it useless to be required to work in groups

Although collaborative learning is supported as an effective teaching method, especially in fostering CT, many teachers still have reservations about applying it to their teaching and students are reluctant to engage in working as a pair or group For that reason, it is hoped that the findings of the present study will give the educators deeper insights into group compositions in collaborative learning and how to use grouping to maximize the effectiveness of this type of learning in promoting CT in argumentative writing

1.4 Scope of the study/ Delimitations

This section aimed at listing some delimitations of the present study First, the research was only carried out at Foreign Language Department - Quy Nhon University The particular site was chosen because the researcher could easily obtain the consent of the department where she had studied for four years as an undergraduate Moreover, due to the complexity of the present study (i.e., employing a mixed methods and various data gathering method), the researcher needed much support and cooperation from the teachers and the students

Second, the research data were restricted to the second semester of 2017-2018 school year

Third, the research data focused on critical thinking scores of students at tertiary level, particularly third-year students

Fourth, the research data were analyzed and categorized into two types: high-level scores and low-level scores In this study, average-level scores were not of the focus

1.5 Outline of the thesis

The general purpose of this thesis was to compare the influence of homogeneous grouping compared with that of heterogeneous grouping on the improvement of critical thinking through collaborative learning among EFL students An outline of the structure of this these is described below

Chapter 1 described the background to the research problem, and explained the aim and overview of the research conducted It also presented the scope of the study which provided a list of restrictions which were placed on collecting the research data

Chapter 2 offered a synthesis and analysis of existing research literature related to critical thinking, collaborative learning, collaborative writing and how group composition has influenced on the improvement of critical thinking level

in collaborative writing

Chapter 3 presented the methodology and associated research tools used

to conduct the research These consisted of the research design on which the study was based; the description of the research setting, the writing course and the participants of the study; the research instruments employed in the study as well as the procedure of grouping, collecting and analyzing the data

Chapter 4 focused on presenting findings of the study in which the data was synthesized and analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively

Chapter 5 provided the conclusion of the research, highlights its contributions to the field as well as puts emphasis on the limitations of the current study Based on those, the researcher made some recommendations for further study

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviewed the relevant literature, which provided evidence to substantiate the theoretical framework of the study The main purpose of this research was to examine the effect of heterogeneous grouping and homogeneous grouping in promoting CT in collaborative writing Therefore, an in-depth and comprehensive look at various concepts relevant to the present study will be provided, consisting of: (1) critical thinking and its relationship with argumentative writing, (2) the nature of collaborative writing and how collaborative writing helps to promote CT, and (3) the composition of groups (i.e heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping) In addition, the previous studies related to grouping in collaborative learning will also be presented in order to find out what is not known about the topic Specifically, the lack of studies done on groupings at tertiary level are reviewed which further proves the problem and solidifies the need for this research

2.1 CRITICAL THINKING

2.1.1 Definition of critical thinking

As discussed in the previous chapter, the ability to think critically has been identified as one of the learning outcomes of university education, particularly in writing skill Definitions of the concept of critical thinking are broad and considered in different perspectives, including philosophical, psychological and educational perspective According to Lewis & Smith, philosophy and psychology are two primary academic disciplines in which the literature on CT has been developed (as cited in Lai, 2011) Besides, within the field of education and language teaching, a great deal of attention and effort has

critical thinking; therefore, the study will first investigate various conceptions before reaching the conclusion of the nature of CT, that is, what it encompasses and how it is manifest

John Dewey’s thought-provoking discussion of “reflective thought” which he defined as “the kind of thinking that consists of turning a subject over

in the mind and giving it serious consecutive consideration.” (as cited in Stapleton, 2001, p 511) In other words, Dewey’s definition emphasizes an individual’s asking himself/herself questions about what to believe through evaluating reasoning and considering the implications of his/her own beliefs Following Dewey’s definition, Paul & Elder (2008) defined critical thinking as

“the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view of improving it” (p 2)

In line with Paul and Elder’s opinion, Freely & Steinberg (2007) decribed critical thinking as “the ability to analyze, criticize, and advocate ideas; to reason inductively and deductively; and to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from ambiguous statements of knowledge or belief” (p 2)

