THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

CRITICAL THINKING ABILITY AND WRITING ABILITY

(A Correlational Study of the Sixth Semester Students of Department of English
Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta)

By
AHMAD SUGIANTO
109014000181

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS’ TRAINING
SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
JAKARTA
2014
 ABSTRACT
Ahmad Sugianto (NIM: 109014000181). The Relationship between Critical
Thinking Ability and Writing Ability; A Correlational Study of the Sixth
Semester Students of Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah
State Islamic University Jakarta, Academic Year 2013/2014. A Skripsi of
Department of English Education at Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training
of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta, 2014.
Advisor I: Drs. Syauki, M.Pd.
Advisor II: Ismalianing Eviyuliwati, M.Hum.
Keywords: Critical Thinking Ability, Writing Ability

Skripsi which entitles The Relationship between Critical Thinking Ability

and Writing Ability is aimed to analyze and find out the empirical evidence about
critical thinking ability and its relation to writing ability. The population of this
study encompasses all the sixth semester students of Department of English
Education of which total is 121 students. From the population, only 60 students
were taken as the sample of this study by using purposive sampling technique.
Data were collected through tests. The collected data were analyzed by using
Pearson Product Moment correlation.
The findings of this study arrive at a conclusion that there is any
significant relationship between critical thinking ability and writing ability. The
result of this study is indicated by the correlation coefficient (rxy) 0.61. It shows
that there is a high relationship between the critical thinking ability and writing
ability because it is included in the scale of r interpretation score between
0.60−0.80. Next, with df=58, the score of r table (rt) at the level of significance
0.05 (α=5%) obtained is 0.26, so rxy=0.61> ( ) ( ) =0.26; besides, in
comparison with the level of significance 0.01 (α=1%), the score of rt gained is
0.34, therefore, rxy =0.61> ( ) ( ) =0.34. Moreover, according to t-test
conducted, the t=5.87 obtained is higher than t table ( ) at the levels of
significance 0.05 and 0.01. With df=58, the at the levels of significance 0.05
and 0.01 obtained respectively are 2.01 and 2.68. Therefore,
t=5.87> ( ) ( ) =2.01 and t=5.87> ( ) ( ) =2.68. Besides, based on the
determination coefficient ( ) found, the critical thinking ability has 37.21%
contributions towards writing ability.

ii
 ABSTRAK
Ahmad Sugianto (NIM: 109014000181). The Relationship between Critical
Thinking Ability and Writing Ability; A Correlational Study of the Sixth
Semester Students of Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah
State Islamic University Jakarta, Academic Year 2013/2014. A Skripsi of
Department of English Education at Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training
of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta, 2014.
Advisor I: Drs. Syauki, M.Pd.
Advisor II: Ismalianing Eviyuliwati, M.Hum.
Keywords: Critical Thinking Ability, Writing Ability

