Critiquing Journal Articles in Writing Classrooms and Its Effect on English Major Students’ Argumentative Writing Development

Abstract

Despite all the attempts to convince teachers and school authorities to support critical thinking (CT) skills in school settings, the application of CT skills has not reached a satisfactory point. Using a quasi-experimental design, the present study attempted to examine the effect of critiquing journal articles on English major students’ argumentative writing abilities. To develop CT skills among language learners and improve their argumentative writing abilities, the strategy of critiquing journal articles was applied to a semester of foreign language writing classroom instruction of the experimental group for the results to be compared later with the performance in a control group. This comparison was made through the analysis of covariance, which revealed that the experimental group performed significantly better than the control group in writing argumentatively. This, in turn, demonstrated that critiquing journal articles as a pedagogical strategy in classrooms could significantly affect English as a foreign language learners’ argumentative writing performance.

Keywords

argumentative writing critical thinking critiquing journal articles EFL

Introduction

Critical thinking (CT) is increasingly being noticed by educators, business people, or students of other areas of study required to reflect on the matters at hand from various perspectives. The proliferation of the terminology demonstrates the constant engagement of various research areas and CT at large. In fact, in lay terms, CT is defined as the ability to soundly judge a condition, weigh the positive and negative aspects, set out deductive and inductive reasoning, and eventually decide whether the specific subject meets the criteria (Facione, 1990; Lai, 2011; Paul & Elder, 2019). Cottrell (2017) reiterates the same definition for CT, saying that the skills are mental functions that could be well measured in oral or written representations such as speaking or writing. Following the view, it is argued that educational policymakers should devote the lion's share of educational curriculums to the development of critical and analytical skills in students, enabling them to properly handle responsibilities and deal with emerging challenges effectively in the future (Moore, 2013).

Similarly, Chu et al. (2021) adhered to the view that education aims to train students to think critically across various contexts, not merely to transfer theoretical knowledge. According to the researchers, education should be aligned with developing 21st-century skills in students, enhancing cognitive abilities that help students stand out in their age groups. Critical and analytical thinking, problem-solving, communicative collaboration, and creativity are titled as requisite skills of the 21st century (Abdurrahman et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019; Yennita & Zukmadini, 2021).

A plethora of definitions have been queued in the case of CT skills; various explanations could be proposed based on the views and academic backgrounds of experts in different academic fields. Some have put forward definitions based on philosophical standpoints, some in psychology and, luckily, some in education (Lai, 2011). Conducting research on the concept of CT and reviewing recent papers is significantly important as teachers, educators, and researchers are able to apply the updated line of thinking to a new educational setting, such as education of younger children. The researchers reported that the results of years of international research on CT have had desirable outcomes as in their investigation; they have realized that young children also demonstrate a good degree of understanding of CT skills. The authors pinpointed that children welcome teaching methods such as dialogue stories aiming to challenge their understandings and invite them to share their ideas with their peers. Likewise, question-based conversations and the use of “thinking language” have also been noted (O'Reilly et al., 2022).

Different Forms of Critical Thinking

Socrates, as the first philosopher to initiate his methods of questioning into the world together with other philosophers and educators, has highlighted the significance of CT for human beings. However, there are no common grounds among the critics and theoreticians concerning the question of how CT should be cultivated in individuals or even how it is defined. Noddings (1998) believes three different approaches could be taken toward teaching CT: formal logic, informal logic, and McPeck’s (1981) view; likewise, she offers a fourth insight into the matter.

Formal logic forms the principal foundations of CT in teaching math and logic, where truth tables are given truth values of a statement or proposition, representing all possible combinations of statements forming a truth. Reflecting on the history of education, it can be understood that arguments have been made in support of the formal teaching of logic. For example, in his transformational generative grammar, Chomsky (1957) considers eloquent speakers and compares their performance and competence, saying there are discrepancies between the two mentioned aspects. Chomsky argues that often it is viable to see that the performance of ideal speakers is inferior to their competencies. In Chomsky's argument, logic is described as a set of rules based on which a competent mind works. However, there have been oppositions regarding the belief that teaching students in formal frameworks could necessarily lead to developing CT skills. In the same vein of discussion, it appears to be challenging to encourage the application of competence theories across specific curricula.

In informal logic, on the other hand, the main focus is located on skills rather than content, and acquiring these skills does not depend on having a specific form of knowledge. Skills such as inferring, classifying, generalizing, measuring, conceiving and stating assumptions, offering lines of thinking, evaluating, and pinpointing irregularities are among the ones that could be taught to students regardless of the subject area they are dealing with. Kuhn (1999) argued that teachers encourage their students to acquire these skills; nevertheless, teachers also should set the ground for their acquisition and teach them to use theoretical and practical knowledge in new contexts. Similarly, Paul and Elder (2019) believed that the offered courses should help students reflect on the subject from various viewpoints; CT empowers students and enables them to sharpen their focus on the subject matter. If students are properly exposed to CT lessons, it can be expected that graduate students enter communities with a good understanding of CT skills.

