Rationale as an Innovative Learning Application to Improve Students Critical Thinking in Argumentative Writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29103/ijevs.v1i7.1745Keywords:
Rationale application, Critical thinking, Argumentative writingAbstract
This study is about the effect of rationale application usage as innovative learning application to help the students being critical thinker in writing argumentative text. It was attempted to investigate (1) whether there is any significant difference between students reasoning ability, (2) whether there is any significant difference between students structuring ability, and (3) whether there is any significant difference between students analyzing ability who are taught by using rationale application as found in their argumentative writing and those who are not taught without using rationale. To do so, a quasi-experimental designed was administered to a sample of University students (N=50). In order to answer the research questions, the data are analyzed by using independent sample t-test. SPSS 21 is used to do those statistical analysis. In conclusion, the findings showed that rationale application can be chosen as an alternative media of improving critical thinking in argumentative writing. It was proved by the findings of the study that bring us to the point that there was a significant difference on the students critical thinking in some aspects (reasoning, structuring and analyzing ability) as found in their argumentative writing between learners in experimental and control group. Learners who are given rationale application treatment achieve higher than those who are given conventional method.
References
Akyüz, H., & Samsa, S. (2009). The effects of blended learning environment on the critical thinking skills of students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2), 1744-1748.
Alfianti, Prihatin, J., & Aprilya, S. (2013). The influence of cooperative learning model of reciprocal teaching with example non example technique on critical thinking and students learning outcome. Pancaran Pendidikan, 2(3), 187-200.
Alvarez-Ortiz, C. (2007). Does philosophy improve critical thinking skills? Australia: University of Melbourne.
Alwasilah, C. (2001). Language, Culture and Education. Bandung: Andira.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Babbie, E. R. (2011). Qualitative research: General principles. Research methods for social work, 436-455.
Barbara, D., & Peterson, F. (2009). De La HarpeThe theory and practice of teaching with technology in today's colleges and universities. Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks, 27-42.
Baron, J. (1988). Thinking and deciding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1994). Reflections on the development and use of the taxonomy. Yearbook: National Society for the Study of Education, 92(2), 1-8.
Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper & Row.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principle. . San Fransisco: San Fransisco State university.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Pearson Education .
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge.
Cotrell, S. (2005). Critical thinking skills: developing effective analysis and arguments. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Creswell, J. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. United States: Sage publications.
Dariman, K. (2019). Students Creative Thinking With 4'R Applications in Procedure Text Project Based Learning. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Studies, 1(1), 15-20.
Davies, W. M. (2009). Computer-assisted argument mapping: a rationale approach. Higher Education, 58(6), 799.
Dawes, L., & Wegerif, R. (2004). Thinking and learning with ICT: Raising achievement in primary classrooms. Rouletdge.
De la Harpe B, P. F. (2009). The theory and practice of teaching with technology in todays colleges and universities. USA: In Payne CR (Ed).
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: MA: DC Heath.
Dwyer, C. P. (2011). The promotion of critical thinking skills through argument mapping. 97-122.
Dwyer, C. P. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Springer , 219-244.
Eftekhari, M. (2016). Computer-aided argument mapping in an EFL setting: does technology precede traditional paper and pencil approach in developing critical thinking? Educational Technology Research and Development V. 64 (2), 339-357.
Elsegood, S. (2007). Teaching critical thinking in an English for academic purpose program using a ˜claims and supports approach. First Year in Higher Education Conference Vol. 1, 1-10.
Ennis, C. (1991). Discrete thinking skills in two teachers physical education classes. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 473-486.
Facione, P. A. (1998). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. California: Academic Press.
Fahim, M. B. (2012). Effects of critical thinking strategy training on male/female EFL learners reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, , 5(1), 140.
Garson, D. (2012). Significance Testing: Parametric and Non-parametric. North Carolina: Statistical Associates Publishers.
Gelder, T. V. (2009, November 17). Argument mapping. Retrieved from Encyclopedia: http://timvangelder.com/2009/02/17/what-is-argument-mapping
Hager, P. e. (2003). Teaching critical thinking in undergraduate science courses. Science & Education, 12(3), 303-313.
Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. relc Journal, 21(1), 66-78.
