2. If we disagree with others, we need to come up with reasons.
3. I really like to explore the nature of things.
4. I often can’t help analyzing the process of other people’s arguments.
5. I like to analyze complex problems methodically.
6. I prefer tests that require analytical thinking to memorized tests.
SOURCE: Facione & Facione (1992) and Wen et al. (2009) .
The CTDI–CV has generally been proven to be a reliable and valid instrument for assessing Chinese students’ CTDs ( Wen et al., 2010a , 2010b , 2011 ). However, the CTDI–CV has mostly been used for undergraduates or postgraduates and a preliminary analysis revealed that its internal reliability in this study was not acceptable. Therefore, the instrument was slightly modified for high school students to ensure its reliability and validity. Additionally, the reliability and validity analyses for the modified CTDI–CV were checked by educators and experts at the School of Educational Science in Minnan Normal University, China.
English argumentation is a “problem-solving” cognitive procedure, demanding self-regulation to reach the author’s targets ( Graham & Harris, 1989 ), and critical thinking is “a 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 ). Dong & Yue (2015) have posited that English writing as a cognitive process is indivisible from the cultivation of critical thinking ability, and their study employing questionnaires and writing test has shown that students’ critical thinking abilities are related to on their English writing performance. Therefore, improving the ability to think critically is essential for fostering English writing abilities ( Li, Gu & Qian, 2019 ).
Dong & Yue (2015) showed that students’ English writing proficiency is strongly influenced by their critical thinking skills, and suggested that cultivating students’ critical thinking skill is necessary for improving their English writing competence. Since EAW depends on critical thinking ability to analyse facts, produce and organise ideas, maintain opinions, make comparisons, judge arguments, and solve problems by the use of existing information, previous knowledge, experience, and world knowledge when writing’ ( Barnawi, 2011 ). However, what is the relationship between them?
Based on an analysis of 181 prospective teachers from six different departments in Turkey, Bayat (2014) found that the prospective teachers’ critical thinking levels were related statistically significantly with their academic writing success. Similarly, a significant and positive relationship between college students’ critical thinking skills and their English writing ability was found in China ( Wu, 2016 ). Based on a study of 104 English major students, Soodmand Afshar, Movassagh & Radi Arbabi (2017) established a strong correlation between students’ critical thinking skills and their English writing abilities. In addition, a significant relationship between the CTD and English writing has regularly been reported.
McLean (2005) claimed that a negative CTD accounts for a low writing proficiency. A study involving 73 senior English major students at a Shanghai university showed that the students were weak in CTDs and had comprehension difficulties as well as in demonstrating in-depth rhetorical clarity in academic English writing. This result implied a correlation between students’ CTDs and their English academic writing performance ( Mu, 2016 ). Liu (2018) explored 120 postgraduate students majoring in English and found a significant positive correlation between students’ CTDs and their academic English writing. A positive linear correlation has also been found between critical thinking and English writing among secondary school students. Jin (2021) also examined 211 grade eight students’ CTDs at the junior high school level and found that students demonstrated negative CTDs, which were positively correlated with their English writing achievements. Besides, Liu (2021) found a significant correlation between the CTDs of grade 12 students and their writing proficiency on English practical writing and continual writing tasks.
All the above discussions emphasize the importance of critical thinking to English writing, and some researchers further explored the relationship between critical thinking and English writing. In these studies, participants were mainly form college, and the types of English writing involved were various, including picture writing, story writing, academic writing and so on. In summary, very few studies focus on the relationship between high school students’ critical thinking and their performance on English argumentative writing. Hopefully, this study may bridge the gaps in the literature.
Procedure and participants.
This paper focus on high school student’ critical thinking and their proficiency on English argumentative writing, so the population is all the high school students. A purposive sampling of high school students was used in this study. The reason for purposive sampling is the better matching of the sample to the aims and objectives of the research, thus improving the rigour of the study and trustworthiness of the data and results ( Campbell et al., 2020 ). Because this study aimed to find out the relationship between critical thinking and English writing, it’s better to take students with higher ability on critical thinking and English writing expression as participants, so that the association can be clearer and easier to be found. Since the development of critical thinking is limited by the level of cognitive development, critical thinking sprouts from childhood and get higher especially mature in senior grade of high school ( Ruggiero, 2012 ). Considering this, a sample of 189 students from grade 12 students was involved in the study. All the participants were taken from a high school in Zhangzhou, China, because they were easily accessible to the investigators. Of the 189 questionnaires distributed to the students, 156 (84%) valid copies were returned.