However, in order to put this approach into practice at large, a motivating academic environment and detail-oriented teachers with a good understanding of CT skills are required. Nonetheless, such an educational infrastructure begs the central question of which CT skills should be chosen and taught in classrooms, respectively. Given that multiple definitions have been offered in the case of CT skills, different taxonomies exist, obeying certain ideologies (see Dick, 1991; Facione, 1990; Halpern, 1997 for taxonomies of CT skills). Therefore, educational policymakers are expected to follow the recent trends in the area of CT, select the most appropriate ones and nurture adaptability in a new generation of students based on CT skills.

McPeck (1981), in contrast to informal logic, advocates the idea that CT pertains to certain areas of the subject. He believes that aside from expressing a healthy dose of skepticism toward arguments in a specific field, familiarizing students with the technical language of every field should be a priority for teachers. Under such circumstances, students can understand and add their voices to the arguments well. Alternatively, Ennis (1993) believes that CT is described as a reasonable reflective thinking method, helping individuals make wise decisions, take better actions, and cling to their beliefs. Gelder (2005) believes that teachers’ attempts to polish CT skills in pupils could be successful when the teacher teaches students the basic foundations of CT skills. In other words, the underlying theory of CT, the specific skills, and the related terminologies should be highlighted for students.

During this period, the wind started to change, and those who maneuvered on the term “argumentation” in their discussions also joined the flow of other theoreticians supporting informal logic. The final goal was empowering individuals with a better understanding of empirical approaches to efficiently judge and evaluate arguments (Walton, 2009; Lewinski & Mohammed, 2016). Reasoning was defined as a combined use of logic and CT, leading to better decision-making processes and the advancement of knowledge. As reasoning has an argumentative role, conceivably, it is considerably involved in advancing, illustrating, or evaluating arguments intended to accept or challenge other assumptions. Skilled arguers are fully acquainted with the argumentative settings and try to employ the right argumentative methods to support their views in the discussions.

Chaffee (1992) correctly points out that CT skills have deep roots in enabling individuals to embrace contrasting views and be open to contradictory ideas. Given that humans are considered social beings, constantly forming relationships with other individuals in the community, they are directly involved in forming values and constructing their identities. Upon encountering differing views, critical thinkers use their skills to realize whether they can use the existing information to accept or dismiss an argument. Exercising critical skills in students could largely be fulfilled by teachers through initiating other ambivalent and critical attitudes in the classrooms. The ultimate goal is to prepare students to view arguments from other perspectives and ethical standpoints.

Argumentative Writing and Critical Thinking

Argumentative writing is a highly admired cognitive skill, especially helping students and job applicants critically consider various elements in the workplace and appear successful in fulfilling their responsibilities (Ferretti & De La Paz, 2011). Improving argumentative writing skills in students is viewed as an asset and can work to the students’ advantage; nonetheless, not all students show the necessary argumentative skills in their classes. These students usually find it difficult to interlink the materials presented in the classrooms and they are unable to build connections between the instructional materials and their argumentative thinking regarding the subject (LO & Hew, 2020; Lodhiya & Brahmbhatt, 2019; Zhang et al., 2020).

In argumentative writing pieces, the author is expected to provide reasonable positive or negative reasoning in favor or counter to the main idea presented in the text. Students with stronger CT abilities can also reflect on the argument from multiple dimensions and draw reasonable comparisons and contrasts to agree with or reject it. Nevertheless, only 25% of students may demonstrate the necessary skills, which are the result of a marriage of CT and argumentative writing skills (Ferretti & Fan, 2016). Scholars argue that there is a close relationship between CT and argumentative writing as this type of writing is a problem-solving process that aims to employ all cognitive skills, acquired knowledge, and resources of the writer to successfully propose an explanation in favor or in opposition of the idea presented (Graham, 2018; Graham & Harris, 1997; MacArthur & Graham, 2016). Experienced writers on such occasions can immediately set decisive goals, devise a plan, and write and revise their pieces. Failing to fulfill the mentioned steps would negatively affect the writer's essay and performance (Ferretti & Fan, 2016). Teaching CT empowers students to plan their steps and overcome constraints.

Argumentative Writing, Critical Thinking, and Language Learners

Developing CT skills in educational systems of various forms, whether online learning information or traditional form, is highly recommended (Markle et al., 2013). Views of the relevance of CT to the improvement of different competencies in second language learners have been noticed by many scholars, adhering to the belief that teachers can play a substantial role in designing a CT curriculum. As researchers recommend, one of the most promising ways to inspire learning CT skills in students would be through the direct involvement of CT skills in the educational framework (Abrami et al., 2008; Gao et al., 2017; Li, 2011; Ramsay, 2009). Infusing CT skills in educational settings could be rewarding as the students tend to improve their social reciprocity, be sensible, and mirror their analytical thinking in their arguments (Zivkovil, 2016).

Scholars have drawn clear lines between the two terms of argumentation and CT, attesting that both lexemes originate from the same family group. However, argumentation is implemented beforehand to measure CT capabilities in students’ essays (Stupple et al., 2017). As indicated, argumentation and CT are very much relevant to one another, requiring one another to be present in the equation. Murtadho (2021) reported on using CT in writing classes, saying that the increasing CT skills have led to the development of better and more concise argumentative writing. The author believes that as writing is one of the pivotal skills for academicians in the educational context, students should be provided with a better engaging educational environment to actively apply their skills and hone them on a regular basis. Other investigations also support the significance of integrating CT into education, demonstrating that CT encompasses useful skills that can be predominantly used across various conditions. Argument analysis tends to be consistently at the center of attention, especially among academicians, as writing is accounted as one of the most important skills.