Imaniar, F. (2018). Critical Thinking in the Teaching of EFL Academic Writing. Surabaya: UNESA.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A Revision of Blooms Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Kuek , M. C. (2010, Decemeber 15). Developing critical thinking skills through integrative teaching of reading and writing in the L2 writing classroom. London: Newcastle University. Retrieved from Newcastle University: http://hdl.handle.net/10443/1063
Lavelle, E., Smith, J., & O'Ryan, L. (2002). The writing approaches of secondary Students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (2), 399-418.
Leaver, B., Ehrman, M., & Shekhtman, B. (2005). Achieving success in second language acquisition. England: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, A. (2001). The issue of perception: some educational implications. Educare, 30(1), 272-288.
Masduqi, H. (2011). Critical thinking skills and meaning in English language teaching. TEFLIN Journal, 22(2), 185-200.
McPeck, J. E. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: A reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19(4) , 10-12.
Murris, K. (2014). Corporal punishment and the pain provoked by the community of enquiry pedagogy in the university classroom. Africa Education Review, 11(2), 219-235.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2007). Promoting Argument- Counterargument Integration in Students Writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59-92.
Okumus, S. (2012). The effects of argumentation model on students achievement and argumentation skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 457-461.
Oshima, A., Hogue, A., & Lê, H. L. (2006). Writing academic english. NewYork: Pearson.
Oshima, Alice; Hogue, Ann. (2006). Writing academic english. London: Pearson/Longman.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill Education.
Paul Stapleton. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students: Insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written communication, 18(4), 506-548.
Paul, R. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world.
Reichenbach, B. R. (2001, December 12). Introduction to Critical Thinking. Retrieved from philpapers: https://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=REIITC-2&proxyId=&u=http%3A%2F2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.5840%2Finquiryctnews19905139
Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language teaching, 42(2) , 147-180.
Sadli, S. (2002). Feminism in Indonesia in an international context. Popline Journal, 11(2), 80-91.
Samanhudi, U. (2018). Researching Students' Critical Thinking in Argumentative Texts. LEKSIKA Journal, 5(2), 11-16.
Saxton, E., Belanger, S., & Becker., W. (2012). The Critical Thinking Analytic Rubric (CTAR): Investigating intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a scoring mechanism for critical thinking performance assessments. Assessing Writing, 17(4), 251-270.
Sosniak, L. (1994). Bloom's taxonomy. Chicago: L. W. Anderson (Ed.) Univ. Chicago Press.
Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students: Insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written communication, 18(4), 506-548.
Sukariasih, L., Erniwati, E., & Salim, A. (2019). Development of Interactive Multimedia on Science Learning Based Adobe Flash CS6. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Studies, 1(4), 322-329.
Twardy, C. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking." Teaching Philosophy. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95-116.
Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (2004). Thinking and Learning with ICT. New York: Routledge.
White, R. V. (1995). New Ways in Teaching Writing. New Ways in TESOL Series: Innovative Classroom Techniques. 1600 Cameron Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314.: TESOL.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Please find the rights and licenses in International Journal for Educational and Vocational Studies (IJEVS)
1. License
The article will be governed by the Creative Commons Attribution license as currently displayed on Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
2. Authors Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).
3. User Rights
IJEVS's spirit is to disseminate articles published are as free as possible. Under the Creative Commons license, IJEVS permits users to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. Users will also need to attribute authors and IJEVS on distributing works in the journal.
4. Rights of Authors
Authors retain the following rights:
- Copyright, and other proprietary rights relating to the article, such as patent rights,
- The right to use the substance of the article in future own works, including lectures and books,
- The right to self-archive the article,
- the right to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the article's published version (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal (International Journal for Educational and Vocational Studies).
5. Co-Authorship
If the article was jointly prepared by other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
6. Termination
This agreement can be terminated by the author or IJEVS upon two months notice where the other party has materially breached this agreement and failed to remedy such breach within a month of being given the terminating partys notice requesting such breach to be remedied. No breach or violation of this agreement will cause this agreement or any license granted in it to terminate automatically or affect the definition of IJEVS.
7. Royalties
This agreement entitles the author to no royalties or other fees. To such extent as legally permissible, the author waives his or her right to collect royalties relative to the article in respect of any use of the article by IJEVS or its sublicensee.
8. Miscellaneous
IJEVS will publish the article (or have it published) in the journal if the articles editorial process is successfully completed and IJEVS or its sublicensee has become obligated to have the article published. IJEVS may conform the article to a style of punctuation, spelling, capitalization, referencing and usage that it deems appropriate. The author acknowledges that the article may be published so that it will be publicly accessible and such access will be free of charge for the readers.