Additionally, students were given 40 min to write a 120-word English argumentative essay on the same topic, “No smoking in public places?”, which was prompted by sources from a relevant survey mentioned in the test (details in Table 2 ). In the writing, students were asked to show their opinions, defend sub-arguments and criticize counter-argument.
EAW test |
---|
A recent survey showed that 15% participants believed that people could smoke in public places, because they insisted that smoking was an individual freedom and could improve work efficiency. Additionally, smoking was a long-term habit that cannot be changed immediately. However, 85% participants supported banning smoking publicly, because they believed that smoking was unhealthy, money-consuming and also took its toll on the environment and other people. What’s your opinion? |
Please write a 120-word English argumentative essay on “No smoking in public places?” within 40 min. In this essay, please show choose one side and defend it. At the same time, the criticism of the other side also should be mentioned. |
Two English teachers from Minnan Normal University scored the tests, and the average of the two scores was taken as the final score for students’ EAW performance. The teachers had taught and studied English writing for over 13 years. A head teacher from Minnan Normal University who was specialized in English writing teachers’ training and relevant researches was responsible for the evaluation and training. Before the formal scoring, the head teacher trained the two teachers based on ECEAW. After the training, the two teachers were asked to score some samples of EAW to test whether they have known the score criteria well. The result showed they have understood ECEAW well, and the scores given by them had no significant difference. Afterwards, the two teachers started to score the EAW from participants in two separate rooms to ensure the process was transparent. After scoring, the two teachers cross-checked all the scores, which the head teacher then rechecked and did not find significant difference. If there were, he would take careful. Then, since the authors have been studied English writing for several years and also specialize in English writing study, they cross-checked of everything to make sure the process and results were unbiased. This triangulation process ensured the reliability of the final scores. Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of the final EAW scores.
Minimum | Maximum | Mean | SD | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writing proficiency | 156 | 11 | 22 | 18.551 | 2.110 |
A correlational research design was adopted to explore the relationship between the CTD (independent variable) and EAW (dependent variable). The CTD level was measured by the Chinese version of California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CTDI-CV), and participants’ performance on EAW was measured by the Evaluation Criteria for English Argumentative Writing (ECEAW).
The CTDI–CV was adapted by Wen et al. (2009) from the CCTDI ( Facione & Facione, 1992 ) and has been widely applied in the Chinese context ( Jin, 2021 ; Li, 2011 ; Ruan, 2012 ; Li, 2018 ; Lu, 2020 ), mainly in studies involving English learners.
Harman’s single-factor test had an explanatory variance for the first common factor of 25.76% is less than 40%, confirming no evidence of common method variance. Regarding the CTDI–CV questionnaire, eight subdispositions had 54 items, measuring the following subscales: analyticity (seven items), truth-seeking (seven items), open-mindedness (seven items), systematicity (six items), cognitive maturity (eight items), inquisitiveness (six items), self-confidence (seven items), and justice (six items). Each item was rated on a six-point scale of “strongly agree” (6), “agree” (5), “somewhat agree” (4), “somewhat disagree” (3), “disagree” (2) and “strongly disagree” (1), and the total scores of the CTDI–CV were between 54 and 324. Unloaded items were removed in the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the remaining items were retained for all eight factors. The items in systematicity, inquisitiveness, and justice remained the same. However, analyticity, open-mindedness, and self-confidence decreased to six items, and truth-seeking and cognitive maturity decreased to five items. Details are shown in Table 1 .
The instrument reliability was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha, and the eight subscales in CTD showed reliability scores of 0.73, 0.71, 0.74, 0.70, 0.80, 0.72, 0.81, and 0.79. As all reliability scores were beyond the 0.7 threshold, the constructs were determined to be reliable ( Hancock & Mueller, 2013 ; Saleem et al., 2020 ; Byrne, 2016 ).Construct validity ensured the questionnaire’s validity, and six factors were generated using an EFA. The results showed that the validity was acceptable (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test = 0.629 > 0.6; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: χ 2 = 2,665.49, df = 1,431, p < 0.01; factor loadings for all factor’s items: 0.68–0.81; total variance: 66.39%, eigenvalue >1). Thus, the tool was reliable and valid.