Earliest definitions of critical thinking put more emphasis on the cognitive factors of critical thinking, i.e., critical thinking is viewed as a skill or a set of skills, a mental procedure or merely correct assessing of statements (Ennis, 1962; McPeck, 1981) Throughout the history of research, critical thinking theorists began to focus on the intention of and initiative in seeking better judgment, which is termed critical thinking disposition (Facion, 1990; Halpern, 2003; Sears & Parsons, 1991; Siegel, 1988) Both dimensions of critical thinking embed a fairness of mind, sense of objectivity and viewing two or more sides of

a case as essential elements (Perkins & Tishman, 2001), by which critical thinking is operationally defined in this research

2.1.2 Types of critical thinking skill

In 1956, Benjamin Bloom and his associates built a cognitive taxonomy, describing the skills to think critically in a hierarchical system There are six levels: (1) Knowledge (recall), (2) Comprehension (the ability to prove understanding through explanation and rephrasing), (3) Application (the ability

to apply the information), (4) Analysis (division of information into smaller parts to achieve greater understanding), (5) Synthesis (designing a plan and set

of operations, and combining parts to form a whole), and (6) Evaluation (making judgments and forming opinions) The three highest levels (i.e., analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) are regarded as the outcomes associated with CT (Duron, Limbach, & Waugh, 2005)

In addition, Ruggiero (2004) proposed three kinds of thinking, including investigation, interpretation and judgement For the further explanation, investigation is the activity to find the evidence such as data or fact in order to solve the issue, interpretation is the activity to understand the meaning of the evidence and judgment is the activity of drawing the conclusion about the matter issue

2.1.3 Critical thinking disposition

A statement presented by Scriven and Paul in 1987 said, “Critical thinking is the ability to apply higher-order cognitive skills (conceptualization, analysis, evaluation) and the disposition to be deliberate about thinking (being open-minded or intellectually honest) that lead to action that is logical and

appropriate.” In this sense, the disposition toward CT was the consistent internal motivation to engage in problem solving and decision making

In 1941, Edward Glaser, the co-author of one of the world’s most widely used tests of critical thinking (i.e., the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal), defines CT as “attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experiences; knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry an reasoning; and some skill in applying those methods” (as cited in Ricketts & Rudd, 2004) In comparison with Dewey’s definition which stresses the act of thinking, Glaser identifies three elements of CT: (1) having an attitude of being thoughtful when dealing with problems; (2) knowing the methods of questioning in a logical way; and (3) being able to apply those methods in solving problems

Facione (1990), one of the most significant developments in the literature on CT, used the Dephi method as an attempt to reach a consensus on

CT By consulting different opinions of an expert group consisting of the representatives of different scholarly disciplines (i.e., humanities, sciences, social sciences, and education) and gauging the degree of agreement or disagreement among them, it is reported that there exist areas for agreement among various definitions of the elements of CT that are appropriate to a student

in higher education The group came up with the following definition of CT:

… critical thinking [is] purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based (Facione, 1990, p 2)

In addition, Facione’s study identified 19 affective dispositions as being important for CT as follows:

The ideal critical thinking is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking information, reasonable in the selection

of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit (Facione, 1990, p 2)

According to Hager, Sleet, Logan and Hooper (2003), as early as 1985, researchers working in the area of CT recognized that the ability to think critically is distinct from the disposition to do so For example, Ennis (1985), Facione (2000) defines CT dispositions as “consistent internal motivations to act toward or respond to persons, events, or circumstances in habitual, yet potentially malleable ways” (p 64) In other words, these dispositions have been cast as attitudes or habits of mind As such, CT skills consist of abilities to think critically which require correlated dispositions in order to execute those skills

As a whole, despite many efforts invested in providing a precise definition of critical thinking, it has still been ‘an elusive concept’ that cannot be made clear (Moon, 2008, p 19) However, among many definitions of the concept of CT, there is an agreement that CT involves an interdependent array of abilities and dispositions, that is, CT has both cognitive and affective domains of reasoning

2.1.4 Characteristics of a critical thinker

Critical thinking as defined above is the ability to think critically, including analyzing and evaluating the issue In this section, characteristics of a critical thinker were taken into consideration According to Ferrett (1997), a critical thinker should:

