Metacognitive and critical thinking practices in developing EFL students' argumentative writing skills - Ejournal UPI
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS
Vol. 10 No. 3, January 2021, pp. 656-666
Available online at:
https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/IJAL/article/view/31752
https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i3.31752
Metacognitive and critical thinking practices in
developing EFL students’ argumentative writing skills
Fathiaty Murtadho
Faculty of Language and the Arts, State University of Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
This action research examined the roles of writing instruction involving metacognitive and
critical thinking strategy to improve argumentative writing skills of college students in
Indonesia. Argumentative writing is one of the pivotal topics among researchers investigating
ways to improve college-level writing. This study involved 88 students of three parallel classes
enrolled in the writing skill development course. Employing Kemmis and McTaggart's (1988,
2014) model of action research, this study employed a three-cycle action study in one semester,
covering four stages of learning tasks: understanding of problem, monitoring of students’
learning activities, problem-solving, assessment, and conclusion drawing. Each cycle provided
learning exercises of metacognitive and critical thinking to hone the students’ argumentative
writing skills. Referring to critical skill criteria as a baseline, the analysis found that employing
metacognitive and critical thinking process in the instructional treatments enabled the students
to improve their argumentative writing skills. The finding indicates a pivotal role of
incorporating metacognition in writing instruction as a strategy to improve college-level writing
skills.
Keywords: Action research; argumentative writing skill; critical thinking; metacognition
First Received: Revised: Accepted:
12 February 2020 16 August 2020 22 November 2020
Final Proof Received: Published:
3 January 2021 31 January 2021
Murtadho, F. (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
INTRODUCTION to play their most important role. Writing is such an
Metacognition and critical thinking are among the essential skill employing written language patterns
skills to be developed in especially argumentative to express ideas or messages. Setyowati, et al.
writing instruction. Considering the less productive (2017) even consider that the students’ writing skill
Indonesian writers relative to those in more is among the forceful measures of their intelligence.
developed world, the Indonesian Minister of One can deliver his or her ideas to people in
Education and Culture (MOEC) is challenged by a distance through writing. In the limitless national
difficult task to improve students’ writing skills borders due to rapid changes of digital technology,
from primary to tertiary educational levels (MOEC, practically more people around the world are
2020). Today the MOEC puts a greater attention to bestowed with the freedom to express widely
promote language learning emphasizing on reading differing ideas (Anggraeny & Putra, 2017;
comprehension and writing skills. Among the most Setyowati, et al., 2017). The National Association of
crucial factors that affect the quality of university Colleges and Employers [NACE] (2016) also
students’ writing skills is the low level of reading indicates that critical thinking/problem-solving
literacy of the 13-year-old Indonesian school skills through writing were ranked most important
students (OECD, 2019). This is one of the greatest by the 144 surveyed employers. Many scholars and
challenges for the Indonesian government to studies have also discussed the standing of critical
address, especially for teacher education institutions thinking skills in the context of 21st Century
*Corresponding Author
Email: fathiaty.murtadho@unj.ac.id
656Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), January 2021
education and workforces also discussed critical time significantly influences the complexity of the
thinking education in the context of students’ essays. The writers in the 20-minute planning time
abilities to enter a modern, 21stcentury workforce group produced more complex texts compared with
(Geertsen, 2003). Therefore, it is important for a those in the zero-minute planning time group (Ong
university to develop the capacity of students’ & Zhang, 2013).
metacognition and critical thinking for improvement This study aimed to discover an instructional
of their argumentative writing skills. treatment in improving the students’ argumentative
Argumentative writings show their distinctive writing skills in one university in Indonesia. A
features from other genres. For instance, a different preliminary study and test had been performed in
genre of writing, a news report, provides a space for September 2018, prior to the actual research. As a
writers to indirectly converse with readers. This result, some obstacles in teaching students on
typical genre usually contains messages to persuade argumentative writing were uncovered; some of
readers to accept or to respond to the writer’s point them were so clear-cut while others require more
of view about the message he or she wrote fundamental and research-based measures to deal
(Meiranti, 2015). Regardless of the type or genre of with. More specifically, this study aimed to address
a writing, one thing in common among writers is, the following research questions: (1) were the
according to Anggraeny et al. (2017), the writer’s strategies involving metacognition and critical
intention for a response as expected to gain from thinking able to develop the students’ argumentative
from the readers. writing, and (2) if so, to what extent do the
With regard to argumentative writing, there metacognition and critical thinking practices
have been some studies attempting to discover a real improve the students’ argumentative writing skills?