Skripsi yang berjudul The Relationship between Critical Thinking Ability

and Writing Ability ditunjukkan untuk menganalisis dan mengetahui bukti empiris
mengenai kemampuan berpikir kritis dan kaitannya terhadap kemampuan menulis.
Populasi dari penelitian ini meliputi semua mahasiswa semester enam Jurusan
Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris yang berjumlah 121 mahasiswa. Dari populasi
tersebut, hanya 60 mahasiswa yang diambil sebagai sampel dari penelitian ini
dengan menggunakan tekhnik sampling purposif. Data dikumpulkan melalui tes.
Data yang terkumpul dianalisis dengan menggunakan korelasi Pearson Product
Moment.
Temuan penelitian ini mencapai pada suatu kesimpulan yaitu adanya
hubungan yang signifikan antara kemampuan berpikir kritis dan kemampuan
menulis. Hasil penelitian ini ditandai dengan nilai koefisien korelasi (rxy) sebesar
0.61. Nilai tersebut menunjukkan bahwa ada hubungan yang tinggi antara
kemampuan berpikir kritis dan kemampuan menulis karena nilai tersebut
termasuk ke dalam skala nilai tafsir r antara 0.60—0.80. Selanjutnya, dengan nilai
df=58, nilai r tabel (rt) pada tingkat signifikansi 0.05 (α=5%) yang diperoleh
sebesar 0.26, sehingga rxy=0.61> ( ) ( ) =0.26; selain itu, pada perbandingan
dengan tingkat signifikansi 0.01 (α=1%), nilai rt yang didapat adalah sebesar 0.34,
oleh sebab itu rxy =0.61> ( ) ( ) =0.34. Selanjutnya, berdasarkan uji-t yang
dilakukan, nilai t=5.87 yang diperoleh lebih besar dibandingkan dengan nilai t
tabel ( ) pada tingkat signifikansi 0.05 dan 0.01. Dengan nilai df=58, yang
diperoleh pada tingkat signifikansi 0.05 dan 0.01 secara berturut-turut adalah 2.01
dan 2.68. Oleh karena itu, t=5.87> ( ) ( ) =2.01 dan t=5.87> ( ) ( ) =2.68.
Selain itu, berdasarkan nilai koefisien determinasi ( ) yang ditemukan,
kemampuan berpikir kritis berkontribusi sebesar 37.21% terhadap kemampuan
menulis.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All praise be to Thee, the Beneficent and the Merciful Allah, for granting
the writer with knowledge and comprehension. Also, peace and blessing may be
upon the prophet Muhammad, his families, companions, and followers.
First, the writer would like to express his deepest and special gratitude to
his parents (Mr. H. Jafar and Mrs. Komariah) who have everlastingly inspired,
motivated, and helped him do his best in doing and passing through everything in
this life. May blessing, happiness, and health always attend both of them.
In addition, the writer would like to express his vast appreciation and
gratitude to his advisors, Drs. Syauki, M.Pd. and Ismalianing Eviyuliwati,
M.Hum., who have provided their valuable time, help, patience, and guidance, as
well as suggestion for the completion of this skripsi.
Moreover, the writer would like to address his gratitude to:
1. Dra. Nurlena Rifa’i, M.A., Ph.D., the Dean of Faculty of Tarbiyah and
Teachers’ Training of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta and
Drs. Syauki, M.Pd., the head of Department of English Education of Syarif
Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta, who had given the writer the
consent to conduct a research at Department of English Education;
2. All the lecturers of Department of English Education, who have provided the
writer with precious knowledge, motivation, and experience over the writer
attended the courses at this department;
3. All his teachers who have showered the writer with the priceless knowledge
and experience;
4. The whole students of Department of English Education, especially those who
are in the sixth semester (class VI A, B, and C) having contributed and
participated in this study; Also, Sari Nur’aini, S.Pd., who was willing to be the
rater of the students’ writing responses;
5. His family, especially Mba Wati, Mba Setianingsih, S.Si., Mas Riskon
Arifiyanto, S.Pd., Novi Maria, Amelia Utami, Budi Santoso, and Clara Syadah

iv
 Putri, who always accompany and provide time to help and cheer the writer up
that steer his heart and mind to not despair over the barriers he deals with;
6. All his friends of Department of English Education, particularly Muslikh,
S.Pd., Kang Asep Andriana, Bang Syamsul Choir, Bang Zein Zarkasih and all
his classmates in class E that cannot be mentioned one by one, as well as the
big family of Ikatan Mutakharrijin Madrasah Aliyah Negeri (IMMAN)
Babakakan Ciwarangin Cirebon branch Jakarta and the Students’
Association of Department of English Education (HMJ-PBI), who had shared
a dozen valuable moments and experiences;
7. The librarians of Center Library (Perpustakaan Pusat) and Faculty Library
(Perpustakaan Fakultas) of Syarif Hidatullah State Islamic University Jakarta,
who provided the writer the consent to search and use the resources needed for
this skripsi;
8. The other names that are not mentioned here who have been helpful in the
completion process of this skripsi.
May Allah will provide the best things and grant any blessings to every good deed
done and given by all of them as the returns.
At last, the writer realizes and apprehends that this skripsi is far from
being flawless; hence, he will be pleased to receive any constructive criticisms
and suggestions from whoever reading this skripsi.

Tangerang, August 25, 2014

The Writer

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENDORSEMENT SHEET ............................................................................ i

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRAK ...................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... x
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................... xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................... xii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
A. Background of the Study..................................................... 1
B. Identification of the Problem .............................................. 4
C. Limitation of the Problem ................................................... 5
D. Problem Formulation .......................................................... 5
E. Objective of the Study......................................................... 5
F. Significance of the Study .................................................... 6

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................... 7

A. The Concept of Critical Thinking Ability ......................... 7
1. Definition of Critical Thinking ................................. 7
2. Critical Thinking Process .......................................... 8
3. Kinds of Critical Thinking Abilities ......................... 9
4. Benefits of Critical Thinking .................................... 15
5. RED Model of Critical Thinking .............................. 16
B. The Concept of Writing Ability ....................................... 17
1. Nature of Writing ..................................................... 17
2. Writing Process ......................................................... 18
3. Characteristics of Good Writing .............................. 21
4. Uses of Writing ......................................................... 23

vi
 C. Related Previous Studies .................................................. 24
D. Conceptual Framework ..................................................... 27
E. Research Hypotheses ........................................................ 28

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................... 29

A. Time and Place of the Study ............................................. 29
B. Research Design ............................................................... 29
C. Population and Sample ..................................................... 29
D. Research Instrument .......................................................... 30
E. Technique of Data Collection ............................................ 31
F. Technique of Data Analysis .............................................. 32
G. Statistical Hypotheses ....................................................... 32

