Analysis of Critical Thinking Aspects in Students’ Essay

Siti Sarah Sofyaningrat

Department of Linguistics, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Jawa Barat, Indonesia

Keywords: Critical Thinking, Essay, Discourse Analysis, Student, Writing Assignment.

Abstract: Critical Thinking (CT) is an essential skill that helps human make every verdict and select a lot of

information available. For students, their CT skill can be seen in their academic writing, especially in their

essay assignments. However, their essays do not always indicate that they are in charge of their ideas and

thinking because they used to pick up people's thought subconsciously. The study is intended to describe the

CT aspects which appear in students' essay, and the students’ CT level shown in the students’ essay writing.

The method used in this research is a qualitative descriptive method. Data are obtained through the analysis

of the essays using the University of Louisville's CT rubric. The results show that only two CT aspects that

always appear in students' essays: claim and assumption.

1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of overall education is to create

students who can think critically, not just taking

things around them without thinking. This

importance is shown by the Ministry of National

Education that has put CT as one aspect in the

government policies when related to education. The

government shared the idea that students need to be

able to choose, to analyze, and to assess the

explosion of information to meet the demands of

modern life (Khajavi, Yaser. Shahvali, 2013)

Therefore, they need to be equipped with CT skills

inserted into their academic studies effectively

because knowing the facts is not sufficient for the

students.

However, previous research shows that most

students are not in charge of their thoughts. Instead

of thinking what ideas they have, they tend to

imitate and follow what other people's opinions.

They subconsciously pick up what is thought by

people around them (Paul, 1993). It is reflected in

their academic writing, especially in their essay

assignments. Thus, this study is intended to reveal

(a) the CT aspects which appear in the 5

-semester

students’ essay, and (b) the students’ CT level

shown in the students' essay writing in the

Indonesian context.

This study is expected to give an alternative way

of teaching writing that combines CT principles and

writing, especially in essay writing.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Paul (1993) stated that "Critical Thinking (CT) is

thinking about your thinking while you're thinking

to make your thinking better." CT is also judgmental

because it carefully evaluates something and

eventually decides what to accept (Tittle, 2011).

Besides, Ennis (2011) also argued that CT is rational

and reflective thinking focused on determining what

to believe or to do that you act according to your

beliefs. This self-monitored thinking required an

excellent standard to be applied in reasoning

(Richard, Paul., Elder, 2008).

2.1 The Framework of Critical

Thinking

Experts define particular features of CT as the

most critical aspects of CT. As Mason (2008)

explained, that most of the experts tend to emphasize

one, or perhaps two, of this following features: The

skills of critical reasoning (such as the ability to

reason appropriately), a disposition, in the sense of a

critical attitude and a moral orientation which

motivates critical thinking, and substantial

knowledge of particular content.

182

Sofyaningrat, S.

Analysis of Critical Thinking Aspects in Students’ Essay.

DOI: 10.5220/0008215500002284

In Proceedings of the 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference (BELTIC 2018) - Developing ELT in the 21st Century, pages 182-191

ISBN: 978-989-758-416-9

One conceptual set that the researcher will focus

on is the concept of CT proposed by Paul & Elder

(2008) that is known as the Paul-Elder Critical

Thinking Framework. The Paul-Elder CT

framework is a refinement and development of the

conceptualization of critical thinking by Richard

Paul and Linda Elder. Moreover, this approach is

outlined in several publications and one of the most

widely published and cited frameworks in the CT

literature (University of Louisville, no date)

The Paul-Elder framework has three components

based on the Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking

Concept and Tool by Paul and Elder. The

components are (a) the elements of thought, (b) the

intellectual standard, and (c) the intellectual traits.

(Richard, Paul., Elder, 2008)

Figure 1: The Paul Elder Critical Thinking Framework

2.2 The Assessment of Critical

Thinking Aspect in Essay Writing

Developed from Paul-Elder Critical Thinking

Framework, one of the Tool Analysis that can be

used to assess critical thinking aspects is University

of Louisville Critical Thinking Rubric. As stated in

Louisville University (2013), The University of

Louisville General Education Critical Thinking

Rubric is based on the Paul-Elder framework and

developed at the University of Louisville (See

appendix).