or authentic measure of argumentative writing. The
study of Révész et al. (2017), for example, assigned Argumentative writing
the research subjects to choose one of the two Argumentative writing is a very important skill for
choices suggested and write an argumentative essay, the 21st Century especially as the ability to think and
subject to a faithfully qualitative assessment. argue reasonably (UNESCO, 2013). An argument
Another example is a study conducted by Ong and essentially is an author’s attempt to deliver rational
Zhang (2010) on the impact of task complexity on persuasion to his or her audience in either oral or
L2 writing processes. The study employed a more written expressions or public presentation. It is
authentic measure of argumentative writing. In the typically a discrete communicative act, with fairly
study, the participants were given a provision of the well defined, temporal or spatial boundaries
simple condition of conceptual supporting ideas that (Vorobej, 2009). As a building block of an
could be used in their essays. They were provided argumentative writing, an argument comes about
with the content support assumed to decrease task when an author of the argument attempts to
complexity by allowing the participants to save their convince a certain targeted author’s audience to
mental resources from generating ideas at the believe something by providing appeals to reasons
planning stage and thereby direct the surplus or evidence (Vorobej, 2009). An argumentative
attention to linguistic aspects during writing writing inspires students to build arguments by
processes (Ong & Zhang, 2010, p. 732). carrying out independent investigation into a topic
Previous studies to improve argumentative to come up with a collection, generation, and
writing by setting on planning time and task evaluation of evidence to enable them to develop
condition show relatively consistent results their own stand on the matter. Through practices of
especially in terms of the negligible effects on argumentative writing, students are typically
argumentative writing. Ong (2014) discovered that required to take a position on an issue and explain
manipulating both planning time and task conditions their position with research from reliable and
variables, especially the level of complexity and credible sources (Setyowati, et al., 2017). Ferretti
content provision, affects the measure of and De La Paz (2011) were also concerned about
argumentative writing. Other studies in L2 writing students’ preparedness for the modern workplace
investigated planning time (Ellis & Yuan 2004), characterized by heightened interest in their
task conditions (Ong, 2014), and the interactions argumentative writing. It was found that students
between both variables (Ong & Zhang, 2013) with were expected to make and evaluate interpretative
relatively consistent results. These studies reveal claims by using disciplinary strategies and
that it takes longer for the participants to complete evaluative standards when reading and writing.
their given tasks without the content support. In An argument is closely associated with critical
addition, they found that the writing task was thinking in which the term argument refers to a set
difficult to carry out in a more complex condition. of claims. Some of which are presented as reasons
Albeit no significant effect of planning time and for accepting some further claims and a conclusion
task conditions, the task conditions affect the (Indrilla & Ciptaningrum, 2018). An argumentative
general accuracy of the writers’ performance in all writing aims to influence the audience by presenting
tasks (Ong & Zhang, 2013). Moreover, planning facts and reasons in such a way that they are
Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN: 2502-6747, p-ISSN: 2301-9468
657Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), January 2021
believed or accepted. To be compelling, a writer form anything that is spoken” (p. 22); while Ferretti
must outline the facts in a systematic, orderly, and and De La Paz (2011) asserted that: “Anything
logical fashion to achieve a convincing conclusion written up in an argumentative essay can be
(Fisher, 2013). It is generally assumed that mentally represented” (p. 1346). The more
metacognition contributes to sharpening one’s important thing in this context instead is the creation
argument (Fisher, 2013). The reasons that persuade of written meta-representational concepts and
readers to accept their conclusion can vary in their principles focusing on reasonable argumentation to
structure and content, but they always contain a set result in a sapient consciousness of the relevance,
of claims presented as reasons for accepting some validity, and evidential basis for reasons (Olson,
further claims and intended to persuade their 2016).
audience (Indrilla & CIptaningrum, 2018; Setyowati Research on the development of metacognition
et al., 2017). began in the 1970s through the works of Ann
Argumentative writing is a vital means of Brown, John Flavell, and their colleagues (Iftikhar,
exercising the ability of metacognitive and critical 2014). Metacognition was initially defined as
thinking. Fisher (2013) also believed that the higher knowledge on cognitive activity using cognitive
the writers’ metacognitive and critical thinking skill, activity as its cognitive object or that regulates
the more likely they would be able to fluently write cognitive activity itself (Graham & Harris, 2000). It
an argumentative essay. A study conducted by Ong is clear that the definition refers to a person's
& Zhang (2010), however, found no significant knowledge concerning information processing skills
differences in the overall writing patterns, both in and knowledge of the nature of cognitive tasks as
terms of fluency and pausing, between the well as the strategies to handle those tasks. This
descriptive and evaluative writing tasks. Their study concept also includes executive skills related with
is a quantitative survey on writing fluency, self-monitoring and self-regulating of their own
measured in terms of mean number of words cognitive activities. Metacognition that is of the
produced per-minutes in addition to linguistic important factors to drive argument is knowledge,
complexity of the written texts, and the independent awareness, and control of oneself, whereas
variables are the amount of planning time, provision metacognitive development is an attempt to enhance
of supporting ideas and macro-structure, and one's metacognitive skills towards greater
availability of draft during revision. One possible knowledge, awareness, and control over one's
explanation is that writing fluency as measured in learning (Cubukcu, 2008). Both are essential tools to
terms of the quantity of words-per-minute has little practice and mature writer’s power of reasoning.
to do with the quality argumentative ideas in In the absence of the power of reasoning,
writing. insensitivity to alternative perspectives and
ignorance of evaluative standards manifest in the
Metacognition quality of students’ written arguments (NCES,
The term metacognition has been often associated 2012). Thus, it is essential to examine the extent to
with John Flavell since 1979, and the term is often which metacognitive arguments enable students to
simply defined as “thinking about thinking” express them in an argumentative writing. Different
(Livingstone, 2003, p. 2). According to John Plavel studies show that students’ metacognition skills are
(Weinert and Kluwe, 1987), the term metacognition imperative to guide them for their self-directed
refers to higher order thinking which involves an learning processes. Haiduc (2011) and Cubukcu
active control over the cognitive processes engaged (2008) consistently showed that metacognition
in learning. Metacognition is part of the vocabulary endures significant improvement of students’
of educational psychologists, and this reflects on argumentative skills. Their studies reflect that
one’s cognitive experiences through learning reinforcing the idea of metacognition in a
(Livingstone, 2003; van Zile-Tamsen, 1996). pedagogical sphere has come into effect for the
Metacognition plays a critical role in successful students’ argumentative writing to thrive. Haiduc
learning, therefore, a study on metacognitive activity (2011) and Cubukcu, (2008) are amongst the
and development is important to determine how examples of assessing how metacognitive strategy is
students can be taught to better apply their cognitive vital to build a better students’ learning style
resources through metacognitive control through both teaching approaches and students’
(Livingstone, 2003). practices of writing.