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ................... 33

A. Data Description ............................................................... 33
1. Critical Thinking Ability Data ..................................... 33
2. Writing Ability Data ..................................................... 35
B. Data Analysis and Testing Hypotheses.............................. 47
1. Data Analysis ............................................................... 47
2. Testing Hypotheses ...................................................... 54
C. Discussions ....................................................................... 55
D. Limitations ........................................................................ 58

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION ... 60

A. Conclusion ........................................................................... 60
B. Implication ........................................................................... 60
C. Suggestion ............................................................................ 61

vii
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 62
APPENDICES

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The Activity of Thinking ........................................................... 8

Table 2.2 The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy ............................................... 10
Table 2.3 Various Abilities of Critical Thinking ....................................... 11
Table 2.4 Consensus List of Critical Thinking Cognitive Skills and Sub
skills ............................................................................................ 13
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Critical Thinking Ability Data ............ 34
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Writing Ability Data of Rater 1
and Rater 2 ................................................................................. 36
Table 4.3 ANOVA between Rater 1 and Rater 2 ........................................ 39
Table 4.4 Inferential Normality Distribution Test of Rater 1 and Rater 2 .. 43
Table 4.5 Comparison of Normality Distribution Test Results
between Skewness-Kurtosis Ratios and Shaphiro-Wilks W
Test of Rater 1 and Rater 2 ........................................................ 43
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of Writing Ability Data (Final Score) ...... 46
Table 4.7 ANOVA between CT and FWA ................................................ 48
Table 4.8 Inferential Normality Distribution Test of CT and FWA .......... 51
Table 4.9 Comparison of Normality Distribution Test Results between
Skewness-Kurtosis Ratios and Shaphiro-Wilks W Test of
CT and FWA .............................................................................. 52
Table 4.10 Table of r Score Interpretation ................................................... 56

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 RED Model ................................................................................ 16

Figure 2.2 The Writing Process Wheel ....................................................... 20
Figure 2.3 Degree of Similarity between Previous Studies and This
Study .......................................................................................... 27
Figure 2.4 Conceptual Framework of Critical Thinking Ability and
Writing Ability ........................................................................... 28
Figure 4.1 Histogram of Frequency Distribution of Critical Thinking
Ability ........................................................................................ 33
Figure 4.2 Histogram with Normal Curve of Critical Thinking Ability
Data ............................................................................................ 35
Figure 4.3 Histogram with Normal Curve of Writing Ability Data of
Rater 1 ........................................................................................ 37
Figure 4.4 Histogram with Normal Curve of Writing Ability Data of
Rater 2 ........................................................................................ 37
Figure 4.5 Scattered Diagram of the Linearity between Rater 1 and
Rater 2 ........................................................................................ 38
Figure 4.6 Whisker-and-Box Plots of Rater 1 and Rater 2 .......................... 40
Figure 4.7 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Rater 1 ..................................... 41
Figure 4.8 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Rater 2 ..................................... 41
Figure 4.9 Writing Ability Data (Final Score) ............................................ 45
Figure 4.10 Histogram with Normal Curve of Writing Ability Data
(Final Score) ............................................................................... 47
Figure 4.11 Scattered Diagram for the Linearity between CT and FWA.... 47
Figure 4.12 Whisker-and-Box-Plot of CT and FWA .................................... 49
Figure 4.13 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of CT ............................................ 50
Figure 4.14 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of FWA ........................................ 50

x
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Instrument Specification ............................................................. 65

Appendix 2 Critical Thinking Test ................................................................. 66
Appendix 3 Test of Written English ............................................................... 86
Appendix 4 Writing Assessment Rubric ......................................................... 87
Appendix 5 Item Analysis and Instrument Validity of Critical Thinking
Test .............................................................................................. 88
Appendix 6 Instrument Reliability of Critical Thinking Test (Using KR-20
Equation) ..................................................................................... 89
Appendix 7 Raw Data of Critical Thinking Ability ........................................ 90
Appendix 8 Raw Data of Writing Ability ....................................................... 91
Appendix 9 Descriptive Statistics of Critical Thinking Ability Data ............. 92
Appendix 10 Descriptive Statistics of Writing Ability Data (Rater 1) ............. 93
Appendix 11 Descriptive Statistics of Writing Ability Data (Rater 2) ............. 94
Appendix 12 Descriptive Statistics of Writing Ability Data (Final Score) ...... 95
Appendix 13 Summary of Normality Test with Shaphiro-Wilks W Test ........ 96
Appendix 14 Inter-Rater Reliability of Writing Ability ................................... 97
Appendix 15 Critical Thinking Ability and Writing Ability ............................ 98
Appendix 16 Critical Values of Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient ................................................................................... 99
Appendix 17 Critical Values of t .................................................................... 100
Appendix 18 Preliminary Study: Writing Ability of the Sixth Semester
Students of Department of English Education ............................ 101

xi
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CT : Critical Thinking
FWA : Final Score of Writing Ability

xii
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

This chapter reveals the reasons, problems and importance underlying the
writer to carry out this study. All of them are described and structured into
background of the study, identification of the problem, limitation of the study,
problem formulation, objective of the study, and significance of the study.