2.3 General Concept of Essay

An essay is a set of paragraphs written about a

particular topic and a central main idea. It must have

at least three paragraphs, but a five-paragraph essay

is a common task for academic writing (Zemach,

Dorothy E., Rumisek, 2003). Similar to a paragraph,

an essay composes of three parts. These parts are the

introductory paragraph; the supporting paragraphs or

the body; and the concluding paragraph. Paragraphs

can be easily developed into essay length

(Boardman, 2008)

Further, Mccuen-Metherell and Winkler (2009)

also agreed that essay writing is a process aimed at

expressing with the written word what the writer

feels or thinks about a subject. The essay is divisible

into two major parts: the material elements—the

words, sentences, and paragraphs arranged by a

writer on paper—and the abstract elements—the

purpose, audience, and strategy that must enter into

the writer’s calculations and writing.

The structure of essay consists of three main

parts. Those parts are introduction, body, and

conclusion (Zemach, Dorothy E., Rumisek, 2003;

Boardman, Cynthia A., Frydenberg, 2008; Langan,

2008; Anker, 2010). Introduction, body and

conclusion are the three important parts of essay that

should exist in every essay to make the essay well-

structured and well written. Those who want to

produce the better essay should produce the better

writing in every main structure. Moreover, the

conclusion reminds readers of the main point. It may

summarize and reinforce the support, or it may make

an observation based on that support (Anker, 2010)

2.4 The Relationship between Critical

Thinking and Essay Writing

Critical thinking and analysis are key elements of

the reading and writing. Kirby and Goodpaster

(1999) argue that writing is a mirror of mind that can

clarify, sharpen, and enrich one’s mind. Thought can

be placed in writing to eliminate the ambiguity and

achieve clarity, strengthen our physical and mental

awareness.

Waburton (2006) stated that essay writing is at

the heart of education. Hence, Essays serve as a tool

to test the students’ knowledge by assessing their

arguments, analyses, and specific examples, as well

as the conclusion.

The essay texts used for the analysis were one of

the essay assignments in Reading Comprehension 5

Course. Those are the essay response to the text

"Sexism in English: A 1990s Update" by Alleen

Pace Nilsen in Reading Comprehension 5 course.

The students taking this course had chosen among

three quotations in the text: "Language and society

are as intertwined as a chicken and an egg"

Analysis of Critical Thinking Aspects in Students’ Essay

183

(paragraph 5), "Early in life, children are

conditioned to the superiority of the masculine role"

(paragraph 29), and "I'm one of the linguists who

believe that new language customs will cause a new

generation of speakers to grow up with different

expectations" (paragraph 36). Then, each student

was supposed to make an argumentative essay in

response to one of those quotations.

Essays on this issue also portrayed some of the

issues in the previous meeting of reading class.

Thus, it is believed that the students have the more

prior knowledge to develop their essays.

3 METHODS

This study employed qualitative approach Taylor,

Steven J., Bogdan, Robert., Devault (2016) stated

that qualitative method is a research procedure that

produces a descriptive data of written or oral and the

behaviour that can be observed. To attain the data,

the study was held at a State Islamic University in

Bandung, Indonesia. This location is chosen because

there is a language major in this university,

specifically English Education Department of which

the students have produced a lot of writing

assignments in their study that is beneficial for this

research.

The participants of this research are the 5

semester EFL students. The population is 124

students divided into three classes: Class A, B, and

C. The purposive sampling technique was employed

to select the 27 students as the sample of this study.

Nine students were taken from each class. They are

classified into a high, medium and low level based

on the students' score in Reading Comprehension

subject. The students' classification aim is to gain

data that are more specific from the participants.