1 Ask related questions of the issues;

2 Asses statements and arguments;

3 Be able to admit a lack of understanding or information;

4 Have a sense of curiosity;

5 Be interested in finding new solutions;

6 Be able to define clearly a set of criteria for analyzing ideas;

7 Be willing to examine beliefs, assumptions, and opinions and weigh them against fact;

8 Listen carefully to others and are able to give feedback;

9 Suspend judgment until all facts have been gathered and considered;

10 Look for evidence to support assumptions and beliefs;

11 Be able to adjust opinions when new facts are found;

12 Look for evidence;

13 Examine problems closely;

14 Be able to reject information that is incorrect or irrelevant;

15 Be aware of that critical thinking is a lifelong process of self-assessment

Paul & Elder (2008), one of the leading researchers on critical thinking, mentioned some characteristics of a critical thinker as cited below A person who think critically should:

1 Find out the crucial problems and clearly formulate them;

2 Collect and evaluate relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively;

3 Find well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, then test them against relevant criteria and standards;

4 Have open-minded thought by recognizing and assessing with their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and

5 Find out the solutions of the complex problems by effectively discussing it with others

From the characteristics mentioned by scholars of critical thinking, it can

be concluded that a good critical thinker must be aware of evaluating information, examining and analyzing the evidence as well as listening to different opinions from other people and giving feedback as much as possible

2.2 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING

2.2.1 The use of Toulmin model in education

The primary foundation of the theoretical framework related to argumentative essays is the Toulmin model of argumentation Basically, Toulmin perceived argument as a verbal exchange procedure between an arguer and a critical listener, and the audience has the right to challenge during the procedure (van Eemeren et al 1996) Similarly, in written discourses, the writer

needs to view an issue in both sides of an argument In 1958, Toulmin’s The uses

of argument presented a model of the six elements in producing a good argument

(Toulmin, 2003) The first three elements consisting of a claim, data, and

warrants, which are essential to any argument First, a person makes a claim (i.e

an assertion, standard, or thesis) Next, the data (i.e facts or evidence) are

provided to support the claim Finally, the warrants link the data to the claim and gives the data general support Besides, three additional elements are also involved in the Toulmin model, including qualifiers (i.e the degree of force which the data confer on the claim in virtue of the warrants), rebuttals (i.e

conditions of exception indicating circumstances in which the general authority

of the warrant would have to be set aside) and backing (i.e providing

reinforcement for the warrants) Liu (2014) reviewed the literature and holds that since the late 1970s, the Toulmin model has been embraced by the research on argumentative writing as a promising new approach for generating and evaluating arguments However, due to its complexity, Toulmin’s model has been applied in a more simplified way and its elements have been given different

names bearing the original meaning For instance, claim has been termed

‘proposition’, ‘opinion’, or ‘conclusion’; data has been named ‘reasons’,

‘evidence’, or ‘arguments’ The terms qualifier and backing have been used less often in empirical studies The term rebuttal, together with qualifier, has been elaborated into counterarguments and rebuttals (e.g., Knudson, 1992), to refer to

the whole process of counter-argumentation by acknowledging alternative or opposite views and refuting them

The significance of including counterarguments and rebuttals for making written argumentation persuasive has been underpinned by much research In the L1 context, counter-argumentation, an arguer’s recognition of opposing views and refuting them, has been deemed central to one’s CT abilities and dispositions (Palmer, 2012; Perkins & Tishman, 2001; Walton, 1989) Walton (1989) listed two goals of persuasive argumentation: to support one’s own position and to refute the opponent’s argument by identifying its

weaknesses Kuhn (1991) held the same view and stated that writers’ failure to envision exceptional conditions that falsify their own claim is the main obstacle

to effective argumentation and critical thinking Meanwhile, in the L2 context, studies on L2 students’ argumentative writing and critical thinking are fewer in number A study conducted by Qin and Karabacak (2010) found that when counterarguments and rebuttals were included, they enhanced the overall quality