A. Background of the Study

Writing is one of the important mediums of communication. Through
writing, the development of culture and civilization of one nation and country in
the past time may be traced and known by people in the present time and such
development may also be traced and known by people in the future time. As
Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams proclaim that writing is considered as one of the
important mediums of communication which may across space and through time.1
Moreover, writing which is one of the language skills, particularly in the
English language, is important for students to learn. It is because the English
language in the present time, according to Trask, has been one of the dominant
languages used as the medium of communication in the world in terms of science
and technology and in most other contexts of life.2 It, therefore, is necessary for
the students who want to develop their knowledge through English and to convey
their ideas in English. Besides, more specifically, it is important for students at
Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University
Jakarta because the writing skill is included in the curriculum and it takes ten
semester credit units (sks/ satuan kredit semester) and the students learn it from
semester three to seven.3

1
Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, and Nina Hyams, An Introduction to Language,
(Massachusetts: Wadsworth, 2003), 7th Edition, p. 546.
2
R.L. Trask, Why Do language Changes, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011),
p. 84.
3
Pedoman Akademik Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta 2009-
2010, (Jakarta: Biro Administrasi Akademik dan Kemahasiswaan Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN)
Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2009), pp. 74—76.

1
 2

However, writing may become a challenging skill for students to learn. It

is due to the fact that writing is different from other language skills. It is not the
skill that students may acquire naturally. The students are required to have some
instructions in order that they may be able to write.4 In addition, they also need to
pay attention to several things that they can write effectively. In this case, Hedge
points out that to write effectively, the ideas and information of the writing should
be developed in a good organization; errors in writing should be minimized, hence
the accuracy is emphasized so that the meaning of the writing is clear; vocabulary,
grammatical pattern, and sentence structure used should be considered as well.5
Based on the writer’s experience as he attended writing IV course a few
months ago at Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State
Islamic University, students sometimes had lack of awareness of those conditions
as they were writing. In this case, a problem was found on one of the students’
writing compositions then, for instance She has beautiful voice when she read the
Holy Quran (this should be She has a beautiful voice when she recites the holy
Quran), cited from a composition which entitles My Lovely Mother. In this case,
the article a should be added before the phrase beautiful voice because it is
included in a singular countable noun. Also, the word recite— with the inflection
–s (reciterecites) which indicates the simple present tense—is better to be put
on the sentence rather than read since it may have a different sense in the readers’
mind; in this case, the word recite may correspond better to the words or phrase
preceding it, namely a beautiful voice, and also the words or phrase which follows
it, that is, the holy Quran.
In addition, based on the documentation of the preliminary study
conducted, the writing ability of some of the sixth semester students of
Department of English Education is still categorized fair (67. 15 in average) (see
Appendix 18). This appears to become a problem since the sixth semester
students are expected to have some better mastery and ability in terms of writing

4
Jeremy Harmer, How to Teach Writing, (Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 2007), p. 3.
5
Tricia Hedge, Writing: Resource Books for Teachers, (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1990), p. 5.
 3

due to the fact that they have already passed through 6 semester credit units in the
writing course.
Furthermore, the other thing that should be paid attention related to the
craft of writing is it is the skill that may not stand alone or in other words it
requires as well as goes hand in hand with other language skills, particularly the
reading skill. People who want to write well, they should enrich their knowledge
and it can be achieved through reading activity. 6 Therefore, in this case, if
students are learning to write, they are also required to have some adequate
knowledge by reading any subjects that may facilitate their writing activity.
However, the ability to read may not be enough for them since they should also
have the ability to judge or determine the materials or subjects which are
appropriate or have some merits to their writing. Thus, to deal with this problem,
the students should also facilitate themselves with the ability to think critically of
what they want to write so that the ideas of their writing may be effectively
conveyed and decoded by everyone who reads their writing because they can give
solid evidence which makes sense and understandable to the readers. As Langan
states, ―If you want to communicate effectively with readers, you must provide
solid evidence for any point you make.‖7 In addition, critical thinking is necessary
for students because it will reveal how they use their mind and hand which work
in a harmony that facilitate them to create a good writing. As Heffernan and
Lincoln point out that the craft of writing is established and learnt through the
writers’ endeavors in terms of using their mind and hand in order that they may
form words as well as gather the words into sentences.8
Regarding to students’ critical thinking ability in relation to their writing
skill, a problem was found in the same occasion as the writer attended the writing
IV course at Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State
Islamic University Jakarta. At that time, the problem was found as the students did