The data were taken from the documents of the

students’ essay. The documents were analyzed by

using the CT rubric adapted from Paul-Elder CT

framework (Richard, Paul., Elder, 2008) to show the

students’ critical thinking in their essays. This CT

rubric is also developed and used by Louisville

University; therefore, it is named as The University

of Louisville General Education Critical Thinking

Rubric.

4 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND

DISCUSSION

4.1 Aspects of Critical Thinking Which

Appear in Students’ Essay

Table 1 below shows CT aspects in the rubric

that appeared in students’ essay.

Table 1: CT Aspects of the Students' Essay

Aspects Respondent Total Perce

ntage

1 Claim R1-R27 27 100%

2 Evidence R1,R3,R4,R6-

R27

25 92%

3 Inference R1, R3, R4,

R8-R27, R29-

R27

22 81%

4 Assumption R1-R27 27 100%

5 Implication R1, R3, R4,

R5, R7,R10-

R14, R17-

R19, R21-R25

19 66%

It can be concluded that not all respondents have

all the five aspects of CT in their essay. There are

only two aspects--(1) claim (100%) and (2)

assumption (100%)—that always present in

respondents' essay. Both claim and assumption carry

the writers' point of view. For the claim, which

consists the thesis statement, the purpose and

problem (University of Louisville, no date), the

analysis shows that all of the respondents' essays

have a claim. It relates to the statement of Mccuen-

Metherell and Winkler (2009) that every essay has a

purpose that exists in the claim. The data can be seen

in the following figure:

Figure 2: Critical Thinking Aspects Appeared in Students'

Essay

Meanwhile, the other three aspects--(3) evidence

(92%), (4) inference (81%) and (5) implication

CriticalThinkingAspects

Claim Evidence Inference

Assumption Implication

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

184

(66%)—are still missing from their essay. This

shown that the research finding is contradictory with

the theory that said that once expressed, the

controlling idea should be supported by logic,

evidence, and expert testimony; moreover, the

argument should take into account the expected

replies of the opposition (Mccuen-Metherell and

Winkler, 2009), There are still essay which do not

carry the evidence to strengthen the controlling idea.

Moreover, about inference, there could be other

explanations for the evidence cited and thus other

positions to take and actions to advocate that should

be exist in inference. (Nadell, Judith., Langan, John.,

Comodromos, 2009). Because of the evidences that

do not exist in every essay, some inferences may not

exist also to infer the arguments and this make the

percentage of inference aspect is getting low. At last,

Nadell, Judith., Langan, John., Comodromos (2009)

stated that the kind of process analysis chosen has

implications for the way the writer will relate to the

reader. It relates to the findings shown that most of

respondents can relate the implication with the

readers.

Table 2: Students’ level of Critical Thinking Aspects in Their Essay.

No Aspects Level Respondent Total %

1 Claim 0 0 0%

1 R2, R5, R6, R7, R9, R11,

R12, R15.

8 29%

2 R1, R3, R8, R13, R14,

R16, R17, R18, R19, R20,

R23, R25, R26, R27

14 51%

3 R4, R10, R21, R24 4 14%

4 R22 1 3%

2 Evidence 0 R2, R5 2 7%

1 R6, R7, R9, R13, R14,

R20, R21, R26

8 29%

2 R3, R4, R8, R10, R15,

R16, R19, R24, R27

9 33%

3 R1, R11, R12, R17, R18,

R22, R23, R25

8 29%

4 - 0 0%

3 Inference 0 R2, R5, R6, R7, R18 5 18%

1 R4, R26 2 7%

2 R9, R11, R14, R15, 4 14%

3 R1, R3, R8, R10, R12,

R13, R16, R17, R19, R20,

R21, R22, R23, R24, R25,

R27

59%

4 - 0 0%

4 Assumption 0 - 0 0%

1 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R9,

R10, R13, R14, R15, R18,

R19, R20, R22, R23, R25,

R26, R27

18 66%

2 R3, R5, R8, R11, R12,

R16, R17, R21

8 29%

3 R24 1 3%

4 - 0 0%

4 Implication 0 R2, R6, R7, R9, R15, R16,

R20, R26, R27

9 33%

1 - 0 0%

2 R1, R5, R8, R11, R19,

R21, R23, R25

8 29%

3 R3, R4, R10, R12, R13,

R14, R17, R18, R22,

9 33%

4 R24 1 3%

Analysis of Critical Thinking Aspects in Students’ Essay

185

The representatives of students’ essay analysis in

Table 2 may show the level of critical thinking

aspects and enhance the research result.