of argumentative writing

Turning back the definitions of critical thinking, among a wide range of dispositions suggested by different authors, the present study, which focused on increasing students’ CT in argumentative writing, drew the attention to the significance of argumentative elements such as counterarguments and rebuttals Therefore, central process of CT is making a claim, providing evidence, reasoning and drawing the conclusion When students engage in critical thinking, they are working towards an anticipated form of outcome, that is, making an evaluative judgment In this sense, as critical thinkers, they are expected to think critically about self, engage in constructive response to the arguments of others, and develop the habit of engagement with the community (Moon, 2008) In a word, this study placed the emphasis on personal attributes as

an important factor in the process of CT

2.2.2 Argumentative writing as a vehicle for promoting critical thinking

In the previous section, the literature is reviewed pertaining to the application of the Toulmin model in the argumentative writing of students But how does the inclusion of key argumentative elements such as counterarguments

and rebuttals influence the quality of an argumentative essay? Since it is established that the primary purpose of an argumentative essay is to persuade (Ding et al., 1994; Palmer, 2012), the actual question is how the inclusion of key argumentative elements interrelate with the persuasiveness of an argumentative essay? This section was aimed at this issue

In the L1 contexts, many studies have been carried out, demonstrating that the inclusion of counterarguments strengthens the writer’s position and helps achieve completeness in good reasoning; hence, incorporating counterarguments and refuting counterarguments are crucial for maximizing the extent of persuasiveness in argumentative writing

Unlike integrating CT in L1 education, embedding CT in L2 education has not always been welcomed Atkinson (1997) maintained that adopting CT in L2 education is not feasible as it is a social practice rather than a pedagogical behavior However, there have still been a number of EFL/ESL researches pointing out the importance of integrating CT in EFL/ESL education

CT should not be applied alone, but rather should be fostered during a specific course of skills or subjects In ELT, CT is deemed indispensable in the four English skills (Irawati, 2014) CT skills have also recently gained attention

in empirical researches related to the importance of raising awareness of using

CT and its impact on EFL/ ESL learners’ academic performance in various areas

of language, such as lexical knowledge (e.g., Sharafi-Nejad, Raftari, Ismail, & Eng, 2016), grammatical knowledge (e.g., Zarei & Haghgoo, 2012), reading comprehension (e.g., Hosseini, Khodaei, Sarfallah, & Dolatabadi, 2012; Ramezani, R et al., 2016), listening comprehension (e.g., Esmaeel & Zahra, 2015), writing (e.g., Nikou, Bonyadi, & Amirika, 2015), and others With

respect to writing skill, Schafersmen (1991) explains that “writing forces students to organize their thoughts, contemplate their topic, evaluate their data in

a logical fashion, and present their conclusions in a persuasive manner” (p 7) In the same vein, Bean (2001) asserts that writing requires the writers to develop analytical or argumentative thinking and a piece of writing consists of a statement supported by a logical, hierarchical structure (as cited in Mat Daut, 2011) Hashemi et al (2014) looked into the literature pertaining to the important role of CT in argumentative writing and noted that ESL/ EFL learners should be equipped with an intellectual capacity for thinking in a critical manner

in order to write argumentatively

One of the expectations of students in essay writing is to demonstrate the ability to develop an argument (Wingate, 2012) It is demonstrated by a survey conducted by Nesi and Gardner (2006) which found that a commonly recognized value of the essay is its ‘ability to display critical thinking and development of an argument within the context of the curriculum’ (as cited in Ibrahim et al., 2015,

p 56)

2.2.3 Assessing critical thinking in argumentative writing

Following the changes in the definition of CT, its assessment has also undergoned a marked change The early tests utilizing single multiple-choice response format focused on learners’ recognition or level of knowledge, and mainly tapped the cognitive components of CT However, they were not completely ablt to reveal the respondents’ disposition; neither could they reflect their inclination to engage in CT (Ennis, 2003; Halpern, 2003) In the same vein, Halpern (2003) criticized the incomprehensiveness of multiple-choice tests arguing that such tests tend to measure CT quantitatively The underlying

reason, according to Halpern (2003) , was that the test-takers do not have the freedome to suggest their own evaluative criteria and cannot generate their personal solutions to the problem Similarly, the multiple-choice tests are considered unable to reveal test-takers’ CT ability in unprompted contexts Other researchers began to assess critical thinking through the assessment

of written texts produced by the participants According to Lantolf (2006), writing is a way of vocalising or revealing cognitive activities of whether or not learners have used CT in real practice and of how they have used it The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (Ennis & Weir, 1985) was designed for use with high school and college students One limitation of the Ennis-Weir test

is that it may not be able to reveal the actual critical thinking ability of EFL and ESL learners, especially those from Asian countries, since it was designed for native English speakers (Dunham, 1997) The topics included may not be familiar to many EFL and ESL learners