Despite many theoretical and metalinguistic The study of the third and fifth grades shows a
concepts that we now use to understand the varieties remarkable improvement of the trained students
of traditional argumentations (van Eemeren et al., compared to those who did not receive such training
2014), metacognition remains essential to influence on their improved argumentative skill reflected in
argumentative writing. In that case, Olson (2016) their writing (Iftikhar et al., 2014). They
argued that the importance of this metacognition accomplished their analysis and conclude that: “The
cannot be exaggerated as he suggests that “…any practice of metacognition is vital to polish learners’
full writing system is capable of rendering in visual perceptions, reflections and critical thinking skills”
Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN: 2502-6747, p-ISSN: 2301-9468
658Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), January 2021
(p 193). Haiduc (2008) and Iftikhar (2014) found no readiness.
difficulty and hesitation encountered by the teachers To develop students’ critical thinking and
or instructors to apply metacognitive strategies, yet metacognitive arguments, critical pedagogy is one
it depends very much on the demand of the existing the most vital instructional approaches. (Reyes &
situation in which the strategy is useful and Vallone, 2008; Qian, 2015). Critical thinking should
effective to acquire desired results. This is such a enable students more than just to read the words in a
powerful strategy by which students are encouraged textbook but also to read the world such as to
to practice metacognitive reasoning on interpretative closely examine the existing power structures and
claims by using disciplinary as well as their roles within them (Reyes & Vallone, 2008;
interdisciplinary strategies for their reading Wink, 2000). To read the world, students should be
comprehension and argumentative writing (Ferretti familiar with the practice of critical thinking and
& De La Paz, 2011). share their thoughts to others through argumentative
The results of studies analyzing different types writing. In view of Pei et al. (2017), argumentative
and uses of metacognition strategies and their writing is not such a simple task; it is not only a
impact on the students’ argumentative skills are structural process of words, phrases and sentences
consistently encouraging. Studies of Baker (2008) but also a complex process that involves grasping
and Ryan and Deci (2000) indicated that the the topic, developing the statement, organizing a
emphasis of teaching on metacognition and coherent discourse and putting ideas into writing.
motivation strategies as well as the combination of Pei et al. (2017) further suggested that: “...it calls for
the two achieve the maximum advantages of intellectual capacity for thinking critically” (p. 31).
metacognition to affect the desired level of writing Therefore, a good part of writing should be able to
skills. Yet, Iftikhar (2014) further argued that to demonstrate certain aspects of the writer’s critical
teach metacognition, teachers need improvement of thinking.
their relevant skills to employ affective Some studies on critical thinking have found
metacognition strategies; to be most helpful and remarkable leads to literacy research on writing. For
useful they too need improvement of their ability to example, Yang and Wu (2016) found a significant
make some adjustments in teaching students of relationship between critical thinking and writing
different grade levels (elementary, middle and performance of non-English-major postgraduate
high). students in China against the different degrees of
Metacognition exposes a higher thinking language, content and materials. Although Pei et al.
process; it is reflective in nature and keeps moving (2017) identified no significant correlation between
beyond normal thinking in gesturing the thinking critical thinking and argumentative writing
activity itself (Larkin, 2009). The existing literature performance, another part of their finding remains
shows that strategies of teaching and practice of encouraging. Using textual analysis of typical
critical thinking in the high school classroom enable essays, they indicated that the strong learners in
students to improve their academic performance critical thinking could overtake their weak
(Hove, 2011). The capacity of students to exercise counterparts, especially in relation to the relevance,
critical thinking is such an essential 21st Century comprehension, clarity and flexibility of
life skill (Galinsky, 2010). In the case of Thailand, argumentative writing (p. 32). It can be highlighted
Changwong et al. (2018) highlight that: “Under the in both studies that to obtain good results in good
vision outlined in Thailand 4.0, critical thinking argumentative writing, the approach needs to
skills have become one of the key pillars of a new, integrate critical thinking into writing instruction.