The ECEAW was determined by Wen and used to measure students’ EAW proficiency and was divided into five levels ( i.e ., best, good, moderate, poor, and bad) according to four parameters ( i.e ., relevance, explicitness, coherence, and sufficiency) accompanying the supposed four thinking stages in English writing: topic comprehension, thesis statement development with supporting arguments, organizing coherent discourses, and putting ideas into writing ( Wen & Liu, 2006 ). Table 4 provides the ECEAW details.
Scoring range | Requirements |
---|---|
Fifth level (best): 21–25 point | Completes the test question task; covers all the main content points; the central thesis and subarguments are clear and appropriate; the subarguments are logically discussed, and the examples are appropriate and specific; the relationships among the subarguments are logical, clear, and definite. |
Fourth level (good): 16–20 points | Completes the test question tasks; omits one or two subkey points but covers all the main content; the central thesis and most of the subtheses are clear and appropriate; individual subtheses are unclear; subtheses are logically discussed; examples are present but not specific; the discussion of subarguments is relatively logical, some of the arguments are specific, and some of the arguments have no examples; the relationships among the subarguments are logical and clear but not very definite. |
Third level (moderate): 11–15 points | Basically completes the test questions; omits some content but covers all the main content; the central thesis is clear; some subtheses are relatively clear but some are unclear; the subtheses are clearly discussed, but the examples are too few or are not specific or appropriate; the relationship between the subthemes is clear but not logical enough. |
Second level (poor): 6–10 points | Fails to complete the test questions properly; omits some of the main content, not described clearly, or irrelevant; the central thesis is relatively clear, but most of the subtheses are not clear or are not related to the central thesis; the subtheses are relatively clear but no examples or the examples are not specific or appropriate; the relationship between the subarguments is basically clear, but it takes the readers’ effort to understand. |
First level (bad): 0–5 points | Fails to complete the test questions, obviously omits the main content, and includes some irrelevant content that might be caused by misunderstanding the topic; the central argument and the subarguments are not clear; the reasoning is not definite, there are no examples, or the examples are inappropriate; the relationship between the subarguments is unclear or unconnected. |
The data analyses were performed using SPSS version 23 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Chinese high school students’ CTDs were approached using a descriptive statistical analysis, which illustrated the students’ CTDs and eight subdispositions. Next, as this study focused on the relationship between the students’ CTD and their performance on EAW, a Pearson correlation analysis was employed. It was followed to determine whether there was any significant correlation between the students’ EAW proficiency and their CTDs as well as its eight dimensions. Last, in order to reduce interference between the variables, multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the prediction of the students’ CTDs subdispositions and their writing proficiency on English argumentation. The prediction of the different CTD dimensions for argumentative writing was explored in the regression analysis in detail.
During data screening, 33 questionnaires found to be incomplete and were thus removed. The instrument’s face and content validity were ensured by educational experts from the School of Educational Science in Minnan Normal University, China. The data’s internal reliability was determined by calculating Cronbach’s α coefficients, and the construct validity was verified by conducting an EFA using the SPSS package.
Ethics committee approval was obtained from Zhejiang Normal University’s institutional review board. The ethical principle of informed consent was upheld: each participant in the questionnaire was informed in advance of what was to be studied, and its possible benefits and impacts. All were informed of their right to withdraw their agreement to participate at any stage before the study was published. Finally, the researchers upheld the right to privacy by preserving the participants’ anonymity at all points in the research process, ensuring that the publication of the research would not result in any conflicts of interest.
The two instruments involved in this study, namely The Chinese version of California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CTDI-CV) and Evaluation Criteria for English Argumentative Writing (ECEAW) were used to measure participants’ CTD level and their performance on EAW. Both instruments are from Wen Qiufang, and the researchers have permission to use these instruments from the copyright holders/authors.
Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics of the students’ CTDs and the eight elements. Overall, the students’ CTD was positive (M = 4.08 > 1.52). Among the eight dimensions, inquisitiveness (M = 4.41, SD = 0.51) scored the highest, while self-confidence (M = 3.62, SD = 0.46) scored the lowest. Besides, the students scored higher on justice (M = 4.38, SD = 0.52), cognitive maturity (M = 4.36, SD = 0.50), open-mindedness (M = 4.32, S = 0.44) and truth-seeking (M = 4.02, SD = 0.42) but lower on analyticity (M = 3.91, SD = 0.40) and systematicity (M = 3.63, SD = 0.43). The results also showed that five dimensions (inquisitiveness, justice, cognitive maturity, open-mindedness, and truth-seeking) had positive traits, while three dimensions (analyticity, systematicity, and self-confidence) had negative traits.
Elements | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|
Analyticity | 3.91 | 0.40 |
Inquisitiveness | 4.41 | 0.51 |
Systematicity | 3.63 | 0.43 |
Self-confidence | 3.62 | 0.46 |
Truth-seeking | 4.02 | 0.42 |
Cognitive maturity | 4.36 | 0.50 |
Open-mindedness | 4.32 | 0.44 |
Justice | 4.38 | 0.52 |
Total | 4.08 | 1.52 |
The Pearson Correlation analysis revealed that the CTD and EAW were significantly moderately correlated (r = 0.543, p < 0.01). In addition, EAW proficiency was significantly positively correlated with four CTD subscales: cognitive maturity (r = 0.529, p < 0.01), truth-seeking (r = 0.416, p < 0.01), analyticity (r = 0.348, p < 0.01), and justice (r = 0.185, p < 0.05). EAW proficiency was not significantly correlated at the p = 0.05 level with inquisitiveness (r = 0.333), systematicity (r = 0.856), self-confidence (r = 0.067), and open-mindedness (r = 0.888). The Pearson correlation also shows that there were some insignificant associations between CTD and EAW as it is depicted in Table 6 .
Constructs | AL | IQ | ST | SC | TS | CM | OM | JS | CTD | EAW |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AL | − | |||||||||
IQ | 0.076 | − | ||||||||
ST | 0.137 | 0.266 | − | |||||||
SC | 0.140 | 0.437 | 0.311 | − | ||||||
TS | 0.127 | −0.068 | 0.028 | −0.015 | − | |||||
CM | 0.131 | 0.194 | 0.010 | 0.158 | 0.324 | − | ||||
OM | 0.116 | −0.053 | 0.188 | −0.133 | −0.065 | 0.058 | − | |||
JS | 0.126 | 0.356 | 0.264 | 0.236 | 0.084 | 0.070 | 0.246 | − | ||
CTD | 0.392 | 0.510 | 0.464 | 0.445 | 0.461 | 0.640 | 0.279 | 0.486 | − | |
EAW | 0.348 | 0.078 | 0.015 | 0.147 | 0.416 | 0.529 | 0.011 | 0.185 | 0.543 | − |
AL, analyticity; IQ, inquisitiveness; ST, systematicity; SC, self-confidence; TS, truth-seeking; CM, cognitive maturity; OM, open-mindedness; JS, justice; CTD, critical thinking disposition; EAW, English argumentative writing.
In line with the prediction of the CTD on EAW performance, a multiple regression analysis is carried out to examine the extent to which the CTD can significantly predict EAW proficiency. As it is presented in Table 7 , eight CTD subscales were the independent variables and EAW proficiency was the dependent one, while VIF results showde no evidence of collinearity. The R-square (R 2 ) of 0.436 and adjusted R-square (R 2 ) of 0.405 revealed four CTD subscales: cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity and justice accounted for 43.6% of the variance in EAW proficiency. The standardized regression coefficients (Beta) of 0.419, 0.257, 0.231 and 0.143 for cognitive maturity, analyticity, truth-seeking and justice, respectively, indicate that the four subscales significantly and positively predicted students’ EAW performance ( p < 0.05). This finding implies that high school students’ EAW performance can be explained by the subdispositions of cognitive maturity, analyticity, truth-seeking and justice, among which cognitive maturity (Beta = 0.419) strongly predicts EAW proficiency. The analysis indicates the following regression equation for the dependent and independent variables: “EAW proficiency = 10.266 + 0.419 * cognitive maturity + 0.257 * analyticity + 0.231 * truth-seeking + 0.143* justice”.