Stapleton (2001) then proposed a model that may be used to identify key elements of CT in argumentative writing in which the topic can be selected and designed by the researchers He hightlighted the strong correlations between thinking and writing A thinking mind should be reflected in writing Stapleton (2001) proposed six crtical thinking elements in a written text (1) Arguments: claims which are supported by a reason In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a “claim” or “thesis statement”; (2) Reasons: statements which are used to support claims and generally answer why the claim should be believed; (3) Evidence: statements or assertions serving to strengthen the argument; (4) Recognition of Opposition and Refutation: Opposing viewpoints that run counter or offer alternative interpretations to those expressed

in the claim; (5) Conclusion: a statement or series of statement in which a writer sets out what she wants the reader to believe; (6) Fallacies: errors in reasoning

2.3 COLLABORATIVE WRITING

2.3.1 Defining collaborative learning

2.3.1.1 Collaborative learning versus cooperative learning

Before examining what the concept of collaborative learning is defined throughout the professional literature, attempts made to distinguish the two

terms collaborative and cooperative clearly are crucial in order to avoid the

ambiguity of the purpose of the present study

Some researchers, such as Johnson and Johnson (2001) and Hiltz (1998), appear to see little benefit in trying to tease out differences in meaning between the two words (as cited in Roberts, 2004) According to them, the terms

collaborative and cooperative can be used interchangeably to refer to work that

groups undertake together in contrast to the work done separately Whereas,

others deem it necessary to make a distinction between collaborative learning and cooperative learning In his work in which theories supporting the distinctions were provided, Panitz (1999) presents a basic definition of the terms,

as follows:

• “Cooperation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the accomplishment of a specific end product or goal through people working together in groups

• Collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle where individuals are responsible their actions, including learning and respect the abilities and contributions of their peers” (p 3)

In alignment with Panitz’s distinctive definitions, in his work published

in 2004, Roberts defines the two terms in a similar but simpler way According

to him, cooperative learning is “working together as one to achieve a common

goal, while tending to de-emphasize the input of particular individuals” (p 205)

Whereas, collaborative learning implies “working in a group of two or more to

achieve a common goal, while respecting each individual’s contribution to the

whole” (p 205) Generally speaking, cooperative learning does not require

students a lot of effort; it is just ‘a structure’ that connects people together to do the work under the teacher’s instructions

On the contrary, collaborative learning implicitly includes each

member’s responsibilities and contributions to the joint production According

to Panitz (1999), collaborative learning is more student-centered; the teacher serves as facilitators in the class to provide help if needed In other words, collaborative learning requires more engagement and interdependence among members According to Bruffee (as cited in Panitz, 1999, p 5) who see two approaches as “somewhat linear with collaborative learning being designed to pick up where cooperative learning leaves.” It means that students should be more involved in active learning and take more responsibilities through collaborative activities

So far, the concept of collaborative learning has been differentiated clearly From theoretical perspectives, collaborative learning is broadly defined

as “a situation in which two or more people learn and attempt to learn something together” (Dillenbourg, 1999, p 1) Roschelle and Teasley added, emphasizing

‘mutual engagement of participants’ when joining their own efforts to solve one single problem together (as cited in Werkman, van den Berg, van Paassen, &

Harms, 2011) In short, the term collaborative learning used in this study refers

to an instructional approach in which students at various performance level work together in groups to achieve a common goal In the collaborative environment, the emphasis is on a sharing of authority and acceptance of responsibility among group members