4.2 The Critical Thinking Aspects in

Students’ Essay Writing and Their

Level

The students’ essays are analyzed to identify the

level of critical thinking aspects appear in students’

essay writing. The rubric of University of Louisville

used as the rubric adapted and based on critical

thinking framework proposed by Paul and Elder

(2008).

There are several levels in every critical thinking

aspects, such as (1) for “Not Evident” level, (2) for

“Minimally evident” level, (3) for “Usually Evident”

Level, and (4) for “Clearly Evident” Level.

The analysis of representatives of students’ essay

is shown as follows based on the overall data of

students’ level above. The average of all sample

level is analysed in separate aspects to elaborate and

to strengthen the analysis.

4.2.1 Claim

From the table 2, the student’s level in claim as

critical thinking aspect in University of Louisville

rubric may best shown in diagram as follows:

Figure 3: Students' Essay Level in Claim

Figure 3 shows that "Claim" is one of CT aspects

that always emerged in students' essay. 14 students

(51.8%) scored two which means that the essays are

considered as "Minimally Evident." Then, eight

students (29,6%) scored one as "Not evident" which

means that those essays have not a clear, precise,

and significant thesis and do not demonstrate an

understanding of the purpose and do not recognize

the problem. Only four students (14.8%) that scored

three that is considered as "Usually Evident" which

meant that their claim ad a clear and precise thesis

but lacked significance. At last, only one student

(3.7%) that scored the highest score that is four as

"Clearly Evident" which means the respondent has a

clear, precise and significance thesis, also the clear

purpose and problem recognition. Unfortunately,

most of the respondents who scored 1 and 2 have

unclear and imprecise claims. It means that the

writers cannot elaborate critical thinking in the

essay.

In relation to that, Pau & Elder (2008) elaborate

that critical thinker should routinely apply

intellectual standards, in this case, clarity, precision,

significance, accuracy, relevance to the element of

reasoning in a claim such as purposes, questions.

The most of the respondent who scored 1 (51.8%)

and 2 (29.6%) failed to apply this concept.

Furthermore, based on this theory, only one person

successfully has reached the level of a critical

thinker and four respondents who nearly reach it.

The good claim that has been analyzed previously

proved that the respondents have a clear, precise,

and significance claim.

4.2.2 Evidence

To enhance the findings and discussion, the diagram

of result in “Evidence” as aspect of critical thinking

can be seen as follows:

Figure 4: Students' Essay Level in 'Evidence'

Despite the fact that evidence is important in

supporting the claim in the essay, according to the

rubric of University of Louisville, there are still two

students (7.4%) who are not stated their evidence

and scored 0 in their essay. The fact that the students

fail in writing the evidence in their essay contradicts

with the fact that it is very important to establish

how the evidence (data) supports the thesis (claim)

(Nadell, Judith., Langan, John., Comodromos,

2009).

Then, both groups of students who achieved the

highest scores (3) and the lowest scores (1) have

eight students each. The eight students (29.6%) who

scored three are categorized as "Usually Evident"

which means that their evidence is sufficient,

R11

R13

R15

R17

R19

R21

R23

R25

R27

Claim

R11

R13

R15

R17

R19

R21

R23

R25

R27

Evidence

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

186

R11

R13

R15

R17

R19

R21

R23

R25

R27

Inference

defensible and counter-evidence was acknowledged

even though insufficiently refuted. Then other eight

students (29.6%) who scored one were considered as

"Not Evident" which means that their evidence

aspect was insufficient or misinterpreted evidence or

ignored counter evidence. Nine students (33.3%)

scored two as "Minimally Evident" which means

that the evidence is found in minimally sufficient

and lack of the counter evidence.