R = 0.660 R = 0.436 Adjusted R = 0.405 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients | |||||
Model | B | Std. error | Β (Beta) | T | -value | VIF |
(Constant) | 10.266 | 1.457 | 7.048 | 0.000 | ||
Analyticity | 0.089 | 0.022 | 0.257 | 4.008 | 0.000 | 1.071 |
Truth-seeking | 0.079 | 0.023 | 0.231 | 3.391 | 0.001 | 1.205 |
Cognitive maturity | 0.103 | 0.017 | 0.419 | 6.095 | 0.000 | 1.231 |
Justice | 0.073 | 0.036 | 0.143 | 2.015 | 0.046 | 1.319 |
EAW performance is a major topic of interest in English teaching and learning, particularly in China’s high schools. The present study explored the current CTD of Chinese high school students and the relationship between that and their EAW performance. The study also identified the CTD subdispositions that are positively related to and the main predictors of the high school students’ EAW performance in China. Additionally, the study adds fresh evidence about the Chinese version of the CCTDI when applied in a non-Western context.
The results showed that the high school students’ CTDs were overall positive (M = 4.08), that is in line with Qing, Shen & Tian (2010) , who examined the CTD of 121 grade 12 students in YuJin High School (M = 4.23), and Li (2021) , who found a positive disposition in grade 11 high school students (M = 4.095). These results revealed that high school students’ CTDs have not improved dramatically during the past decade. However, after 3 years’ further study in university, the students’ CTD scores tended (M = 4.289) ( Liu, 2018 ). This finding therefore contradicts ( Jin ’s 2021 ) finding that junior school students’ CTD at grade 8 is overall negative (M = 3.52). One reason is that the CTD is enhanced with age and learning, since the CTD is a psychological attribute that shapes one’s beliefs or actions ( Profetto-McGrath et al., 2003 ) enabling individuals to sufficiently solve problems and to make judgments as a product of thinking ( Facione & Facione, 2007 ).
Compared with the CTD scores from other Asian, Africa and Middle Eastern countries—such as Israel (M = 4.02) ( Ben-Chaim, Ron & Zoller, 2000 ), Turkey (M = 3.25 ± 0.27) ( Kaya, Şenyuva & Bodur, 2017 ), Japan (M = 3.91) ( Kawashima & Petrini, 2004 ) and Ghana (M = 3.95) ( Boso, van der Merwe & Gross, 2021 )—the result of this study is relatively high (M = 4.08), and close to some developed countries such as Australia (M = 4.11) ( Tiwari, Avery & Lai, 2003 ) and Italy (M = 4.10) ( Zoller et al., 2010 ). This finding may partly challenge the statement that students from Asian societies ( vs . those from non-Asian ones) are less inclined to demonstrate CTDs ( Wang et al., 2019 ). However, room remains for improvement in comparison with other developed countries such as Norway (M = 4.72) ( Wangensteen et al., 2010 ) and America (M = 4.33) ( Yeh & Chen, 2003 ).
Additionally, the results also suggested that five dimensions (inquisitiveness, justice, cognitive maturity, open-mindedness, and truth-seeking) had positive traits, while three dimensions (analyticity, systematicity, and self-confidence) had negative traits. This showed that students had a strong interest in the unknown world, an inclusive attitude towards new knowledge, a relatively mature understanding about things and a passion for exploration, but they were not good at analyzing objectively and logically, lacking perseverance and confidence.