knowledge-based economy (p 37). Therefore, it is Employing the Watson-Glaser Critical
such vital for school’s classrooms to apply critical Thinking Appraisal model, Qian (2015) discovered
pedagogy to develop students’ metacognitive and a significant relationship between the argumentative
critical thinking skills to practice in argumentative writing capacity of junior English students majoring
writing. EFL and their critical thinking skills. Although Mu
(2016) unveiled the problems of critical thinking,
Critical thinking notably in precision, depth and rhetorical
Critical thinking is the most important type of appropriateness of English argumentative writing (p
higher thinking skills that education from 32), the result remains inspiring. Mu (2016)
elementary to higher education levels, plays a successfully assessed a significant effect of critical
crucial role to enhance students’ reasoning. thinking practices on their essays against the criteria
Bassham et al. (2013) argued that “...college on the quality of critical thinking. Mu’s (2016)
education has to be accountable for the development results indicated a significant correlation between
of critical thinking skills that, in turn, lead to higher- the study participants’ critical thinking and writing
order thinking” (p. 46). Costa and Kallick (2014) as ability. Among the subskills of writing ability,
well as Kraisuth and Panjakajornsak (2017) equally only organization was correlated with certain sub
contended that critical thinking skills have to be one skills of critical thinking. The results of multiple
of all essential lists behind college and career regression analysis revealed that among the five
Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN: 2502-6747, p-ISSN: 2301-9468
659Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), January 2021
components of critical thinking, analysis and cycles, beginning with cycle I (baseline) in which
evaluation turned out to be the strongest predictors each of the teachers delivered learning tasks to
of argumentative writing performance. students to write up an argumentative essay that
Most of the studies revealed that metacognitive consisted of introduction, developed rules of
and critical thinking are of the proven strategies that spelling, content of argument, and conclusion. There
significantly effect students’ argumentative writing. was no treatment in cycle I, as it was the period of
Referring to the vision outlined in Thailand 4.0, for assigning students to choose a topic to write up and
example, critical thinking skills have become one of come up with their completed essays. The
the key pillars of a new, knowledge-based economy assessment results of the students’ work at the end
(Changwong, et al., 2018, p. 37). Some problems of this cycle served as the baseline that the teachers
exist, however, in terms of assessment of precision, needed to follow up with treatment in the first and
profoundness, and metaphorical appropriateness of second cycles. The second cycle was the actual
the writing especially through a quantitative survey students’ practices of writing under the guidance of
and objective measurement methods (Mu, 2016). the teachers through the weekly discussions and
This study attempted to contribute to the validity of feedback. The discussions took place for 100
assessment techniques by way of subjective and minutes each, and the last week of each month was
expertise-based evaluation of students’ for final evaluation and reflection. The third cycle
argumentative writing employing the action research was the more intensive student practices of writing
procedures. to come up with an essay subject to review in the
METHOD weekly discussions guided by a teacher to feed them
This study was performed in the Department of back for improvement.
Indonesian Language and Literature, Faculty of The assessment results in each of the cycles
Language and Art, in a university in Jakarta, against the baseline performance measured in cycle
Indonesia. This study was to promote the I reflect that the writing lesson was successful to
University’s mission to enable its students, impart students’ writing skills. To be successful in
prospective teachers, to promote their argumentative writing, the students should be able to achieve the
writing ability. The research subjects were the third “acceptable” level of performance with reference to
semester students enrolled in the Writing Skills the assessment guideline developed by the
Development course. This study followed an action university in 2016. In that, the students’ writing
research method, using Kemmis and McTaggart's skills is “acceptable” if they achieve the “Good”
(1988) model as a spiral of steps consisting of the (70-79) or “very good” (80 or higher) categories.
four stages: planning, acting, observing, and Despite only one point below the “good” level, the
reflecting. Kemmis et al. (2014) developed this student’s writing skill with 60-69 category or
model further into the spiral of a self-reflective “sufficient” remains unacceptable. The lowest
thinking in which the students can apply the categories, such as “bad” (50-59), and “very bad”
metacognition and critical thinking practices and (under 50) levels are considered poor. It was the
their ideas into argumentative writing. This model different levels of students’ writing performance that
began with planning, acting, observing, reflecting to had determined different kinds of intervention
re-planning. The third semester students were applied to each of the students. As outlined above,
selected as participants since they were in the this action research employed a Kemmis et al.’s
middle of preparing for their final research (2014) model of action research that consists of
assignment. planning, acting, observing, reflecting, and re-
This classroom action research took place for planning. More specifically, the study followed the
one semester period of August 2018 to January following phases.
2019, following the preliminary study in July 2018. Preliminary Study, prior to its implementation,
The design of action research had been planned for this study was to prepare groundworks and to set up
a month before it was implemented. The design of some initial stages of investigation. These included
the action research plan for this consisted of field examining field conditions that included the
observation and preparation of lesson plans using condition of the classroom, supporting facilities, and
metacognition and critical thinking strategies, the school's already available physical resources;
syllabus and learning model, observation sheet, field employing documentary analysis as the basis to
note and interview guideline, action research establish the curriculum and syllabus of the Winning
schedule, and achievement criteria and target. Skills Development course; setting up an overview
Focusing on improving the students’ metacognition of interaction processes of writing skills
and critical thinking strategies in their development learning dealing with the topic of
argumentative essays, this study was carried out in argumentative writing. These steps comprised some
four stages of writing: problem understanding, preliminary observations as the baseline of the
monitoring and assessment, problem solving study.
practices, evaluation and conclusion drawing. Action Plan Formulation, in devising the plan
This action research took place in three for classroom action research using metacognition
Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN: 2502-6747, p-ISSN: 2301-9468
660Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), January 2021
and critical thinking strategies, several steps were measured outcomes. Included in the learning
taken such as developing syllabus and learning processes were learning methodology, learning
model; creating observation sheet, field note media, causes of difficulties in learning and its
guidelines, interview guideline, learning solution, and how these affected the students’
achievement criteria and target; and making an argumentative writing.
action research schedule adjusted to the learning The criteria of success used this study were the
time prepared by the school. results of comparison of scores before and after the
Action research, to improve writing skills treatments. The improvement of learning was
using metacognition and critical thinking strategies, considerably successful if the students could
four stages of investigation as mentioned above achieve the average score of 70 and above. For this
were carried out. The stages were: planning and study, the achievement measured in the students’
problem understanding, monitoring and assessment, writing skill development was the students’ level of
problem solving and evaluation based on mastery in using metacognition and critical thinking
information from various sources, and evaluation strategies as informed by the assessment guideline
and conclusion drawing. Along the treatment was a developed by the university.