A few studies have investigated the relationship between CT skills and argumentative writing quality, especially in academicians, as they need to propose consistent research statements, body of text, and research questions and convince the readers if necessary. Mu (2016) tried to assess the degree of CT skill application in university participants’ essays and concluded that normally, none of the subjects had obeyed the expected criteria and met the needs. The study denoted the need for nurturing CT skills in students before urging them to pass the development trajectory of academic writing. In accordance with the findings of the research, Pei et al. (2017) came to the same results with undergraduate students who seemed to have demonstrated weak CT skills. The researchers mentioned that the weakness in organizing a good argumentation could be due to multiple reasons, such as lack of comprehensive familiarity with text analysis, following clarity of the subject throughout the text, sensibility of the provided argument, and relevance. Based on the findings, learners who have managed to abide by the criteria of a good text had excelled other participants and developed a coherent argumentative essay.

Similarly, Fahim and Mizraii (2014) tested an assumption to check whether the CT instruction was actually sufficient for the emergence of good-quality argumentative writing. The researchers concluded that presenting CT skills does not guarantee the development of a high-quality argument, as the students must have the required intellectual abilities to think on the matter and develop new analytical perspectives. On the other hand, Nejmaoui (2019) evaluated students’ argumentative writing by training them to use CT skills actively in their written discourses. The results showed the significance of exposing students to CT lessons as they can form stronger opinions, maneuvering on the idea in depth.

Teaching Critical Thinking

Communities are the results of exchanging views between different classes holding ideas that may seem irrational to other people. Those who have not been trained effectively to weigh ideas properly will accept any line of thinking and follow any ideology before pondering it. Education has deep roots in defining the standard of social living in communities; thus, separating them would not be viable as the two realms have significant overlaps. The consequences of improper teaching of CT skills will be far-reaching, especially in adult learners who are expected to get involved in intellectual activities.

Different studies have shown that teaching CT could be done effectively in the formal teaching framework. A study held by Williams and Worth (2001) demonstrated the results of a comparison made between CT skills used in different academic courses. The courses were not necessarily designed to teach CT skills but to test the effectiveness of the skills. The authors concluded that it would be pretty useful if some of the courses were devoted to practicing CT in students instead of including skills generally to improve them. In the same vein of research, Kuek (2010) explicitly highlighted the importance of teaching CT skills. The researcher observed the impressive progress of students in applying CT to their argumentative writing and pinpointed explicit teaching of CT skills for such a marked improvement. Bensley et al. (2010) also reported the same results and claimed that explicit teaching is highly effective in mastering CT skills in students.

Atkinson (1997), however, goes against the general belief regarding teaching CT skills and emphasizes that CT skills are highly interconnected with the cultural context of the classrooms. Based on this idea, CT skills could prove meaningful and practical to certain cultural groups. From his perspective, the cultivation of CT could lead to the emergence of individualism, self-expression, and the use of language for learning. Atkinson also warned educators and instructors of the difficulty of transferring the knowledge of using CT skills to students as these skills could easily slip out of memories and not fully complete the consolidation procedure.

Hence, cognitive apprenticeship is proposed as an alternative strategy to hone CT skills. Cognitive apprenticeship embraces three major subcategories of modeling, coaching, and fading influence in teaching CT skills. Nonetheless, the cognitive apprenticeship model necessitates the application of methods in a controlled learning environment. For instance, Ramanathan and Kaplan (1996) reported success after harnessing cognitive apprenticeship strategies in discipline-specific writing courses, reflecting real-world contexts and the interrelation of business and academia (Williams & Colomb, 1993).

However, when it comes to putting the model into practice, course and curriculum requirements pose significant challenges that can put constraints on teachers’ autonomy. Nonetheless, some scholars have joined the flow of advocates of teaching CT skills (Gieve, 1998; Pithers & Soden, 2000; Raimes & Zamel, 1997). Benesch (1993) believes that “Not only can critical thinking be taught through the encouragement of greater awareness, but choosing not to teach critical thinking may result in unquestioning acceptance of prevailing conditions, limiting possibilities for dissent and change” (p. 579).

Welcoming arguments would be much tougher when critically analyzed, for we establish an absolute belief in our line of thinking and assume that we enjoy the requisite critical skills to judge a condition. In this regard, Paul (1982) categorizes different kinds of CT based on the manner of using CT skills across various occasions. Based on Paul's idea, some people implement a weak version of CT merely to oppose others who hold a different view toward them. In contrast, users of strong CT skills possess the real courage to first and foremost challenge their ideas and question their rationality. Therefore, in line with Paul (1982), as mentioned by Noddings (1998, p. 67), we can argue that “the purpose of strong CT is not only or always to produce the best argument but to connect with others in a way that would make the world demonstrably better—less violent, less cruel and insensitive to the pain around us.”

Also, considering the subject's moral aspects, Noddings (1998) encourages teachers to use pedagogically neutral strategies. She believes that it should be the teacher's priority to revere students’ ideas and juxtapose their ideas with other ideas and challenge the soundness of their thoughts based on CT skills. In other words, students should not be the only ones to be critically judged in the academic environment, but teachers should also be part of the procedure.