The current study reported a moderate relationship (r = 0.543, p < 0.01) between students’ CTD and their EAW performance. These findings confirm those of earlier studies, such as Li (2021) , Liu (2021) and Jin (2021) . One reason is that the CTD correlates significantly with the total content knowledge resources and presentation strategies of English writing ( Yeh & Chen, 2003 ). This finding indicates that students with stronger CTDs have wider content knowledge resources and presentation strategies, which are essential for good EAW performance. And among the eight subscales of CTD, cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity, and justice have positive correlation with EAW. This is because the four mentioned dispositions have direct influences on EAW, including the organization of writing, layout of sub-claims and examples, development of logical reasoning and so on. While the other four aspects, open-mindedness, systematicity, inquisitiveness and self-confidence have more invisible influence on critical thinking and indirect association with EAW. According to interviews, students who score highly on the CTDs perform better on the four thinking stages involved in EAW i.e ., topic comprehension, thesis statement development with supporting arguments, organization of a coherent discourse, and putting ideas into writing ( Liu, 2021 ). For instance, understanding the task topic refers to the process of understanding concepts and judging the relationships among them. This process may involve the abilities of cognitive maturity and analyticity, since the former can help writers better understand the meaning of the title while the latter enables students to judge the relationships among concepts faster. Regarding developing a thesis statement with supporting arguments, which is central to writing, this process it is greatly influenced by the dispositions of truth-seeking and justice. The desire to seek the truth and explore the essence of things could drive students to carefully observe their surroundings, from which EAW’s supporting arguments are usually derived. Moreover, the sense of justice could hone students’ abilities draw distinctions, a skill that allow them to perceive or draw conclusions after thinking deeply about some social phenomena in daily life, and this process could be converted into a central EAW thesis statement. Meanwhile, the dispositions of systematicity, self-confidence, and open-mindedness have some effects on EAW that are not directly relevant, as they were not significantly correlated at the 0.05 level. The disposition of inquisitiveness, which refers to ‘an instinct that people are curious about the unknown’ ( Wen et al., 2009 ), help to expand students’ knowledge reservoirs, but it does not help them to focus on exercising logical and critical thinking abilities. As a result, it had an insignificant relation with EAW performance.
The four related subscales (cognitive maturity, analyticity, truth-seeking and justice, respectively), were proved also have prediction on EAW proficiency. The other four subscales—inquisitiveness, systematicity, self-confidence, and open-mindedness—were not predictors, because they are not significantly related to EAW. The reason cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity and justice are significantly correlated and positively predictive of EAW was discussed in the context of the definitions of these four subdispositions and the EAW writing process.
Cognitive maturity refers to ‘a measure of whether the understanding of things is comprehensive and life events are considered carefully’, and truth-seeking is defined as ‘the desire to seek the truth and to explore the essence of things’ ( Wen et al., 2009 ). Persuasive English argumentation requires an individual to ‘find the essence of the topic’ and to relate convincing subarguments and examples gleaned from the ‘comprehensive and thoughtful understanding of things in life’. On the other hand, analyticity is defined as ‘the ability to independently and objectively analyze life problems and to foresee the outcome or consequences of an event based on facts’ ( Wen et al., 2009 ), which is required throughout the argumentative writing process, specifically during the layout process. Justice is defined as ‘conscious criteria for judging whether something is morally and legally fair’ ( Wen et al., 2009 ), and do help provide arguments in EAW writing, since the sense of justice can promote students to observe things around them objectively. These relations also can be found in the comparison between good and poor articles. For example, a student with high scores in these four dispositions gave three sub-argument to support his opinion “people shouldn’t smoke in public places”, from “Smoking is harmful to personal health and wealth” to “Smoking in public places violates the rights of others” and “Smoking in public places poses a significant fire hazard and thread public safety”. From individual to others and to public group, the argumentation of the points of view was progressive. Meanwhile, the student used research data, news reports and celebrity quotes to support the sub-arguments. The whole structure of his EAW was logical and smooth. Additionally, during the argument, the student criticized the counter-arguments mentioned in the supplied material to strengthen the credibility of his opinion, such as “Although smoking could be seen as an individual right, public interest should be the most important thing in public places”. While a student with low scores in these four dispositions even though also chose to defend “people shouldn’t smoke in public places”, but he only mentioned the sub-arguments from the resources in the test, from “Smoking is a pollution” to “Smoking is wasting money” and to “Smoking is harmful to the health”. The logical correlations between these sub-arguments were not clearly articulated in the essays and some empty words were used to support the points which made the essay unconvincing.