number of observations using an already developed
observation guideline that consisted of indicators
based on the focus of the study. The use of the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
guideline was aimed at soliciting any of the facts Each of the above action research cycles had its own
that occurred throughout the process of purposes that ultimately come up with improvement
investigation to ensure that the lecturer’s actual of students' argumentative writing skills using the
activities, students, and the condition of learning designed instructional strategies of metacognition
remained consistent with the design. The results of and critical thinking as the treatments. The
this observation were field notes illustrating the assessment took place in each of the cycles
actual learning processes, such as teacher's including the introduction, the content, and the
activities, students' activities, and learning conclusion of the writing. The steps of action
environment. research in each cycle involved planning,
Reflection and Follow Up, this stage was to monitoring and assessment, and problem solving
ensure that the students and the facilitators engaged and evaluation based on information from various
in this study had learned throughout the designed sources, evaluation, and conclusion drawing. Table
processes. This consisted of a series of discussions 1 indicates the number of students promoting their
among the students and the facilitators and the argumentative skills from the baseline to the end of
feedback that the facilitators provided through the the study as a result of the treatments applied
learning processes and their impacts on the throughout this action research.
Table 1
Improvement of Argumentative Writing Skill in Each Part of Writing
Percentage of Students Dist. to
No. Level of Writing Skill
Baseline Cycle I Treatment Cycle II Treatment Baseline (%)
1 Introduction
a. Acceptable 51.1 73.9 85.2 34.1
b. Sufficient 35.2 21.6 13.6 -21.6
c. Poor 13.6 4.5 1.1 -12.5
N of Student 88.0 88.0 88.0
2 Content of Argument
a. Acceptable 59.1 79.5 89.8 30.7
b. Sufficient 33.0 15.9 9.1 -23.9
c. Poor 8.0 4.5 1.1 -6.8
N of Student 88.0 88.0 88.0
3 Conclusion
a. Acceptable 70.5 79.5 87.6 17.1
b. Sufficient 19.3 17.0 9.0 -10.3
c. Poor 10.2 3.4 3.4 -6.9
N of Student 88.0 88.0 88.0
4 Rules of Spelling &
Grammar
a. Acceptable 65.9 79.5 89.8 23.9
b. Sufficient 21.6 15.9 8.0 -13.6
c. Poor 12.5 4.5 2.3 -10.2
N of Student 88.0 88.0 88.0
Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN: 2502-6747, p-ISSN: 2301-9468
661Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), January 2021
As seen in Table 1, the criteria were based on which some feedback was given to each of the
three different categories: stages of writing students in weekly meetings. This enabled the
(introduction, content of argument, conclusion, and students to come up with some reflective ideas and
rules of spelling and grammar); levels of arguments and to finally express their reflective
competence (acceptable, sufficient, and poor); and arguments in writing. The number of students who
the cycles (baseline, cycle I, and cycle II). This is achieved the “Acceptable” level notably increased
such a strategy in an attempt to answer the first from 59.1% in baseline, 78.5% in cycle II, and to
research question, and to compare the students’ 89.7% at the end of the cycles, or 30.7% moving up
capacity of writing throughout the stages of writing from the baseline. In contrast, the number of
and the study cycles. The following discussions students performing “Sufficient” level continued
attempt to answer the two research questions of this decreasing from 33% in baseline down to 9.1%
study. while the poorly performing students decreased
from 7% in baseline down to 1.1% by the end of the
Strategy to develop argumentative writing skill cycles. This shows that almost one-third of the
Assessment of students' writing skill aimed to judge students promoted to the acceptable level of writing
the results of students' works at the end of the of the “Content of Argument” was very substantial.
second and third cycle relative to the baseline. The Writing a conclusion reflects the students’
measured skill shows some improvements of exercises to express critical thinking and to express
students’ ability to compose an argumentative reflective ideas throughout this part of writing. The
writing on introduction, content of argument, and number of students whose writing improved in the
conclusion. The students' argumentative writing acceptable conclusion was not quite sizable yet
skills increased gradually through each of the cycles remained significant; they were already substantial
against the measured baseline in the previous cycle. (70.5%) in the baseline, and only increased to 87.6%
In the baseline, more than a half (51.2%) already in cycle III. This shows that the number of students
performed acceptable writing on each of the areas of promoted to this acceptable level was 17.1% or
writing. This indicates that a half of the students equal to those leaving both sufficient and poor
were both at the Sufficient and Poor levels on groups of students. Writing a conclusion is such a
introduction (35.2% and 13.6%), content of single most crucial step in argumentative writing as
argument (33% and 8%), conclusion (19.3% and to bridge between the ideas systematically laid down
10.2%), and developed rules of spelling (22.7% and in writing and the readers in highlighting the
5.7%) areas. The number of students promoted to important messages to help the readers comprehend.
the acceptable level of writing skill compared to This study found the least improvement of students’
those in previous cycles reflect the effectiveness of skills in writing conclusion, since only less than
the treatments employed throughout this study. one-fifth of the students was promoted toward the
Writing an introduction of an essay is such an level of “Acceptable”, yet this improvement was not
important basic skill of argumentative writing the negligible.