The problem of the group of respondents who

categorized as "Not Evident" and "Minimally

Evident" is that they lack the logic of the evidence in

their writings. Whereas, according to Paul & Elder

(2008) the logic is part of aspect in Universal

Intellectual standard, which means that the evidence

should make sense, the writers should bring a variety

of thoughts together into some order. There are no

respondents who scored four that belongs to

"Clearly Evident" category. Based on the analysis,

the problem is the counter evidence. There are no

respondents who acknowledge and refute the

counter evidence sufficiently. While in fact, as

Mccuen-Metherell and Winkler (2009) argued that

to write an effective argument, the writer must not

only deliver personal views but must also raise and

disprove any possible counterclaims by the other

side.

4.2.3 Inference

The students’ essay analysis result of “Inference” as

one of the aspects in critical thinking was shown as

follows:

Figure 5: Students' Level in Inference

Figure 5 shows that there are five samples

(18.5%) that did not have any inference in their

essay and scored zero. Furthermore, there are 3

students (11.1%) who scored 1 as “Not Evident”

which means that they have inferences that did not

show connections between evidence and conclusion.

4 students (14.8%) scored 2 as "Minimally Evident"

which means that their inferences are illogical and

inconsistent in connecting the evidence and

conclusion. The last, the most sample students that

are 15 students (55.5%) scored three which

categorized them into "Usually Evident” level. This

level has shown that their inference usually made

logical connections between evidence and

conclusion. While for score 4 “Clearly Evident”

inference, there is no single students appear to reach

this level.

The sample of inferences analyzed in this

research has shown that there are quite lot students

who do not provide a conclusion in the essay at all in

their writing. It means that they are not even

consider information and evidence. This analysis

also proves that the five respondents that scored 0 in

inference do not summarize the main point of the

essay.

For the other group of respondents, they have

been analyzed based on the connection between the

evidence with the conclusions they draw. Group of

respondents who had scored 1 (11.1%) as “Not

Evident” does not connect evidence and the

conclusion. It contradicts with Waburton's opinion

stating that a good writer should conclude from the

evidence that has been given (Waburton, 2006). The

next group of respondents who scored two as

"Minimally Evident” (14.8%) has made illogical and

inconsistent connection between evidence and

conclusion. These findings show that they had

already provided evidence, as Waburton (2006) have

stated in the previous statement, yet they ignored the

relevant conclusion and the logic behind the

conclusion.

4.2.4 Influence of Context and Assumptions

Figure 6 below shows the level of assumption

among students in their essay.

Figure 6: Students' Level in Assumption

Same as claim, assumption is one of the aspects

in critical thinking that always appear in students’

essay. Beside that fact, the most of samples that are

18 students (66,6%) scored low that is 1. That made

their essays are categorized as “Not Evident” essay

in assumption which means that their assumption are

R11

R13

R15

R17

R19

R21

R23

R25

R27

Assumption

Analysis of Critical Thinking Aspects in Students’ Essay

187

shown an emerging awareness of present

assumptions and they began to identify some

contexts when presenting a position (University of

Louisvile, 2013).

Further, as can be seen in Figure 6, only one

student (3.7%) that has reached score 3 and his/her

essay categorized as "Usually Evident" which means

that s/he not only identifies his/her assumption but

also others' assumption and several relevant

contexts. And the rest of the eight students (29.6%)

scored two as "Minimally Evident" which means

that they questioned some assumptions and also

identifies several relevant contexts.

The problem with the research findings that do

not reach level 4 of assumption is the fairness of the

assumption. The respondent at the low level does not

recognize any other's assumption. The respondents

who fall into level 2 are only aware of their own

assumption than the others. Meanwhile, the highest

level that achieved only reach level 3 that happens

when the writer identifies own and others'

assumption and several relevant contexts.