Besides, a prominent feature of writing from the cognitive perspective is problem-solving ( Graham & Harris, 1997 ), which is regarded as crucially important and thought to positively affect EAW performance. Thus, a student with high CTD scores is expected to better gain the essence of the argumentative topic and comprehensively analyze the topic in a piece of EAW. According to this, we argue that cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, and analyticity, as the CTD components, could be strong EAW predictors. Therefore, it is helpful to enhance these CTDs to develop better EAW performance, since these were found to be linked to success in English argumentation.
This study is limited in the research region and critical thinking aspects. First, the present study is limited to a developing, non-Western, Asian high schools. Considering this, high school students from other cities or relevant teachers should be involved in future study to deeply understand the relationship between CTD and EAW. Second, the current study is limited to the CTD, and other critical thinking aspects such as critical thinking skills have not yet to be explored. Incorporating other critical thinking factors in future studies could generate insightful results. Besides, the possible differences caused by years of study or other demographic factors need to be examined in future research.
EAW teaching and learning has been of prime importance for English education in China, since EAW performance is currently significant on both international and domestic English language proficiency tests. To discover the predictive influencing factors on EAW proficiency improve EAW performance, this study explored the relationship between the CTD (independent variable) and the EAW (dependent variable) proficiency of high school students with an emphasis on the CTD subscales. High school students’ CTDs were overall positive, and students’ EAW performance correlated significantly with the overall CTD and its four sub-dispositions of cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity, and justice. Furthermore, among the eight CTD subscales, only four dispositions (cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity and justice) showed a significantly predictive validity on EAW performance. The findings of the current study will contribute to the knowledge of Chinese high school students’ cognition and English learning status. In addition, it has implications for the enhancement of EAW teaching and learning in China.
The findings showed that high school students in Zhangzhou, China generally have positive CTDs, i.e ., they perform well on the abilities of analyticity, truth-seeking, systematicity, open-mindedness, cognitive-maturity, inquisitiveness, self-confidence, and justice. In addition, their CTDs have been proven to be related to their performance on EAW. Specifically, their dispositions on cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity, and justice are related to their EAW proficiency score. A further analysis revealed that Chinese high school students’ EAW performance can be predicted by their abilities in terms of cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity and justice. These results provide references for English teachers to improve students’ English argumentative writing performance.
Primarily, in line with previous study findings in China ( Sun, 2020 ; Ren, 2020 ), instructors in China should be concerned about students’ CTDs, since students from China and other, more developed countries continue to have a gap. Secondarily, a significant and positive correlation was found between EAW and CTD as well as its subdispositions—such as cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity, and justice—which has been confirmed in previous studies ( Han, 2020 ; Feng, 2021 ). Therefore, instructors should provide clear CTD definitions for students and strengthen their critical thinking awareness. Lastly, teachers are urged to conduct suitable CTD training, especially on the four predictive subdispositions ( i.e ., cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity and justice), which could foster and facilitate four thinking stages involved in EAW and directly improve high school students’ EAW performance.
EAW is included as a prompt in the writing sections of some international standardized English exams ( e.g ., TOEFL and IELTS) and English for Specific Purposes exams, which necessitate argumentative writing. Besides, EAW is a crucial skill in China because the performance on English argumentation regards as a key assessment element on English language proficiency, especially in the high-stakes college entrance examination, which plays an essential role in college admission decisions. Teachers of English writing in high school should focus on students’ critical thinking and help them do a better job of analyzing the topic, establishing a layout, and organizing and writing argumentation logically, especially because EAW skills increasingly play crucial roles in students’ general academics at all of their study levels ( Németh & Kormos, 2001 ).
Supplemental information 1, supplemental information 2, funding statement.
The authors received no funding for this work.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Yanfang Hu conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.
Atif Saleem conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals ( i.e ., approving body and any reference numbers):
College of Teacher Education, Zhejiang Normal University
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
"Writing is thinking on paper." (Zinsser, 1976, p. vii) Google the term "critical thinking." How many hits are there? On the day this tutorial was completed, Google found about 65,100,000 results in 0.56 seconds. That's an impressive number, and it grows more impressively large every day. That's because the nation's educators, business leaders, and political…
Encouraging critical thinking in students through writing can be an effective way to help them develop their analytical and problem-solving skills. One way to do this is to provide them with writing prompts or assignments that require them to analyze and evaluate information, make connections between different ideas, and draw conclusions based ...