2.3.1.2 Theories underpinning collaborative learning in fostering critical thinking

This section aims to provide a comprehensive view into theoretical perspectives throughout the history that develops the concept of collaborative learning and support using this approach in L2 classes to promote cognitive skills (i.e., critical thinking)

With respect to defining what collaborative learning means, it is noted that to reach a consensus of the definition of collaborative learning is not an easy task (Dillenbourg, 1999) Therefore, a review of relevant learning theories on which the concept of collaborative learning is built and of how students develop

as critical thinkers will be presented In particular, details of how these theories are related and how they are bound up with collaborative learning will be explained in turn

There are three theoretical frameworks that ground collaborative learning as a valid teaching strategy: the cognitive stage theory, the social-cultural theory, and the social cognitive theory

In cognitive stage theory, Piaget's work in the field of psychology is one

of the most noted, because its implications are realized in numerous other areas, including education Piaget's work identified four different stages in which children move through to gain knowledge: sensorimotor - aged birth to two years

old, preoperational - aged two to seven, concrete operational - aged seven to eleven, and formal operational - eleven to adulthood (as cited in Ojose, 2008) Within each of the different stages, children accomplish various learning goals

as they develop their lifelong skills For example, in the sensorimotor stage, children recognize an object still exists even after it cannot be seen; in the second stage - preoperational, students develop language, and it is in this stage that is often characterized as students thinking egocentrically, or only about themselves (Ojose, 2008) Ojose (2008) continued, in the concrete operational stage, students can solve problems logically, understand reversibility, and in the last stage - formal operational, children can think abstractly using higher order thinking skills such as application, evaluation, and inference

Piaget (as cited in Miller, 2002, p.33) stated that knowledge came from construction, and that "as people construct knowledge, they have an active part

in the process of knowing and even contribute to the form that knowledge takes."

In other words, people of all ages learn by doing instead of quietly taking in information that is simply presented to them

Long before the development of the process approach to writing at the beginning of the 1970s, the work of Lev Vygotsky (1934) proposed the very first theories and has become the foundation of much research and theory in cognitive development over the past several decades According to Dillenbourg (1999), the concept of CL is largely rooted in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, which views learning as inherently an active process that does not have to wait for readiness This contradicts Piaget’s view of the role of learning and cognitive development Piaget (as cited in Woolfolk, 2005, p 48) assumes that “learning is subordinated to development and not vice versa.” In other words, cognitive

development has to come before learning – the learners have to be ready in terms

of a particular level of thinking before learning a corresponding level of knowledge

In addition, the underlying premise of sociocultural theory is that all learning is fundamentally a social process, the result of interaction among humans That is to say, social interaction is a key in learning (Woolfork, 2005) The interaction, as referred by Vygotsky, is one between an adult (expert) and a child (novice) In such interactions, the expert, by providing the novice with the appropriate level of assistance, stretches the latter beyond their current level towards their potential level of development Such assistance is now commonly

referred to in the literature as scaffolding However, a body of research carried

out has demonstrated that scaffolding can also occur among peers when they work together in pairs or in groups (e.g., Donato, 1994; Storch, 2002) Thus, the learner is not alone in the world ‘discovering’ the cognitive operations, but rather this discovery is assisted or mediated by teachers and peers

In contrast, Piaget maintains that cognitive development stems largely from independent explorations in which the learners construct knowledge of their own Although Piaget also emphasized the importance of social interaction

which he called social transmission, he saw a different role for interaction He believed that interacting with others helps create disequilibrium which is an

‘out-of-balance’ state that occurs when a person realizes that his or her current ways of thinking are not working to solve a problem This motivates the learners

to keep searching for a solution themselves, and thus their thinking changes and moves ahead

It is apparent that both Piaget and Vygotsky laid the foundations for the development of collaboration in learning Accordingly, from a social constructivist perspective, the fact that learners should be encouraged to participate in activities which foster interaction and co-construction of knowledge is part of teaching and learning As cited in Duffy (2011), Bruffee (1995) spelled out the underlying theory in a more logical fashion, assuming that

“To the extent that thought is internalized conversation, then, any effort to understand how we think requires us to understand the nature of the conversation; and any effort to understand conversation requires us to understand the nature of community life that generates and maintains conversation” (p 96).Thus, an inherent power exists in conversations our students generate To use the power of conversation, then, we have to encourage classroom community that allows this conversation to start, flourish, and persist