Using the University of Louisville’s rubric, they

fail to recognize their assumption and others'

assumption thoroughly, and do not carefully

evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting

position.

4.2.5 Implication

To enhance the analysis and discussion of the

research, the diagram of implication as one of the

aspects of critical thinking can be seen in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Students' Level in “Implication”

There are quite a lot of sample that does not

imply anything in their essay. There are nine

students (33.3%) who scored 0. As for the highest

score which is 4, only one student reached the level

and his/her implication considered as "Clearly

Evident" implication which means that his/her

identifies and thoroughly discusses implications,

conclusions, and consequences and also considered

all relevant assumptions, contexts, data, and

evidence. For score 2, there are eight students

(29.6%) categorized as "Minimally Evident"

implication and they suggest some implications

without clear reference to context and data or

evidence. And then, there are nine students (33.3%)

who scored 3 and their essay considered as "Usually

Evident" in implication which means that they

identify, briefly discuss implication and consider

most but not all relevant data.

As can be seen from the statistic of implication

section, data show a lot of absence of implication in

respondents’ essay. 33.3% respondents have no

implication, whereas implication aspect is important

in an essay. As Paul (1993) argued that the principle

of implication is to reason through an issue or

decision; critical thinkers must understand the

implications and consequences that follow from it.

The fact that the remaining respondents do not

have low score such as level 1 means that the

respondents have reduced the flawed implication

and consequences. Further, Level 2 until 4 indicate

that the students could differentiate assumption and

evidence in their implication. In implication, there is

only one respondent who reached the highest level:

that is Level 4. This means that that one respondent

can be considered as the good thinkers.

Overall, based on the University of Louisville’s

rubric, regarding the existence of a claim in their

writing, most students reach Level 2 (Minimally

Evident). Meanwhile, regarding the existence of

evidence, most students have Level 2 (Minimally

Evident), and for inference, most students score

three that is at "Usually Evident" level. In addition,

for assumption, most students reach Level 2

(Minimally Evident) and, for implication, most

students scored 0 and three as "usually evident". For

implication, the average score of the students is 1.7

which belongs to Level 1 as "Not Evident."

In relation to Paul & Elder (2008), a well-

cultivated critical thinker raises a clear and precisely

important question and problems. When most

students reach Level 2 in the claim, this means that

they are not quite good in making a claim, because

the theses are stated clearly but lack precision and

demonstrate a limited understanding of purpose,

problem or unclear question. Second, a good critical

thinker gathers and assesses relevant information,

using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively. Seeing

from the Level 2 in evidence, the students cannot be

considered as a well critical thinker, because the

evidence in students' essay is less sufficient to

support the claim and lack of the counter evidence.

R11

R13

R15

R17

R19

R21

R23

R25

R27

Implication

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

188

Third, Paul & Elder (2008) also stated that a

well-cultivated critical thinker has well-reasoned

conclusions and solutions. This relates to the fact

that inference as one of the CT aspects reaches Level

3 which means that the students usually make

logical connections between evidence and

conclusion. Then, a critical thinker also thinks,

recognizes, assesses the assumption, implications,

consequences, and communicates the solution to the

problem open-mindedly. In relation to this, the

assumption with Level ‘minimally evident' and

implication with Level ‘not evident' have proven that

the students are not good enough to be a critical

thinker. Thus, based on the analysis above, the

students cannot be considered as a well-cultivated

critical thinker.

Based on the analysis, the students reach Level 2

as ‘minimally evident’ in both aspects of evidence

and assumption. The problems are bad opinion or

lack of counter opinion. This makes the students’

essay failed to develop some intellectual traits such

as intellectual humility, intellectual courage,

intellectual empathy, and fair-mindedness that needs

the critical thinkers to acknowledge counter-opinion

in their essay. Level 3 in inference relates to

intellectual autonomy traits that are having rational

control of one's beliefs, value, and inference and

confidence in reason. It means that one draws the

reasonable conclusion and persuades each other by

reason. These traits have developed in the students'

CT. Moreover, Evidence aspect with Level 2

indicates that the students' evidence is minimally

sufficient to make the students fail to develop

intellectual integrity and perseverance traits. This

because intellectual integrity and perseverance need

consistency in intellectual standard and rigorous

standards in evidence. In addition, the use of

intellectual insights to achieve a deeper

understanding, and the ‘minimally evidence’ level in

students’ essay is not enough to achieve these traits.