Despite widespread efforts to promote CT skills in curriculums, teachers’ awareness of this crucial issue is disappointing. CT abilities such as organizing systematic plans, forming rational arguments, asking reasonable questions, problem-solving, applying practical knowledge in different situations, and evaluating subjects in a thoughtful way are really needed, yet rarely are these skills taught across the world (Chaffee, 1992).

Strategies to Teach Critical Thinking Skills

Researchers over the years have tried to promote CT skills in students unconsciously rather than sticking to the idea of teaching it formally in the school setting. To meet this end, teachers could pose divergent, thought-provoking, and open-ended questions and engage students in their learning and thinking processes. By raising questions intended to develop CT, teachers encourage students to inspire creativity and satisfy their curiosity even if they come up with wrong answers.

In addition, it is advised that students take turns to pose questions to develop their ability to react critically to essays, papers, information provided online, and arguments. Activating the background knowledge in the procedure of learning is useful to English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in an attempt to acquire CT skills. Besides, students will be empowered to critically analyze the contents of lectures and presented lessons in the classrooms; eventually, they can shape new opinions and form their arguments to conflict with or embrace other arguments (Brown & Keeley, 2007).

Teamwork is another solution to the promotion of CT among students as they are allowed to exchange views with each other regarding a specific topic and boost their learning level as a result of continuous chains of discussions. Teachers can even witness more favorable outcomes in terms of CT through group work if they both provide teammates with personal and group feedback. In fact, discussions of any kind in classrooms under the supervision of teachers between peers could lead to the development of CT skills (Gelder, 2005; Taylor, 2002).

However, it would be significantly important for the teacher to play the leading role in guiding the discussion toward the enhancement of CT skills. Kim and Pollard (2017) recommended teachers as facilitators both for the learning of content as well as the acquisition of CT skills in pupils. In other words, teachers should be a guide on the side and help students take the onus for their learning, be active participants, and lead their learning journey. By raising proper questions and giving enough room to students to express their ideas concerning a subject, students feel they belong to the community and realize the significance of reflecting on their beliefs and viewpoints in class. For instance, reading comprehension classrooms could be more effectively led if students discover the intended messages in the texts or read between the lines. The curiosity of this kind leads to the enrichment of CT knowledge among students.

Lawrence et al. (2008) study of teachers’ and students’ perspectives demonstrated that putting criticisms on scientific papers is also practical in terms of mastering CT skills. Based on the authors’ recommendation, teachers in the first stage can ask their students to have a general overview of the paper and then gain a detailed understanding of the contents provided in the paper. The central question that emerges in the following stages is whether the claims stated in the article are based on facts or are groundless. To fulfill the teacher's demand, students take their time to gather enough evidence from within the paper to rely on and support their argument, whether they are in favor of the claims or reject them. Bean (2011) claimed that to promote CT skills in students through journal criticisms, teachers should shift students’ focus from topic-based assignments to problem-centered ones, which invite students to be more analytical and argumentative.

Edman (2002) believes that whatever technique is implemented to boost CT skills in students, they should have a sound theoretical and practical background. In the process, the employer of techniques should be careful with their aims and pay full attention to the fact that the strategies will bear fruit in what span of time. In addition to the mentioned factors, students’ background knowledge and educational status should be seriously considered before designing any CT strategies.

The present study examines the possibility of critiquing journal articles to develop CT skills among students and see whether the students can generalize the learned skills to develop their argumentative writing abilities. The following research question builds the backbone of the present study:

Does training students to critically analyze journal articles positively affect their argumentative writing skills?

Methods

Participants

A total of 62 participants (one standard deviation below and above the mean) were selected out of 84 advanced writing class students to participate in this study. They came from four intact advanced writing classes at Kazerun's Salman Farsi University. The participants were homogeneous regarding their age, major and English proficiency. The age was 18 to 20, with an average of 18.7, and their English proficiency levels were upper-intermediate based on the results of the university entrance examination for English students. All participants were sophomore students of Teaching EFL (TEFL), and the writing course was compulsory in the second year of their higher education. Based on the results of a pretest of argumentative writing, 62 homogeneous participants were selected out of 84. Students’ demographic information is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1.

Student Demographics.

Number	Age(mean)	Sex		Major	Proficiency	Years of higher education
84	18.7	M	25	TEFL	Upper-intermediate	2
84	18.7	F	59	TEFL	Upper-intermediate	2

F=female; M=male; TEFL=Teaching English as a foreign language.

Instruments

Two types of instruments were used to collect the data. The first instrument was an argumentative writing test used both to ensure the homogeneity of the group members in terms of their argumentative writing abilities at the beginning of the study as well as an instrument to compare the results with those of the post-test (the second argumentative essay test) at the end of the study. The topics were extracted from the International English language testing system (IELTS), one of the world's leading English proficiency tests for higher education. The topic in pretest was about students’ views on global warming and whether they think it is considered as the biggest threat for modern human beings. In post-test participants were asked to write on asylum seekers and whether they must be helped and let in the host countries.

The pre–post treatment essays were scored numerically based on an evaluation rubric designed by Awada et al. (2020) to score argumentative essay writings. Both inter and intra-rater reliability was calculated after scoring the writings. Thirty percent of the data from writings was coded twice by the researcher in a 2-week time span, and the degree of consistency in the two coding attempts was found to be 0.98. In addition, a colleague was trained to code the 30% data and the agreement between his coding and that of the researcher was used as the intercoder reliability and was found to be 0.89.