6
Jeremy Harmer, The Practice of English Language Teaching, (New York: Longman
Publishing, 1996), p. 17.
7
John Langan, English Skills, (New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2001), 7th
Edition, p. 4.
8
James A. W. Heffernan and John E. Lincoln, Writing: A College Handbook, (New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1986), p. 3.
 4

the mid semester test. They were instructed to write an essay based on the topics
given by their lecturer then. The topics had to be developed and written in
accordance with a type of essay, i.e. an argumentative essay or a descriptive essay.
So, before writing, the students had to determine first whether their topic would be
best developed in an argumentative essay or descriptive essay. One of the writing
topics was ―Should we have a longer holiday?‖ That topic actually should be best
developed in an argumentative essay; however, one of the students did and
developed the essay topic in the form of descriptive essay. Accordingly, the
composition had to be revised by the student after the mid semester test.
In addition to critical thinking ability and its relation to the craft of writing,
some studies have revealed and found that the critical thinking ability has some
relationships with the language proficiency and has some effects to the writing
ability (Rosyati Abdul Rashid and Rosna Awang Hasyim, 2008; Nader Assadi,
Hanief Davatgar, and Parinaz Jafari, 2013; M M Grosser and Mirna Nel, 2013;
Samaneh Khodabakhsh, Shahrokh, and Morteza Khodabandehlou, 2013; see their
overview on the related previous studies in Chapter II). However, although those
previous studies above have revealed that writing ability is influenced by critical
thinking ability, there was no any inspection that specifically focused on
investigating critical thinking ability in relation to writing ability.
Based on the explanations above, to find out and reveal the further
information and empirical evidence about the problems, particularly the critical
thinking ability in relation to writing ability, this study was conducted.

B. Identification of the Problem

Based on the background of the study above, the problems of this study
are identified as follows:
1. There are several things needed to consider as students want to write
effectively, such as the organization of ideas and information, the vocabulary,
the grammatical pattern, and the sentence structure of their writing, but some
students of Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State
 5

Islamic University Jakarta lacked awareness of those conditions as they were

writing;
2. The sixth semester students of Department of English Education have passed
through some writing courses, so it is expected that they have better
proficiency as well as ability in writing, but it was found that some of their
writing ability was still categorized as fair (67. 15 in average);
3. To write well and effectively, students should have some adequate knowledge
of the subject matter of their writing, which can be obtained through reading
activity as well as thinking critically of what they write, yet some students of
Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic
University Jakarta were found to be confused to develop their writing due to
their lack of ability to think critically as they were writing.

C. Limitation of the Problem

The problem of this study is limited to critical thinking ability in relation
to writing ability of the sixth semester students of Department of English
Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta, academic year
2013/2014.

D. Problem Formulation
Based on the limitation of the problem above, the problem of this study is
formulated into the following question: Is there any significant relationship
between critical thinking ability and writing ability of the sixth semester students
of Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic
University Jakarta, academic year 2013/2014?

E. Objective of the Study

In line with the problem of the study having been formulated above, the
objective of this study is to obtain the empirical evidence about whether or not
there is any significant relationship between critical thinking ability and writing
 6

ability of the sixth semester students of Department of English Education of

Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta, academic year 2013/2014.

F. Significance of the Study

The result of this study is expected to provide some significance to the
following persons:
1. Students
The result of this study will give the students, particularly the sixth semester
students of Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State
Islamic university Jakarta academic year 2013/2014, the reflection and
information in terms of their critical thinking ability in relation to their writing
ability;
2. Lecturers
The result of this study will be useful for the lecturers, particularly the
lecturers of the college in which the writer conducted this study, as the
consideration and concern to design a course that can facilitate their students
to explore more about critical thinking ability through writing;
3. Other researchers
The result of this study will be useful for other researchers as a consideration
as well as a recommendation in case they will carry out any further studies in
the same field.
 CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter presents the description of the concepts of this study

associated with the ability to think critically and writing ability as well as the
results of the related previous studies. Also, it reveals the synthesis of those
concepts and the assumption of the relationship between the variables of this
study which are manifested in a conceptual framework that leads to the research
hypotheses.