In conclusion, the students only develop two traits

that are intellectual autonomy and confidence in

reason out of eight other intellectual traits.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, there are five aspects of critical

thinking appear in students' essay. There are only

two aspects--claim and assumption--that always

emerge in their essay. While the other three aspects

that are evidence, inference and implication are still

missing from some of the essays.

The level of critical thinking aspects in

students' essay writing ranging from Level 1 to

Level 4. In "Claim" and "Evidence," most of the

students reach level 2 (Minimally Evident). In

"Inference," most of the students have scored three

that is "Usually Evident" level. In "Assumption"

most of the students reach level 2 (Minimally

Evident), and in "Implication," most of the students

scored 0 and three as "usually evident." In average

for implication, students scored one which

categorized in level 1 as "Not Evident."

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to show my gratitude to all people that

have supported and helped me in writing this paper.

Especially to Indonesia Endowment Fund for

Education that have been supporting my study.

I would also like to thank my lectures in

Universitas Indonesia and UIN Sunan Gunung Djati

Bandung for sharing their pearls of wisdom with me

during the course of this research. I thank the

students of English Education Department, class of

2011 in UIN Sunan Gunung Djati for being part of

this study.

REFERENCES

Anker, S. 2010. Real Writing with Readings: Parapgraphs

and Essays for College, Work, and Everyday Life.

Bedford/St. Martin’s. New York, 5

Edition.

Boardman, Cynthia A., Frydenberg, J. 2008. Writing to

Communicate 2: Paragraph and Essays. Pearson

Education. New York, 3

Edition.

Ennis, R. H. 2011. ‘The Nature of Critical Thinking : An

Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions’. University

of Illinois. Chicago.

Khajavi, Yaser. Shahvali, N. 2013. Promoting critical

thinking in the classroom., Humanising Language

Teaching. United Kingdom. Available at:

http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jun13/sart05.htm (Accessed:

22 January 2015).

Kirby, G. R. and Goodpaster, J. R. 1999. Critical

Thinking. Upper Saddle River. New Jersey, 2

Edition.

Langan, J. 2008. College Writing Skills with Reading.

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. New York, 7

Edition.

Mason, M. 2008. ‘Critical Thinking and Learning’, in

Mason, M. (ed.) Critical Thinking and Learning.

Blackwell Publishing. Maldon.

Mccuen-Metherell, J. R. and Winkler, A. C. 2009. From

idea to essay. Wadsworth. California.

Nadell, Judith., Langan, John., Comodromos, E. A. 2009

The Longman Writer Rhetoric, Reader, Research

Analysis of Critical Thinking Aspects in Students’ Essay

189

Guide, and Handbook. Pearson Education, Inc. New

York: 7

Edition.

Paul, R. W. (1993) Critical Thinking: What Every Person

Needs To Survive in a Rapidly Changing World.

California: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Available at:

http://www.criticalthinking.org/data/pages/48/496176

7a3a4709bf9d4ec478c406391851352ae218fec.pdf.

Richard, Paul., Elder, L. .2008. The Miniature Guide to

Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools. Foundation for

Critical Thinking Press, California.

Taylor, Steven J., Bogdan, Robert., Devault, M. L. 2016

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods.

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling.

JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.,Hoboken. New Jersey, 4

Edition.

Tittle, P. 2011. Critical Thinking: An Appeal to Reason.

Routledge. New Jersey.