Procedures

Students in both classes were taught the basic principles of writing essays and research papers during the semester. The textbook was Bailey and Powell’s (1998) practical writing, with chapters ranging from one-paragraph essays to the five-paragraph essay and beyond it into a research-driven paper. The classes were held twice a week (16 weeks on the whole), with one and a half hours for each session. For the study to begin, participants were administered the pretest at the beginning of the writing course during a regularly scheduled class. Before the test was administered, participants were provided with an explanation of the purpose of the study and assured that the results would not influence the course outcomes.

In the second phase, the participants were taught the course for 32 sessions (48 h). However, only the experimental group received the treatment. Dick’s (1991) taxonomy of CT skills was used as the theoretical foundation of the study. This taxonomy is applied because it includes the CT skills relevant to the course and its primary objective, which is to develop argumentative writing skills among students. Dick (1991) reviewed research in the area of CT over the past 40 years and indicated that CT consisted of identifying and analyzing arguments, considering external influences exerted on arguing scientific analytic reasoning, and logical reasoning. Dick (1991) suggested the following taxonomy for CT: (1) Identity arguments: This includes themes, conclusions, reasons, and organization. (2) Analyze arguments: This includes assumptions, vagueness, and omissions. (3) Consider external influences: This includes value, authority, and emotional language. (4) Scientific analytic reasoning: This includes causality and statistical reasoning. (5) Reasoning and logic: This includes analogy, deduction, and induction.

The treatment began with a training session in which the students in experimental group were introduced to the concept of CT and the study's theoretical framework. Critiquing journal articles as the strategy which is used in the study to enhance CT skills was also coached and later integrated into the classroom for the experimental group treatment. In other words, participants in the experimental group applied the five sections of Dick's taxonomy to critically analyze journal articles. Since almost all academic journals go through a peer review process, they are accepted as a strong medium in which you expect to find the latest evidence with the potential to be critically analyzed. Reading scholarly articles is essential because most students have had limited exposure to this genre during their schooling years. Students must learn how to effectively interpret what the author is trying to convey. Therefore, analyzing articles helps students reflect upon the significance of topic, critique the arguments made, and comprehend the intended meanings. Actively engaging with the text of a journal article (specifically identifying and analyzing arguments), then, is believed to be conducive to critical reading and then writing.

Instruction in the control group, however, revolved around teacher-centered presentations of the materials within the textbook. The only burden on learners in control group was to do the textbook exercises. The exercises mostly focus on practicing with different elements of academic essays (introduction, thesis statement, different types of support, cohesion, coherence, conclusion, etc.) as well as linguistic forms (grammatical points, vocabulary, punctuation, etc.). These tasks and exercises were done individually by each student and were later sent to the teacher for feedback in an attempt to control for any student-centered activity that may negatively affect the results of the study.

In the fourth phase, the post-test was administered to the participants at the end of the semester and during the day of the final examination. Later, the collected data—the scores obtained from the pretest and post-test administrations—were entered into the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) and analyzed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

Findings

Table 2 below presents the two groups in terms of number and gender. The number of participants in each group is 32 in the experimental group and 30 in the control group. However, both classes were female-dominated, which is the norm in most Iranian Universities.

Table 2.

The Assignment of Participants Into Two Groups.

Group	Number	Sex		Treatment
A	32	M	9	Critiquing articles
A	32	F	23	Critiquing articles
B	30	M	10	Regular class
B	30	F	20	Regular class

F=female; M=male.

Later the two groups were administered a test on argumentative writing (topics chosen from the IELTS test of writing) to ascertain their homogeneity. Group A had a mean score of 3.19, and group B had a mean score of 2.88 (Table 3).

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics for IELTS Writing.

Groups	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Standard error mean
Experimental	32	3.1903	1.74901	.56238
Control	30	2.8841	2.27844	.67116

IELTS=International English language testing system.

An independent t-test was run between the mean scores of the two groups. According to Levene's test result (with an alpha level of .05), there was not any significant difference between the two intermediate groups (t = 0.97) which demonstrated that both groups were homogeneous (Table 4).

Table 4.

Independent Samples Test to Assess the Homogeneity of the Two Groups.

		Levene's test for equality of variances		t-Test for equality of means
		Levene's test for equality of variances							95% Confidence interval of the difference
		F	Significance	t	df	Significance (2-tailed)	Mean difference	Standard error difference	Lower	Upper
Regular Class	Equal variances assumed	.785	.357	0.979	63	.051	0.30620	.65223	−.00687	2.98932
Regular Class	Equal variances not assumed			1.015	62.619	.049	0.30620	.54854	.00494	2.09347

The two groups’ achievement in the post-test is shown in Table 5 below. As the results show, the experimental group outperformed the control group in the post-test with mean and standard deviation of 8.87 and 3.65, respectively, compared with those (4.13 and 3.21) of the control group.

Table 5.

Results for Post-Test Performance of Groups.