students need to follow. The writing skills of The last part of argumentative writing was the
students evolved as they began to recognize how to practices in using the developed rules of spelling
write up a better introductory part under the close and grammar. The ability to employ the rules of
guidance and feedback of the facilitators. As a writing is an important tool for the students to
result, the increasing students’ skills to write a better develop an essay toward the acceptable level in the
introduction toward an “acceptable” level was eyes of the facilitators. The number of students at
substantial in number, such as from 45% of students the acceptable level in employing the rules of
in cycle I, 73.9% in cycle II, up to 85% in cycle III. spelling and grammar in baseline was large enough,
In contrast, the students’ skill at sufficient level 65.9%, and increased to 89.8% in third Cycle. This
decreased through the cycles from 35.2% to 13,6% indicates that the quantity of students upgraded to
in cycle III; in the same way, the students at poor the acceptable level was 23.9% or equal to those
level from 13.6% in baseline to 1.1% in the last leaving both Sufficient at 13.6% of and Poor at
cycle. Yet, not all students at the “Acceptable” level 10.2% of writing levels. Employing the rules of
(85%) were due to their promotion since 51.1% of spelling and grammar is an elementary stage of
them had already achieved this level at the baseline. writing ability in support for students to write a
The substantial promotion instead was the rest better argumentative essay. Almost one out four
(34.1%) of students who achieved an acceptable students successfully promoted their argumentative
level in the third cycle or promoted from their writing skill due to improvement of their capacity of
“Sufficient” and “Poor” levels in the baseline. using the developed rule of spelling and grammar in
The “Content of Argument” is an essential area writing.
of an essay writing that requires students’
involvement in critical thinking and metacognition Effect of intervention on improvement of
exercises. The practices of writing employed the students’ argumentative writing skills
metacognitive and critical thinking framework in In general, the treatments applied through this study
Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN: 2502-6747, p-ISSN: 2301-9468
662Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), January 2021
made differences in students’ writing skills in one of the study period to practice on expressing some new
the four parts of an essay. As indicated in Table 1, and reflective ideas derived from their exercises of
the treatments impacted differences on students’ metacognitive and critical thinking. The initial
performance due to differences in the areas of students’ writing skills were negatively skewed, as
writing. This study found different impacts of the more than a half of them (63.6%) already performed
treatments on each one of the essay parts to write an acceptable writing. The rest of them was
up. The treatments in the first two areas had unacceptable at both sufficient (27.3%) and poor
impacted more students to lift up toward acceptable (9.1%) levels of performance. The observed
levels (34.1% and 30.7%) than those in the last two improvement of students’ writing skills toward the
areas (17.2% and 17.1%). This indicates that the acceptable levels of writing resulted from the
treatments enabled more students to write an treatment applied to students in cycle II and III. As
acceptable conclusion and content of argument than seen from Table 2, the successful treatment was
those to write a conclusion and to employ the rules applied in this study as reflected in the percentage
of spelling and grammar. distance of students achieving the acceptable level
The students had much opportunity throughout from the baseline.
Table 2
Summary of Student’s Argumentative Writing Skill Improvement
Cycle II Cycle III Distance from
Writing Skill Level Cycle I (Baseline)
(1st Treatment) (2nd Treatment) Baseline
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Acceptable 56 63.6% 68 77.3% 78 88.6% 22 25.0%
Sufficient 24 27.3% 16 18.2% 8 9.1% -16 -18.2%
Poor 8 9.1% 4 4.5% 2 2.3% -6 -6.8%
TOTAL 88 100 88 100 88 100 0
The number of students promoting to a certain the students’ learning tasks in a more intensive
level of argumentative writing skills compared to guidance through face-to-face meeting and
those in previous cycles reflect the effectiveness of interactions via Facebook or Skype. As a result, the
the first treatments employed in this Study. In cycle argumentative writing performance improved
II, the students’ writing skills were increasing after significantly in cycle III. By the end of the study
the treatments that prompted the students to analyze, period, only two students were left at the level of
identify and compare the content of books using a “Sufficient” and “Poor” in writing skills. In addition
jigsaw method. The treatment probed each of the to the improvement of writing skills, the students
students to read and analyze a book and explained were generally able to develop an essay with more
what he or she had read to others. The treatments varied contents, supported by complete references.
also assigned them to practice composing an In addition to citing the works of experts as sources
argumentative writing in the form of book or chapter of references, the students were also capable of
summary. The first treatments in cycle II reduced describing examples to support and clarify their
the students to write an unacceptable writing at arguments.
22.7% (Sufficient, 18.2%; Poor, 4.5%) as they were The last assessment results at the end of the
able to promote to the acceptable level of writing. cycles informs that the lesson strategies applied in
The students' score of argumentative writing in this study enabled the students to find that the
cycle III continued improving after the second learning processes were fun alongside the practices
treatments, i.e., allocating times to assign the of developing an argumentative writing. The
students to analyze, identify, and compare the two students, who used to be unfamiliar with critical
articles given. The learning tasks made the students reading and analysis as important steps to prepare a
practice writing based on metacognitive and critical writing, started to enjoy working with and being
thinking under the rigorous assistance of the able recognize the steps as a systematic attempt to
facilitators, through face-to-face meetings, forum understand an issue to write up. It will be easier for
discussions on Facebook and skype. After the the students to develop argumentative writing if they
second treatment in cycle III, the number of students understand the problems and express them through
with “Sufficient” and “Poor” level of writing writing. However, most of the students at the outset
lessened even farther. The second treatments in faced some trouble in analyzing the content of
cycle III reduced the number of students writing argumentative writing especially those who needed
categorized as “Unacceptable” at 11.4% (Sufficient, more adequate references to compose such a
9.1%; Poor, 2.3%) as they promoted successfully to writing.
