The Relationship between Critical Thinking, Frequency, Informal Fallacy and Evidence in Argumentative Writing

{"title":"The Relationship between Critical Thinking, Frequency, Informal Fallacy and Evidence in Argumentative Writing","authors":"","doi":"10.47012/jjmll.13.2.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present study was an investigation of the relationship between the EFL learners’ critical thinking, their frequency, and types of informal fallacy and evidence in argumentative writing. Few studies have been conducted to investigate these issues. To this end, 356-second grade female senior state high school students from four schools in Zanjan were selected through multistage cluster random sampling (MCRS) method and based on Cambridge placement test (2010); 130 students proved to be upper-intermediate and participated in this correlational study. The main data collection stage took place for one month. Then, the informal fallacies based on Johnson's definitions and four types of evidence categorized in Hoeke and Hustinkx were identified and counted within language learners' argumentative writings. The evaluation of the arguments was also conducted based on Walton, Reed, and Macagno. Based on the results achieved from the first research question, there was a significant negative correlation observed between the participants' critical thinking and the frequency of use of informal fallacies in their written argumentation. Based on the results achieved from the second research question, there was a potential and significant correlation between the participants' critical thinking and the frequency of use of informal fallacies. \nKeywords: Argumentative Writing, Critical Thinking, Evidence, Informal Fallacy.","PeriodicalId":197303,"journal":{"name":"Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.13.2.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The present study was an investigation of the relationship between the EFL learners’ critical thinking, their frequency, and types of informal fallacy and evidence in argumentative writing. Few studies have been conducted to investigate these issues. To this end, 356-second grade female senior state high school students from four schools in Zanjan were selected through multistage cluster random sampling (MCRS) method and based on Cambridge placement test (2010); 130 students proved to be upper-intermediate and participated in this correlational study. The main data collection stage took place for one month. Then, the informal fallacies based on Johnson's definitions and four types of evidence categorized in Hoeke and Hustinkx were identified and counted within language learners' argumentative writings. The evaluation of the arguments was also conducted based on Walton, Reed, and Macagno. Based on the results achieved from the first research question, there was a significant negative correlation observed between the participants' critical thinking and the frequency of use of informal fallacies in their written argumentation. Based on the results achieved from the second research question, there was a potential and significant correlation between the participants' critical thinking and the frequency of use of informal fallacies. Keywords: Argumentative Writing, Critical Thinking, Evidence, Informal Fallacy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
议论文写作中批判性思维、频率、非正式谬误与证据的关系
本研究旨在调查英语学习者的批判性思维、批判性思维的频率以及议论文写作中非正式谬误和证据的类型之间的关系。很少有研究对这些问题进行调查。为此,本研究基于剑桥分班测试(2010),采用多阶段整群随机抽样(MCRS)方法,从赞詹四所学校抽取356名女高中二年级学生;130名中高水平学生参与了本相关研究。主要数据收集阶段进行了一个月。然后,基于约翰逊的定义和Hoeke和Hustinkx分类的四种类型的证据的非正式谬论被识别和统计在语言学习者的议论文中。对论证的评价也是基于沃尔顿、里德和马加尼奥的观点进行的。根据第一个研究问题的结果,在参与者的批判性思维和书面论证中使用非正式谬论的频率之间观察到显著的负相关。根据第二个研究问题的结果,参与者的批判性思维与非正式谬论的使用频率之间存在潜在的显著相关性。关键词:议论文写作,批判性思维,证据,非正式谬误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Counter-conduct and Persistence in Selected Works by Egyptian Women Writers Is Religion a Social Factor in the Variation of (ðˤ)? The Case of Khirbit Al-Wahadneh, Jordan The Semantics of Modal QAD in Standard Arabic Examining the Role of Breadth and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge in Reading Comprehension of English Language Learners Self-Translation: Faithful Rendition or Rewriting in Gibran's the Prophet
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1