	N	Mean	Standard deviation
Postexperimental	32	8.8714	3.65763
Postcontrol	30	4.1314	3.21459
Valid N (listwise)	32

Before conducting ANCOVA, the homogeneity of regression (slope) assumption was tested. The interaction between the two groups and the pretest was found not to be significant (F (1, 60) = .498, p = .586. That is p (.479) > α (.01). Therefore, the results from ANCOVA will be meaningful, and we can proceed with our analysis. In addition, from Levene's test of Equality of Error Variances, we see that the underlying assumption of homogeneity of variance for ANCOVA has been met (F (1, 60) = 3.412, p = .60. that is p (0.60) > α (.01). Results from ANCOVA are presented in Table 6 below.

Table 6.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects.

Dependent variable: Post-test
Source	Type III sum of squares	df	Mean Square	F	Significance
Corrected model	986.781^a	2	493.391	145.267	.000
Intercept	262.785	1	262.785	77.371	.000
Pretest	513.581	1	513.581	151.212	.000
Groups	427.731	1	427.731	137.673	.000
Error	227.561	59	3.396
Total	30264.000	62
Corrected Total	1214.343	61

R squared = .813 (adjusted R squared = .807).

Based on the data in Table 6, the research hypothesis is accepted (F (1, 61) = 137.673, p = 0 that is p < .01. In other words, the effect of the between-subject factor (groups with different instruction types) on the dependent variable (post-test of argumentative writing) is found to be significant.

Discussion and Conclusion

Despite all the attempts to convince teachers and school authorities to support CT skills in school settings, the application of CT skills has not reached a satisfactory point. Numerous reasons could be stated for the absence of CT skills in students, one of which is students’ high demands for learning the instructional materials by heart rather than analyzing them critically (Chaffee, 1992).

The need for more studying and evaluating the integration of CT skills and academic writing has also been noted by researchers, encouraging other enthusiasts to reflect on the same question and interrelate CT with argumentative writing (Barnawi, 2011). Using CT skills in developing other subskills of second language learning, such as reading, has been tried, and the results have been noted to be significantly positive (Gao et al., 2017; Tous et al., 2015). Teachers’ lack of knowledge regarding the subject may not lead to inspiring or positive learning outcomes for students. Similarly, Pei et al. (2017) strongly recommend teachers set the ground for the rise of new critical thinkers in classrooms as students will encounter grave problems during the following academic stages. Thus, teacher training may accelerate the progression of writing and CT skills in students.

The findings of the present study showed that it would be viable to boost students’ argumentative abilities in writing persuasive essays by involving CT skills in pedagogical methods and classroom procedures. In line with the aim of the present research, Marni et al. (2019) also studied various CT patterns in students writing. They conducted the research through a different qualitative method, in two phases, they asked students to provide deep insights into the state of their argumentative writing. Before embarking on the research project, they evaluated students’ writing skills and found weaknesses in them. They could upgrade their CT skills after adopting a series of influential training methods. The researchers found three types of CT skills patterns, concluding that students were inclined to use analytical thinking in their papers. The authors suggest that there would be hope in using similar strategies to foster CT abilities in students’ writing. While these results run counter to Atkinson (1997) and Ramanathan and Kaplan (1996), who do not believe in substantial benefits resulting from the pedagogical practice of CT skills in TESOL programs, findings are in line with Lawrence et al. (2008), who examined both teachers’ and students’ points of view and found it to be a decent way of practicing CT skills. Also, the findings confirm those of Kuek (2010) and Bensley et al. (2010), who found significant improvements in students’ argumentative analysis skills after the explicit teaching of CT skills though there was not any attempt to explicitly teach all the related skills in a specific CT course.

One main reason for the significant improvements in argumentation among participants of the experimental group in the present study may be the introductory session in which students were introduced to the concept of CT and was familiarized with the theoretical framework delineating the skills which are deemed necessary for being able to think critically. They were also presented with a demo lesson in which the selected strategy (critiquing journal articles) was put into practice. In fact, the teacher's role in bringing about CT skills among students is very influential (Nejmaoui, 2019).

Most teachers are known as the leading characters in teaching critical skills. By introducing the participants in the experimental group to CT skills congruent with the course objectives, the researcher gave them a chance to acquire CT abilities since they could apply the knowledge in many situations and face multiple points of view upon which their knowledge is assessed.

Moreover, selecting the appropriate strategy in line with the course objectives (Edman, 2002) may be a basic reason for the success of the intervention in this study. Nowadays, TESOL programs rarely segregate language skills while they are designing language syllabi, and research has demonstrated substantial benefits to skill integration. The strategy of critiquing journal articles necessitated reading the articles carefully, thereby integrating the two important skills of reading and writing. In addition, students in the experimental group had to participate in discussions regarding their criticisms of articles, and this way, a lot of genuine listening/speaking practice was conducted in the classroom.

According to the constructivist theories of Piaget and Vygotsky, knowledge is constructed from the collision of ideas, perspectives, and worldviews. Facing opposing parties who support a specific ideology is inevitable during this undertaking. Results from the present study demonstrate that by learning to critically analyze diverse ideas (either as an individual critical reading practice or via interaction with peers), students can learn to develop their argumentations in their own writings. Therefore, students who are not trained to think critically beforehand may be inclined to follow any line of thought with little reasoning. The consequence of improperly teaching CT skills or even lack of teaching them will soon emerge in adult students who are supposed to demonstrate intellectual skills later on in their lives.