The Link between Critical Reading, Thinking and Writing. By Alex Baratta, PhD Senior Lecturer, Manchester Institute of Education. Dr. Baratta is the author of How to Read and Write Critically (2022) and Read Critically (2020). Use the code MSPACEQ423 for a 20% discount on his books. Critical thinking is a term you have probably come across a ...
The balance between descriptive writing and critical writing will vary depending on the nature of the assignment and the level of your studies. Some level of descriptive writing is generally necessary to support critical writing. More sophisticated criticality is generally required at higher levels of study with less descriptive content.
ship between critical thinking and writing by looking at scores awarded for writing and for critical thinking. In the case of writing, scores on student portfolios indicated that students were writing well, but scores for critical thinking as defined in the rubric indicated that they weren't thinking well: Figure 1
Improving Your Writing Will Improve Your Thinking
Collectively, it appears that additional research is necessary to establish a more defined relationship between writing and critical thinking in science (Rivard, 1994; Tsui, 1998, 2002; Daempfle, 2002). The current study addresses some of the gaps in previous work by evaluating the effects of writing on critical thinking performance using ...
Most of Writing Guide with Handbook explores strategies for helping you become an accomplished critical writer, but as you have already learned, a close relationship exists between critical writing and critical reading. Reading and writing, like producing and consuming, are two sides of the same coin.
3 Critical Thinking in College Writing: From the Personal to the Academic . Gita DasBender. There is something about the term "critical thinking" that makes you draw a blank every time you think about what it means. [1] It seems so fuzzy and abstract that you end up feeling uncomfortable, as though the term is thrust upon you, demanding an intellectual effort that you may not yet have.
Introduction: Critical Thinking, Reading, & Writing | College ...
Critical thinking for critical writing | SFU Library
If critical thinking begins with a personal view of the text, academic writing helps you broaden that view by going beyond the personal to a more universal point of view. In other words, academic writing often has its roots in one's private opinion or perspective about another writer's ideas but ultimately goes beyond this opinion to the ...
These thought patterns exemplify active critical thinking, which translates into critical writing. In other words, writing patterns reflect thinking patterns. By applying these reasoning patterns appropriately and effectively, you will be able to incorporate the evidence you need to support a thesis and persuade readers of the validity of your ...
The teaching of critical thinking skills can be embedded in the teaching of writing in the classroom. This study explores the connection between critical thinking skills and academic writing. It ...
In keeping with the widely accepted relationship between writing and critical thinking skills, the description and learning outcomes of the writing course that I teach incorporates aspects of writing and critical thinking. The course aims to introduce students to the principles of reading, writing, and reasoning.
Writing is a cognitive process influenced by the higher mental functions with which it is connected (Surd-Büchele 2011). Since writing is written forms of speech, the results of thinking determine how the language is used. Critical thinking enables learners to gather relevant knowledge and thoughts, add personal understanding and values, and ...
4 - Critical Writing - Critical Reading, Writing, and Thinking
What Are Critical Thinking Skills and Why Are They ...
Developing critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education, but little empirical evidence exists regarding the interrelationships between these constructs. Writing effectively fosters students' development of these constructs, and it offers a unique window into studying how they relate. In this study of undergraduate thesis writing in ...
Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement. Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process ...
Writing is an invaluable tool for exercising our cognitive faculties. Extensive and diverse research has suggested links between writing and mental capacities in such domains as memory, critical thinking, creativity, verbal skills, and overall health. Below, you will find recommendations and explanations for how writing can be harnessed as a ...
Writing is an exercise in critical thinking. Every writing assignment demands that students think ahead, consider their audience, and rethink their wording or organization to ensure that their composition meets a specific goal: to persuade, to inform or explain, to communicate ideas, or to tell a story. "Writing is thinking on paper." William ...
A positive linear correlation has also been found between critical thinking and English writing among secondary school students. Jin (2021) ... and some researchers further explored the relationship between critical thinking and English writing. In these studies, participants were mainly form college, and the types of English writing involved ...