University of Louisville (no date) Critical Thinking

Rubric: Ideas to Action. Available at:

http://louisville.edu/provost/ger/rubrics/assessment-

rubrics/Critical_Thinking_Rubric.pdf (Accessed: 21

January 2015).

Waburton, N. 2006. The Basics of Essay Writing.

Routledge. New York

Zemach, Dorothy E., Rumisek, L. A. 2003. College

writing: from paragraph to essay. Macmillan Press.

London.

APPENDIX

University of Louisville Critical Thinking Rubric.

Claim: States thesis; Identifies purpose; Demonstrates

recognition of problem or question

4 - Clearly

Evident

3 -

Usually

Evident

2 -Minimally

Evident

1-Not

Evident

States a

clear,

precise,

and

significant

thesis;

Demonstr

ates a

clear

understan

ding of

the

purpose of

the

assignmen

recognitio

n of the

problem

Clearly

states a

thesis that

is precise,

but thesis

lacks

significan

ce for

making an

argument;

Demonstr

ates an

understan

ding of

the

purpose of

the

assignmen

t or

recognitio

Clearly states

a thesis, but

thesis lacks

precision and

significance;

Demonstrates

a limited

understanding

of purpose of

the

assignment or

recognition of

the problem or

question is

unclear

Does not

state clear,

precise,

and

significant

thesis;

Does not

demonstra

te an

understan

ding of

the

purpose of

the

assignmen

t, nor

recognize

the

problem

question n of the

problem

question

Evidence: Uses evidence, information, data,

observations, experiences, and/or reasons

Presents

strong,

credible

evidence

and

interprets

evidence

defensibly

and

convincin

gly and

acknowle

dges and

refutes

evidence

that does

not

support

the claim

Evidence

sufficient

to support

the claim

and

evidence

interprete

defensibly

and

counter-

evidence

acknowle

dged but

insufficien

tly refuted

Evidence is

minimally

sufficient to

support the

claim and

evidence is

usually

interpreted

defensibly but

ignores some

of the counter

evidence

Evidence

insufficien

t to

support

the claim,

misinterpr

ets

evidence,

or ignores

evidence

that

counters

the claim

Inference: Makes a logical argument; Develops a line

of reasoning based on evidence

Always

makes

logical

connectio

between

evidence

and

conclusio

Usually

makes

logical

connectio

between

evidence

and

conclusio

Makes

illogical and

inconsistent

connections

between

evidence and

conclusions

Does not

show

connectio

between

evidence

and

conclusio

Influence of Context and Assumptions

Thoroughl

(systemati

cally and

methodica

lly)

analyses

own and

others’

assumptio

ns and

carefully

evaluates

the

relevance

contexts

when

presenting

a position.

Identifies

own and

others’

assumptio

ns and

several

relevant

contexts

when

presenting

a position.

Questions

some

assumptions.

Identifies

several

relevant

contexts when

presenting a

position. May

be more aware

of others’

assumptions

than one’s

own (or vice

versa).

Shows an

emerging

awareness

of present

assumptio

(sometime

s labels

assumptio

ns as

assumptio

ns).

Begins to

identify

some

contexts

when

presenting

a position.

Implications: Evaluates Implications, conclusions, and

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

190

consequences

Identifies

and

thoroughl

discusses

implicatio

ns,

conclusio

ns, and

consequen

ces,

considerin

g all

relevant

assumptio

ns,

contexts,

data, and

evidence.

Identifies

and

briefly

discusses

implicatio

ns,

conclusio

ns, and

consequen

ces,

considerin

g most but

not all the

relevant

assumptio

ns,

contexts,

data, and

evidence.

Suggests

some

implications,

conclusions,

and

consequences,

but without

clear

reference to

context,

assumptions,

data, and

evidence.

Fails to

identify

implicatio

ns,

conclusio

ns, and

consequen

ces of the

issue,

(OR) the

key

relationshi

between

the other

elements

of the

problem

such as

context,

assumptio

ns, or data

and

evidence.

Analysis of Critical Thinking Aspects in Students’ Essay

191