2.3.2 Collaborative writing: The definition and its distinguishing features

Collaborative learning, as previously mentioned, is widely used in all aspects of language teaching and learning In writing classes, this approach is used under the term ‘collaborative writing’ The definition of collaboration, clarified in the previous section, denotes the sharing of labour (co-labour), emphasizing the contributions of individuals to produce a joint product Thus, collaborative writing, in its broadest sense, means the co-authoring of a text by two or more writers (Storch, 2011; 2013)

However, Storch (2013) argues that under such a broad definition, peer planning and peer editing would also qualify as collaborative writing Ede and Lunsford (as cited in Storch, 2013) offered an alternative view and identify three

distinguishing features of collaborative writing: (1) substantive interaction in all stages of the writing process; (2) shared decision-making power over and responsibility for the text produced; and (3) the production of a single written document From this perspective, collaborative writing is a process where participants work together and interact throughout the writing process which consists of the planning, generating of ideas, deliberations about the text structure, editing and revision The process is not merely an exchange of ideas but negotiations to create the shared understanding among different individuals

In addition, the product of collaborative writing process is the jointly produced and shared text, a text that cannot easily be reduced to the separate input of individuals (Stahl, 2006)

In this sense, in collaborative writing, roles and contributions to creating a text are divided among the members in one group Instead, there is a shared and negotiated decision making process and a shared responsibility for the production of a single text

On the basis of Ede and Lunsford’s (1990) definition, peer planning or peer editing do not qualify as collaborative writing (Storch, 2013) However, a research report by Elola and Oskoz (2010) pointed out that most studies conducted during the past decades only discuss student collaboration in writing with the focus on peer response (also called peer feedback, peer review, or peer editing) The form of CW as an act of writing in which two or more individuals consciously work together to produce a common text has not yet been fully explored As a consequence, this study will be carried out to fill this gap of the literature regarding the effects of collaborative writing on promoting CT skills

2.3.3 The patterns of interaction in collaborative writing

According to Storch (2013), equality and mutuality are two factors that

establish the patterns of dyadic interaction The differences among four types of

interaction can be seen based on the level of equality and mutuality (Figure 1)

Equality, the horizontal continuum, reflects the learners’ level of contribution

and control over the task Mutuality, the vertical continuum, reflects the learners’

level of engagement with each other’s contribution

Figure 1 A model of dyadic interaction (Storch, 2013)

Accordingly, there are four patterns of interaction in collaborative: (Storch, 2013)

(1) collaborative relationship, in which both members contribute to all

aspects of the task and engage with each other’s suggestions

(2) dominant/dominant or cooperative relationship, in which both

members of the pair contribute to the task, but they do not engage or are unwilling to engage with each other’s contributions In cooperative relationship,

there exist a high level of conflicts that cannot be dealt with, because both of the members are not unwilling to consider each other’s suggestion

(3) dominant/passive relationship, in which one member of the pair takes

or is afforded control of the task; the other member contributes very little to the task It is worth noting that the passive participant’s contributions to the task are not only minimal in quantity but also in quality

(4) expert/novice relationship, in which there is an unequal level of

contributions and control over the task In this pattern, the dominant participant acts as an expert or tutor and actively encourages the other participant (the novice) to contribute to the task

Therefore, it can be concluded that simply assigning students to work in pairs/groups does not guarantee the equality and mutuality in their contributions and responsibilities within the pairs or groups A number of individual learner factors have been proposed to explain why learners form different relationships when working in small groups or pairs, including two broadest criteria that will considered in the current study:

• the level of personal identity and social identity that each individual

brings into the pair/group work According to Wang (2013), individuals in a group want to be part of that group due to social identity, so they try to find commons between other members and themselves; meanwhile, they also want to

be themselves due to personal identity, so they try to be different from other members The contradiction between personal identity and social identity is the source of conflicts in collaboration

• the level of beliefs that can affect the attitudes, behaviors, and actions

in CL (Storch, 2013) In other words, the learners’ attitudes to pair/group work