A. The Concept of Critical Thinking Ability

1. Definition of Critical Thinking
Critical thinking may be considered as a complex activity since it involves
many aspects to consider. Besides, it has recently become one of the foremost
subject matters of many experts to discuss and explore. Regarding to this
condition, a number of proposals related to the definitions of critical thinking are
suggested by some experts.
First, according to Cottrell, critical thinking is defined as: “A cognitive
activity, associated with using the mind.”1From this, it can be considered that
critical thinking is an activity in which one involves one’s mind to cope with the
matters found.
Meanwhile, Paul and Elder reveal that critical thinking is the art associated
with the ability to analyze or to evaluate thought.2 Similarly, Washburn points out
that critical thinking relates to the activity to criticize people or things both in
terms of the negative side and the positive side of them that may lead to the
comprehension and best judgment about them.3 Thus, one should carefully
consider every aspect in case one is thinking critically.

1
Stella Cottrell, Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument,
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p. 1.
2
Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and
Tools, 2014, p. 4, (www.criticalthinking.org).
3
Phil Washburn, The Vocabulary of Critical Thinking, (New York: Oxford University
Press, Inc., 2010), p. 3.

7
 8

Next, Moore and Parker state that critical thinking is the activity of
evaluating specific claims through considering arguments plausibly.4
Furthermore, Ruggiero explains that critical thinking is the mental process
involving the activity to investigate ideas as well as to find out the meaning of the
ideas and to judge the power of the meaning of the ideas whether or not it is
defensible.5 In other words, to think critically one should logically consider the
matter found by investigating as well as making interpretation, and evaluating the
weakness and the strength of the matters found.
To sum up, based on the definitions and explanations above, critical
thinking may be regarded as an art or ability as well as an activity employing
mind to think of, to criticize, to analyze, and to evaluate people or things
carefully, not only the bad side but the positive side of them as well. Besides, it is
conducted through a series of processes started from investigating ideas to making
a judgment of the strength of the meaning of the ideas.

2. Critical Thinking Process

The critical thinking process stems from the activities of thinking itself.
As Ruggiero reveals that there are some activities of thinking which are described
in Table 2.1 as follows:
Table 2.1
The Activity of Thinking6
No Activity Definition
to probe the evidence or data related to the issue or the
1. Investigation
matter arises.
2. Interpretation to make a decision of the meaning of the evidence.
to determine the conclusion about the issue or the
3. Judgment
matter arises.

4
Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker, Critical Thinking, (New York: The McGraw-
Hill Companies, Inc., 2007), 8th Edition, p. 4.
5
Vincent Ryan Ruggiero, The Art of Writing, (California: Alfred Publishing, Co. Inc.,
1981), p. 52.
6
Vincent Ryan Ruggiero, Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking, (New York:
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2004), p. 21.
 9

Based on Table 2.1 above, the critical thinking process respectively

encompasses the activity of investigation which is the activity to get any evidence
related to the matters arise, the activity of interpretation or the activity to
determine the meaning of the evidence obtained from the investigation conducted,
and the activity of judgment, that is, the activity of evaluating the issue by making
a conclusion based on the interpretation and investigation conducted previously.
All of the three activities are conducted gradually and respectively started from
investigation to judgment.
In line with Ruggiero’s description above, Washburn states that the
thinking process is preceded by investigation which leads to the last product of
thinking process, i.e. conclusion or judgment.7
Based on the explanations above, there are at least three activities which
are included in critical thinking process, namely investigation, interpretation, and
judgment. In this case, the investigation is an activity, basically comes first, which
aims to find the evidence or information about the issues or matters arise. Next, it
goes on to the subsequent step or activity, i.e. interpretation which means to
interpret or determine the meaning of the evidence or information from the
investigation conducted beforehand. The last one is judgment, that is, making
inferences or drawing conclusions from the data or evidence as well as the
information that have been obtained in the previous activities, i.e. investigation
and interpretation about the issue.

3. Kinds of Critical Thinking Abilities

Critical thinking involves many levels of thinking. As Teays states that
critical thinking covers the lower and higher order thinking, which, in this case,
the lower order thinking consists of the activities of memorizing, summarizing,
labeling, observing, and sorting; meanwhile, higher order thinking encompasses
the activities of applying, synthesis, drawing inferences, comparison or contrast,

7
Phil Washburn, op. cit., p. 52.
 10

justification, analysis, evaluation, moral reasoning, and using deductive and

inductive reasoning.8
From Teays’ statement above, critical thinking is described in a broader
sense involving all levels of thinking in which in terms of cognitive process it
relates to many activities or levels in the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy which is
presented in Table 2.2 as follows:
Table 2.2
The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy9
No. Structure Description
1. Remember to recall or recognize knowledge which is relevant, particularly taken
from long term memory. Other terms used beside remember are recall
and recognize.
2. Understand to consider and decide the meaning of oral or written messages received.
Other variant terms of this level are interpret, exemplify, classify,
summarize, infer, compare, and explain.
3. Apply to conduct something in a certain situation. Other terms used, having the
same sense as apply, are execute and implement.
4. Analyze to divide things in an organized way and then observing the relationship
between them. Other terms used other than analyze are differentiate,
organize, and attribute.
5. Evaluate to judge something in accordance with criteria and standards. In the same
sense, instead of evaluate, the terms check and critique may be used.
6. Create to produce a new original product through unifying some elements of
something. Other similar terms to create are generate, plan, and produce.

