Reasoning in Dialogical Argumentation in English of the First-Year Students of the English Programme at Chiang Mai University
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
University lecturers in Thailand are encouraged to incorporate critical thinking skills into their classrooms, including English language instruction. However, little is known about Thai undergraduates’ current levels of critical thinking skills. This paper addresses this issue by investigating the reasoning skills of fourteen first-year participating students of the English Programme at Chiang Mai University through the analysis of twenty-one transcripts of dialogical argumentation in English and the transcripts of the interviews with twelve participants. In order to generate an understanding about the reasoning skills of the participants, the data analysis focuses on identifying fallacies in the participants’ arguments and classifying their types. In addition, the analysis aims to explore what the barriers of the participants’ thinking and reasoning skills development are. The results indicated that the fallacies constituted the violations of the argument scheme rule, the burden-of-proof rule and the validity rule. For example, many participants applied an argument scheme in an incorrectly way and presented arguments which contained logical errors. In addition, they presented their standpoints as something that needs no proof at all. With regard to those fallacies, some participants gave reasons which supported their preexisting beliefs, and some participants were not critical in considering their fallacious reasons. Both behaviours are indicative characteristics of a non-critical thinker. The results also indicated three factors associated with sociocultural contexts. These factors shaped the participants’ perspectives and behaviours which are likely to constitute barriers for the development of their thinking and reasoning skills. First, due to the power relations between the lecturer and the students, some participants undermined their own voices in the classroom during the process of co-constructing knowledge. Secondly, despite having reasonable arguments, some participants chose to keep quiet and conform to the group because they were worried that they would not be accepted by their peers. Finally, some participants avoided being direct, especially in front of unfamiliar peers, because they feared that their different opinions would violate their peer relationships.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Amornchewin, B. (2013). Critical Thinking. Bangkok: Parbpim.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1, Cognitive Domain/ by a Committee of College and University Examiners; (B. S. Bloom, Ed.). London: Longman Group.
Boss. (2015). Think: Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Sci Nce Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Choice Reviews Online (Vol. 45). Washington, DC: National Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.45-3327
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A. F. S. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blaire, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Erik, C. W. K., … Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Elio, R. (2002). Issues in Common Sense Reasoning and Rationality. In E. Renée (Ed.), Common Sense, Reasoning, and Rationality (pp. 3–36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice (pp. 9–26). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Facione, P. A. (1990). The Delphi Report: Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Retrieved from https://www.insightassessment.com/Resources/Importance-of-Critical-Thinking/Expert-Consensus-on-Critical-Thinking
Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical Thinking : What It Is and Why It Counts. Insight Assessment, (ISBN 13: 978-1-891557-07-1.), 1–28. https://doi.org/ISBN 13: 978-1-891557-07-1
Fisher, R. (1990). Teaching Children to Think. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Halpern, D. F. (2007). The Nature and Nurture of Critical Thinking. In R. J. Sternberg, H. L. Roediger III, & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical Thinking in Psychology (pp. 1–14). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804632.002
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2000). Constructive Controversy: The Educative Power of Intellectual Conflict. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380009602706
Kahneman, D. (2003). A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and Learning Science as Argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395
Manktelow, K., & Cheung Chung, M. (2004). The Contextual Character of Thought: Integrating Themes from the Histories and Theories of the Study of Reasoning. In K. Manktelow & M. Cheung Chung (Eds.), Psychology of Reasoning: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives. Hove and New York: Psychology Press.
Mercier, H. (2011). Reasoning Serves Argumentation in Children. Cognitive Development, 26(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2010.12.001
Mercier, H., Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., & Trouche, E. (2017). Natural-Born Arguers: Teaching How to Make the Best of Our Reasoning Abilities. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207537
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(02), 57–111. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The Place of Argumentation in the Pedagogy of School Science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The Effects of Goal Instructions and Text on the Generation of Counterarguments During Writing. Journal of Education Psychology, 97(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157
Office of the Education Council. (2017). National Qualifications Framework (Thailand NQF) (Revised ed). Bangkok: Office of the Education Council, Ministry of Education.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to Argue: A Study of Four Schools and their Attempt to Develop the Use of Argumentation as a Common Instructional Practice and its Impact on Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21073
Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38, 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.012
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of Oral Discussion on Written Argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3202&3_04
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Glina, M., & Anderson, R. C. (2009). Measuring Argumentative Reasoning: What’s Behind the Numbers? Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001
Rusfandi. (2015). Argument-Counterargument Structure in Indonesian EFL Learners’ English Argumentative Essays: A Dialogic Concept of Writing Rusfandi. RELC Journal, 46(2), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688215587607
Stapleton, P., & Wu, Y. (Amy). (2015). Assessing the quality of arguments in students’ persuasive writing: A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.006
The Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. The Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/table-1-cefr-3.3-common-reference-levels-global-scale
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. (M. Cole, J.-S. Vera, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge: Havard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 4, The History of the Development of Higher Mental Functions. (R. W. Rieber, Ed., M. J. Hall, Trans.). New York and London: Plenum Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge: Havard University Press.