Although different students of academic fields could benefit from the suggested method, it is recommended that the learning procedure happens under the supervision of a knowledgeable teacher who has received training in this regard. Thus, teacher training may put restrictions on the progression of writing and CT skills in students. Likewise, it would be necessary to provide corrective feedback for students and give them support on their written essays to motivate them to move forward and take further steps toward becoming better argumentative writers and critical thinkers.

In order to substantiate the findings of the present study which was quantitative in nature, future researchers are recommended to analyze students’ writing qualitatively to suggest areas of their writing that are also connected to the journal critiquing activity. In a postmodern paradigm, this can definitely add to our understanding of how students can borrow information from journal articles and apply them in their own argumentative writings. In addition, the small sample size in the present study which was due to the small number of students available may cast doubt on the generalizability issue. A final suggestion for further research, then, would be to replicate the study with larger sample sizes and in different context to be able to confirm the present findings.

Footnotes

Authors’ Contributions

Both authors have equally contributed to conducting the study and reporting the results.

Data Availability Statement

The data and material are available to be shared if requested.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

The study is approved by the committee of ethics in research of Salman Farsi University of Kazerun.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Informed Consent

As part of the instruction to fill in the research questionnaires, all participants in the study were informed about the objective of the study and they were ensured that the results will be used and published for research purposes only. Participants are all adults above 18 years old and the study consent form is completed individually by each participant.

ORCID iDs

Yahya Gordani

Mahnaz Ezhdehakosh

About the Authors

Yahya Gordani is assistant professor of TESOL at Salman Farsi University of Kazerun, Iran. His main research interests include cognitive and psychological factors affecting teaching and learning English as a second/foreign language. He has published widely in international journals namely Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), Cogent Education, and the Journal of Psycholinguistic Research among many others.

Mahnaz Ezhdehakosh has had her BA in TESOL from Salman Farsi University of Kazerun. She is the author of several poetry books and a novel (Life is a prism) in English.

References

Abdurrahman

Nurulsari

Maulina

Ariyani

(2019). Design and validation of inquiry-based STEM learning strategy as a powerful alternative solution to facilitate gift students facing 21st century challenging. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.513308

Abrami

P. C.

Bernard

R. M.

Borokhovski

Wade

Surkes

M. A.

Tamim

Zhang

(2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326084

Atkinson

(1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587975

Awada

Burston

Ghannage

(2020). Effect of student team achievement division through WebQuest on EFL students’ argumentative writing skills and their instructors’ perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1558254

Bailey

E. P.

Powell

P. A.

(1998). The practical writer with readings (7th Ed.). Wadsworth Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n2p190

Barnawi

(2011). Finding a place for critical thinking and self-voice in college English as a foreign language writing classrooms. English Language Teaching, 4, 190–197. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n2p190

Bean

(2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Benesch

(1993). Critical thinking: A learning process for democracy. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 545–547. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587485

Bensley

Crowe

Bernhardt

Buckner

Allman

(2010). Teaching and assessing critical thinking skills for argument analysis in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 37(2), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986281003626656

10.

Brown

M. N.

Keeley

S. M.

(2007). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. Pearson Prentice Hall.

11.

Chaffee

(1992). Teaching critical thinking across the curriculum. New Directions for Community Colleges, 77, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.36819927704

12.

Chomsky

(1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009

13.

Chu

S. K. W.

Reynolds

R. B.

Tavares

N. J.

Notari

Lee

C. W. Y.

(2021). 21st century skills development through inquiry-based learning from theory to practice. Springer International Publishing.

14.

Cottrell

(2017). Critical thinking skills: Effective analysis, argument and reflection. Macmillan International Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55052-1

15.

Dick

(1991). An empirical taxonomy of critical thinking. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 18(2), 79–93.

16.

Edman

(2002). Teaching critical thinking in the honors classroom. In Fuiks

Clark

(Eds.), Teaching and learning in honors (2nd ed., pp. 45–63). National Collegiate Honors Council.

17.

Ennis

(1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543594

18.

Facione

P. A.

(1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction—The Delphi report. California Academic Press.

19.

Fahim

Mizraii

(2014). Improving EFL argumentative writing: A dialogic critical thinking approach. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2013.313

20.

Ferretti

R. P.

De La Paz

(2011). On the comprehension and production of written texts: Instructional activities that support content-area literacy. In Handbook of reading interventions (pp. 326–355). The Guilford Press.

21.

Ferretti

R. P.

Fan

(2016). Argumentative writing. In MacArthur

C. A.

Graham

Fitzgerald

(Eds.), Handbook of writing research ((2nd ed, pp. 301–315). Guilford Press.

22.

Gao

Yang

(2017). Cognition-based interactive phases and strategies in teaching academic reading. Journal of Electronic Science and Technology, 15(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.11989/JEST.1674-862X.6062116

23.

Gelder

(2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.41-48

24.

Gieve

(1998). Comments on Dwight Atkinson’s “A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL”: Another reader reacts. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 123–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587907

25.

Graham

(2018). A revised writer (s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406

26.

Graham

Harris

K. R.

(1997). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally: Myths and realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1997.12085875

27.

Halpern

D. F.

(1997). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449

28.

Kim

Pollard

(2017). A modest critical pedagogy for English as a foreign language education. Education as Change, 21(1), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-9417/2017/492

29.