the acceptable level of writing. This study uncovered three essential findings
Considering the improvement of results on the improvement of argumentative writing by
through cycle II, the facilitators assigned intensified way of metacognition and critical thinking
Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN: 2502-6747, p-ISSN: 2301-9468
663Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), January 2021
strategies. The successful strategies of learning and conclusion drawing. The stages required a series
argumentative writing began with engaging students of analysis of information gathered from various
with funny stories involving the concept of sources. Initially, the students had difficulties in
deviation of logic. To create fun learning strategies practicing some critical analyses and understanding
and to avoid misunderstanding of problems, a a problem. Although the students had practiced in
strategy needs to have students replace the logic of their previous courses, they generally were
one statement with the logic of another, and analyze challenged to improve their ability to prepare such a
the causes of misunderstanding due to several broad planning to develop an essay. Due to
possible interpretations of a word or situation. possessing only preliminary knowledge, they are
Improvements of the students’ argumentative quite limited to add some more arguments to their
writing performance result from the implementation work, in greater detail. This did not very much
of critical reading and critical thinking strategies, enable them to compose a carefully designed
critical analyses in reference to the revised version argumentative writing.
of Bloom's taxonomy of metacognitive stages Through cycle II, the students began to focus
(Anderson, 2002). The treatments directed the on their planning due to the frequent control of the
critical thinking exercises by which the students facilitators on how to allocate their lime, formulate
were accustomed to searching, memorizing and objectives, and focus much attention on tasks at
comprehending all the information needed; these are hand. They started to connect their preliminary
a vital means for the students to analyze, evaluate knowledge in writing, made predictions before
and create reflective ideas and put them into performing tasks, and regulated themselves to finish
argumentative writing. On the one hand, Pei et al. the tasks on time. The students began to realize that
(2017) found no significant correlation between planning was such a vital means of writing
critical thinking strategy and EFL argumentative processes. They began to appreciate that planning
writing performance. On the other hand, this study was such an important tool to facilitate accurate
has pointed out the reason that this is due to lack of completion of tasks. Students were able to focus on
contextual analysis provided to students. learning and to formulate a lesson plan by finding
This study found the encouraging results that textbook resources, internet sources, and some
the students’ argumentative writing improved related examples of writing tasks. In the last cycle,
through providing the students with some contextual the students were generally capable of formulating
analyses and discussions of the content being their goals, identifying the tasks they were going to
written up. This study aimed to provide the students perform. All the treatments applied enabled them to
with some exercises to apply the concept of establish a relevant topic to write up, and then to
relevance, clarity, understanding and flexibility of monitor their progress by regulating their time
issues and discuss the concepts with the facilitators available. It is important to notice that the applied
during the intervention periods. Integrating critical treatments enabled the students to predict the results
thinking into EFL writing instruction is one form of they would achieve by managing their time to
exercises provided in the study (see Reyes & complete the tasks. Finally, it is important to note
Vallone, 2008). Reyes’ finding turned out to be so that the employed method did not at all determine
inspiring that metacognitive and critical thinking the level of robustness of a study. At least this study
strategy of instruction affected on students’ attempted to ensure that every single step was
argumentative writing performance. Similarly, monitored and given appropriate feedback for
Nosratinia, et al. (2015) suggested that this type of improvement before going further to other steps.
writing requires the students to carefully build
systematic stages of planning, monitoring, problem
solving, and evaluation for students’ argumentative REFERENCES
writing to thrive. To this extent, applying the Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in
metacognitive and critical thinking strategy was able second language teaching and learning. ERIC
to enhance the students’ argumentative writing and Digest, Accessed 10 July 2020 from:
was found to be an appropriate initiative. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2775
97384
Anggraeny, E., & Putra, J. R. (2017). Critical
CONCLUSION thinking in students’ process of writing the
The study concluded that the treatments using the argumentative essay. Journal of English
metacognition and critical thinking practices were Language Learning, 1(1), 92-108
proven effective to foster students' argumentative Baker, L. (2008). Metacognitive development in
writing skills. The improvement of students' reading: Contributors and consequences.
argumentative writing skill occurred gradually Reading strategies of first and second language
through the cycles starting from problem learners. Accessed, 11 July 2020 from.
understanding, monitoring and assessment, problem http://www.education.com/reference/article/me
solving and evaluation, to the stage of evaluation tacognition/#A
Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN: 2502-6747, p-ISSN: 2301-9468
664Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), January 2021
Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J. https://doi.org/10.17722/jell.v2i3.38
M. (2013). Critical thinking: A student's Indrilla, N., & Ciptaningrum, D. S. (2018). An
introduction (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. approach in teaching writing skills: does it
Changwong, K., Sukkamart, A., & Sisan, B. (2018). offer a new insight in enhancing students’
Critical thinking skill development: Analysis writing ability. A Journal on Language and
of a new learning management model for Thai Language Teaching, 21(2), 124-133.
high schools. Journal of International Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1988). The Action
Studies, 11(2), 37-48. research planner. Deakin.
https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2018/11- Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. & Nixon, R. (2014).
2/3. The action research planner: Doing critical
Costa, A. & Kallick. B. (2014). Dispositions: participatory action research. Springer.
Reframing teaching and learning. Corwin Kraisuth, D., & Panjakajornsak, V. (2017). Thai
Press. engineer ASEAN readiness: A structural
Cubukcu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary equation model analysis. Asia-Pacific Social
development and reading comprehension Science Review, 16(3), 96-117.
through metacognitive strategies. Issues in Larkin, S. (2009). Metacognition in young children.
Educational Research, 18(1), 1-11. Routledge.
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning Livingstone, J. A (2003). Metacognition: An
on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in Overview. Report, Educational Resources
second language narrative writing. Studies in Information Center (ERIC), Office of
Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59-84. Educational Research and Improvement. U.S.
