Improving EFL Learners’ Critical Thinking Skills in Argumentative Writing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 21st century where information has become easily available and accessible, education has shifted its attention to teaching students how to process and think critically about the information they receive. Welcoming the changes that education constantly witnesses, the field of English Language Teaching (ELT) has embraced the integration of critical thinking. Accordingly, the present paper aims to explore the effect, if any, of integrating critical thinking on learners’ use of critical thinking skills in argumentative writing. To this end, an experimental study was conducted; 36 Moroccan EFL learners from the department of English were divided evenly into an experimental group and a control group. While the participants in the experimental group were taught writing with critical thinking skills, the others were taught writing with no reference to these skills. The participants in both groups took a pre-test and posttest to evaluate the development of their use of critical thinking skills in argumentative writing. The data which has been quantitatively analyzed indicates that the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group. The students’ ability to use more credible evidence, address alternative arguments, support conclusions, and maintain the logical flow of ideas in their essays did not reach a mastery level in the posttest, yet the average level they reached is reassuring in view of the short time of the training they had. An integration of CT for longer periods may bring forth encouraging outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it