Kim

Raza

Seidman

(2019). Improving 21st-century teaching skills: The key to effective 21st-century learners. Research in Comparative and International Education, 14(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499919829214

30.

Kuek

(2010). Developing critical thinking skills through integrative teaching of reading and writing in the L2 writing classroom [PhD thesis]. Newcastle University.

31.

Kuhn

(1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177186

32.

Lai

E. R.

(2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson's Research Reports, 6(1), 40–41. https://www.academia.edu/download/40756174/Motivation_Review_final.pdf

33.

Lawrence

Serdikoff

Zinn

Baker

(2008). Have we demystified critical thinking. In Dunn

Halonen

Smith

(Eds.), Teaching critical thinking in psychology (1st ed., pp. 23–34). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444305173.ch3.

34.

Lewinski

Mohammed

(2016). Argumentation theory. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198

35.

(2011). An action research on how to increase reader awareness and critical thinking. Foreign Language in China, 8(3), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i3.24699

36.

C. K.

Hew

K. F.

(2020). A comparison of flipped learning with gamification, traditional learning, and online independent study: The effects on students’ mathematics achievement and cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1541910

37.

Lodhiya

K. K.

Brahmbhatt

K. R.

(2019). Effectiveness of collaborative versus traditional teaching methods in a teaching hospital in Gujarat. Indian Journal of Community Medicine: Official Publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine, 44(3), 243–246. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijcm.IJCM_378_18

38.

MacArthur

C. A.

Graham

(2016). Writing research from a cognitive perspective. In MacArthur

C. A.

Graham

Fitzgerald

(Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 24–40). The Guilford Press.

39.

Markle

Brenneman

Jackson

Burrus

Robbins

S. B.

(2013). Synthesizing frameworks of higher education student learning outcomes (Research Report No. RR-13-22). Educational Testing Service. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2013.tb02329.x https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2013.tb02329.x

40.

Marni

Suyono

Harsiati

(2019). Critical thinking patterns of first-year students in argumentative essay. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(3), 683–697. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.605324

41.

McPeck

J. E.

(1981). Critical thinking and education. Martin Robertson.

42.

Moore

(2013). Critical thinking: Seven definitions in search of a concept. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 506–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.586995

43.

(2016). Investigating English major students’ critical thinking ability in academic writing. Modern Foreign Languages, 39(5), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n10p31

44.

Murtadho

(2021). Metacognitive and critical thinking practices in developing EFL students’ argumentative writing skills. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i3.31752

45.

Nejmaoui

(2019). Improving EFL learners’ critical thinking skills in argumentative writing. English Language Teaching, 12(1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n1p98

46.

Noddings

(1998). Philosophy of education. Routledge.

47.

O'Reilly

Devitt

Hayes

(2022). Critical thinking in the preschool classroom—a systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101110

48.

Paul

(1982). Teaching critical thinking in the strong sense: A focus on selfdeception, world views, and a dialectical mode of analysis. Informal Logic Newsletter, 4(2), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v4i2.2766

49.

Paul

Elder

(2019). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Rowman & Littlefield.

50.

Pei

Zheng

Zhang

Liu

(2017). Critical thinking and argumentative writing: Inspecting the association among EFL learners in China. English Language Teaching, 10(10), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n10p31

51.

Pithers

Soden

(2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42(3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/001318800440579

52.

Raimes

Zamel

(1997). Response to Ramanathan and Kaplan. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/001318800440579

53.

Ramanathan

Kaplan

R. B.

(1996). Audience and voice in current L1 composition texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90013-2

54.

Ramsay

(2009). Blooming with the pious: Critical thinking, reading and writing across the curriculum. Ian Randle.

55.

Stupple

E. J. N.

Maratos

F. A.

Elander

Hunt

T. E.

Cheung

K. Y. F.

Aubeeluck

A. V.

(2017). Development of the Critical Thinking Toolkit (CriTT): A measure of student attitudes and beliefs about critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.007

56.

Taylor

(2002). Promoting critical thinking through classroom discussion. In Fuiks

Clark

(Eds.), teaching and learning in honors (2nd ed, pp. 77–86). National Collegiate Honors Council.

57.

Tous

D. M.

Tahriri

Haghighi

(2015). The effect of instructing critical thinking through debate on the EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(4), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i4.13191

58.

Walton

(2009). Argumentation theory: A very short introduction. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 1–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_1

59.

Williams

J. M.

Colomb

G. G.

(1993). The case for explicit teaching: Why what you don’t know won’t help you. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 252–264. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40171226

60.

Williams

Worth

(2001). The relationship of critical thinking to success in college. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 21(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews200121123

61.

Yennita

Zukmadini

A. Y.

(2021). Problem-based learning (PBL) and blended learning in improving critical thinking skills and student learning activities in biochemistry courses. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1731(1), 012007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1731/1/012007

62.

Zhang

Olelewe

C. J.

Orji

C. T.

Ibezim

N. E.

Sunday

N. H.

Obichukwu

P. U.

Okanazu

O. O.

(2020). Effects of innovative and traditional teaching methods on technical college students’ achievement in computer craft practices. SAGE Open, 10(4), 2158244020982986. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020982986

63.

Zivkovil

(2016). A model of critical thinking as an important attribute for success in the 21st century. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.034