Table 2.2 above presents the structure of the cognitive level of the Revised
Bloom’s Taxonomy which is explained hierarchically, from lower order thinking
level to higher order thinking level, or from the structure of remember to create.
On the other hand, Kuebli, Harvey, and Korn have the same view as
Teay’s statement above; in this case, they point out that critical thinking abilities
derive from various abilities and competences included in the Revised Bloom’s
Taxonomy, yet they add an ability which is included in the critical thinking
8
Wanda Teays, Second Thoughts: Critical Thinking for a Diverse Society, (New York:
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2006), 3rd Edition, p. 3.
9
David R. Krathwohl, A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview, Theory into
Practice, Vol. 41, 2002, p. 215.
 11

abilities, namely inferring.10 Following, Table 2.3 describes the detail abilities
included in critical thinking proposed by Kuebli, Harvey, and Korn:
Table 2.3
Various Abilities of Critical Thinking11

No. Critical Thinking Description

Abilities

1. Remembering The ability to recognize and recall knowledge that derives from
memory.

2. Comprehension The ability which comes after remembering ability. It is the

ability that enables someone to summarize or restate other
people’s ideas with his/her own words.

3. Application The ability to employ the knowledge that has already gained in
some certain situations.

4. Analysis The ability to separate and examine any ideas and understand the
correlation in them.

5. Inferring The ability to reach and make any conclusion from the evidence
found and gained.

6. Evaluation The ability to judge ideas or claims based on the evidence.

7. Synthesizing The ability of creating something or ideas new and fresh.

By comparing Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 above, it may be considered that
the critical thinking abilities proposed by Kuebli, Harvey, and Korn have the close
relationship to the Revised Blooms’ Taxonomy. In this case, the Revised Blooms’
Taxonomy represented in Table 2.2 becomes the basis of the various abilities of
critical thinking in Table 2.3. The various abilities of the critical thinking
presented in Table 2.3 are explained in the form of noun which stems from the
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of which form is verb. Besides, there is an additional
ability, i.e. the inferring ability, which is excluded in the Revised Bloom’s

10
Janet E. Kuebli, Richard D. Harvey, and James H. Korn, “Critical Thinking in Critical
Courses: Principles and Applications”, in Dana S. Dunn, Jane S. Halonen, and Randolph A. Smith
(Eds.), Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology: A Handbook of Best Practices, (Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2008), p. 142.
11
Ibid.
 12

Taxonomy. It, however, actually still associates with one of the structures of the
Revised Blooms’ Taxonomy, that is, understand (see the description of the
structure of understand in Table 2.2). In addition, based on Table 2.3 above,
although the inferring ability may be considered as the exclusive and additional
ability in critical thinking, it may not still stand alone since it will need and
correlate with other critical thinking abilities, starting from the remembering
ability to synthesizing ability, for instance if a person wants to make some
inferences or to draw a conclusion about some issues, he/she is required to have
some knowledge that support his/her conclusion about the issues, and the
knowledge can be obtained through recalling some knowledge which he/she has
already known as well as it can be obtained from comprehending the issues;
additionally, a person may judge something if he/she can draw some conclusion
from the data or evidence found.
However, Ennis argues that the critical thinking abilities deriving from
Bloom’s Taxonomy have some problems, particularly in case these are employed
to structure the critical thinking assessment; thus, to answer the problems, he
proposes some abilities that should be owned by someone to be considered as a
cultivated critical thinker as follows:
a. The ability to judge or decide which sources are credible and those which are
not;
b. The ability to make the identification of conclusions, reasons, and
assumptions;
c. The ability to create an evaluation of the quality of an argument, as well as to
consider the acceptability the reasons, assumptions, and evidence related to
the argument;
d. The ability to develop and defend a position against criticisms;
e. The ability to initiate someone to bring clarifying questions;
f. The ability to prompt or initiate experiment and make a judgment of its
design;
g. The ability to create the appropriate definition of the rules in accordance with
their context;
 13

h. The ability to be the inclusive or open-minded person;