Ferretti, R. P., & De La Paz, S. (2011). On the Department of Education. Accessed on 6 Nov.
comprehension and production of written texts: 2020, from:
Instructional activities that support content- https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474273.pdf
area literacy. In R. O’Connor & P. Vadasy Meiranti, R. (2015). Improving students' writing
(Eds.), Handbook of reading interventions (pp. skills through field trip method. English
326–355). Guilford Press. Review: Journal of English Education, 1(1),
Fisher, A. (2013). Critical Thinking: An 89-96.
introduction (second edition). Cambridge MOEC (2020). Strategic plan of the Ministry of
University Press Education. Education and Culture (MOEC) Year 2020-
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive 2024, Secretariat General of the Ministry of
monitoring: A new area of cognitive- Education and Culture. Accessed 26-7-2020
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, from:
34, 906-911. http://repositori.kemdikbud.go.id/18582/1/100
Galinsky, E. (2010). Mind in the making: The seven 62020
essential life skills every child needs. Mu, C. (2016). Investigating English major
HarperCollins Publishing. students’ critical thinking ability in academic
Geertsen, H. R. (2003). Rethinking Thinking about writing. Modern Foreign Languages, 39(5),
Higher-Level Thinking. Teaching Sociology, 693-703.
31(1),1-19. National Association of Colleges and Employers.
Graham, S., & R. Harris, K. (2000). The role of self- (2016). Class of 2016 believes it is “Career
regulation and transcription skills in writing Ready,” but is it? Retrieved from
and writing development. Educational http://tinyurl.com/ya8a559g
psychologist, 35(1), 3-12, NCES (2012). The Condition of education 2012.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_2. Agency Publisher: Department of Education
Haiduc, L. (2011). Reading science textbooks: The (ED) National Center for Education Statistics
role of metacognition in reading (NCES). ISBN: 9780160913792. Accessed 20-
comprehension. International Conference on 7-2019 from:
Languages, Literature and Linguistics. 26, https://bookstore.gpo.gov/products/ condition-
550-555. education-2012
Hove, G. (2011). Developing critical thinking skills Nosratinia, M., Ghavidel, S., & Zaker, A. (2015).
in the high school English classroom Teaching metacognitive strategies through
[unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Anderson’s model: Does it affect EFL
Wisconsin-Stout. Accessed 27 July 2020 from Learners’ listening comprehension? Theory
https://tinyurl.com/y7dm8blh and Practice in Language Studies, 5(6), 1233-
Iftikhar, S. (2014). The importance of metacognitive 1243.
strategies to enhance reading comprehension OECD (2019) Program for international student
skills of learners: A self-directed learning assessment, Results 2019. Accessed on 27 July
approach. Journal of English Language and 2020, from: web: http://www.oecd.org/pisa
Literature, 2(3), 191. Olson, D. R. (2016). The mind on paper: Reading,
Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN: 2502-6747, p-ISSN: 2301-9468
665Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), January 2021
consciousness and rationality. Cambridge
University Press. Setyowati, L., Sukmawa, S., & Latief, M. A. (2017).
Ong, C. H. (2014). Goal orientation of adult students Solving the students’ problems in writing
towards learning strategies: The Malaysian argumentative essay through the provision of
context. Psychological Thought, 7(2), 156-167. planning. Celt: A Journal of Culture, English
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Effects of the Language Teaching & Literature, 17(1), 86-
manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL 102 https://doi.org/10.24167/celt.v17i1.1140
writers’ text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), UNESCO (2016). Education in Thailand: An
375-98. OECD-UNESCO perspective. Reviews of
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task National Policies for Education. OECD
complexity on the fluency and lexical Publishing. Retrieved 27 July 2929 from:
complexity in EFL students’ argumentative fromhttp://tinyurl.com/ml6nufq
writing. Journal of Second Language van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W.,
Writing, 19(4), 218-233. Henkemans, A. F. S., Verheij, B., &
Pei, Z., Zheng, C., Zhang, M., & Liu, F. (2017). Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of
Critical thinking and argumentative writing: argumentation theory. Springer.
Inspecting the association among EFL learners van Zile-Tamsen, C. M. (1996). Metacognitive self-
in China. English Language Teaching, 10(10), regualtion and the daily academic activities of
31-42. college students. Unpublished doctoral
Qian, J. (2015). A study of critical thinking’s impact dissertation. State University of New York at
on English majors’ argumentative writing. Buffalo.
Unpublished thesis, Central China Normal Vorobej, M. (2009). A theory of argument.
University, Wuhan, China. Cambridge University Press. Accessed 18 July
Révész, A., Kourtali, F. K. & Mazgutova, D. (2017). 2020, from:
Effects of task complexity on L2 writing https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s1050
behaviors and linguistic complexity: Task 3-008-9125-8.
complexity and L2 writing. Language Weinert F. E. & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.) (1987).
Learning, 67(1), 1–34. Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12205 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reyes, A. S., & Vallone, L. T. (2008). Constructivist Wink, J. (2000). Critical pedagogy notes from the
strategies for teaching English language real world. Addison Wesley Longman Inc.
learners. Corwin Press, a Sage Publication. Yang, J., & Wu, H. (2016). An empirical study on
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self- the effects of content knowledge and critical
determination theory and the facilitation of thinking on ESL writing. Foreign Language
intrinsic motivation, social development, and World, 1, 36-43.
well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68-
78.
Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN: 2502-6747, p-ISSN: 2301-9468
666You can also read