i. The ability to feel curious about information;
j. The ability to make a conclusion carefully.12
Moreover, according to The Delphi Report (a report for a critical thinking
research conducted by 46 experts from various disciplines—Philosophy,
Education, Social Sciences, and Physical Sciences—discussing critical thinking,
which resulted some consensus related to critical thinking), the critical thinking
cognitively encompasses some skills and sub skills which are acknowledged by
the Delphi experts presented in Table 2.4 as follows:
Table 2.4
Consensus List of Critical Thinking Cognitive Skills and Sub Skills13
No. Skills Sub Skills Examples
1. Interpretation Categorization To make recognition of a problem and its
character; to make a decision to classify
information, to create a report of things
happened; to make a classification of data,
findings, or opinions.
Decoding To make a detection and description of
someone’s question purposes; to make an
significance
appreciation of a certain gesture in a social
situation provided; to apprehend the use of
irony or rhetorical questions in debate; to create
an interpretation of data presented.
Clarifying meaning To paraphrase of someone’s statement; to look
for a useful example which can help explain a
problem to someone else; to create a clarity of
an ambiguity by providing its distinction.
2. Analysis Examining ideas To make the identification of a phrase or
expression which can lead someone’s opinion;
to find out and determine the similarity and
difference of particular views; to determine the
systematic ways of a complicated assignment;
to create a view of abstract concept.
Identifying To determine the plausibility of a claim given
in a paragraph or passage.
arguments
Analyzing arguments To determine and create the identification of
the author’s major claims and their reasons of
an argumentative passage.

12
Robert H. Ennis, Critical Thinking Assessment, Theory into Practice, 32, 1993, pp.
179—180.
13
Peter A. Facione, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of
Educational Assessment and Instruction, (Millbrae: The California Academic Press, 1990), pp.
6—11.
 14

No. Skills Sub Skills Examples

3. Evaluation Assessing claims To create recognition of the credibility factors
of an event witness; to determine the
plausibility of action in a certain situation; to
determine the truth and falsity of a claim
provided.
Assessing arguments To make an evaluation or judgment whether or
not a conclusion of an argument follows its
premises.
4. Inference Querying evidence To make a judgment of the background of
information that can help support one’s
opinion; to make a plan of a discovery that can
provide the information availability.
Conjecturing To create and propose a set of options related
to a problem solving; to determine and scheme
alternatives
the difficulties and advantages of certain
priorities in a decision making.
Drawing conclusions To make inferences to test an empirical
hypothesis.

5. Explanation Stating results To convey, state, or write someone’s reasons of

the views provided, matters, research findings,
judgments, and so on.
Justifying procedures To explain someone’s choice of a particular
statistical test for purposes data analysis; to
design a graphic display which represents the
quantitative information used as evidence.
Presenting arguments To write a paper in which one argues for a
given position or policy.
6. Self- Self-examination To examine a view of a controversial issue with
sensitivity to the possible influences of
Regulation
personal bias or interest.
Self-correction To make a revision of factual deficiency in a
work.
The Table 2.4 above reveals that critical thinking comprises some skills in
which each skill has several divisions. Some of the skills derive from the structure
of cognitive process in the Bloom’s Taxonomy. The two major skills (analysis
and evaluation) use the same terms as what are used in the Bloom’s Taxonomy
(see Table 2.2). Meanwhile, other skills still have some relations to the structure
of Bloom’s Taxonomy, for instance the interpretation skill is actually one of the
variant terms used for the cognitive structure of understand. Besides, the
inference skill is the same as the inferring ability mentioned by Kuebli, Harvey,
and Korn in Table 2.3 which also stems from the cognitive structure of
understand in the Bloom’s Taxonomy. Again, the explanation skill is still in
relation to comprehension proposed by Kuebli, Harvey, and Korn in Table 2.3
 15

which actually derives from the cognitive structure of understand in Bloom’s

Taxonomy. At last, although the skill of self-regulation appears as an exclusive
skill of which term is different from other cognitive structures of Bloom’s
Taxonomy, yet by considering its sub-skill (self-examination and self-correction),
the self-regulation skill is actually have a relation to the other cognitive structures
of Bloom’s Taxonomy, namely evaluate and analyze.
To sum up, despite having variant terms and some different proposals
prompted by some experts, the critical thinking abilities have some influences and
relations one another, of which influence and relation are interdependent.

4. Benefits of Critical Thinking

Through thinking critically, one may make precise consideration towards
one’s works, and one may obtain several benefits that will facilitate not only in
terms of the academic performance but also in terms of dealing with the real life
problems. As Cotrell argues that by thinking critically, a number of benefits can
be obtained as follows:
a. The work can be conducted accurately and carefully;
b. The ability to determine something which is relevant in writing (noting) can
be more accurate and specific;
c. The ability to conduct the problem solving and project management can be
done accurately;
d. It can raise a feeling of confidence of successful outcome in complex
problems and projects;
e. The work and academic attainment can be better improved.14
Meanwhile, Paul and Elder mention that critical thinking may be
beneficial in terms of:
a. Bringing a clear and accurate formulation of vital questions and problems;
b. Having an effective interpretation of ideas and information;
c. Making reasonable conclusions and solutions which are in accordance with
relevant criteria and standards;

14
Stella Cottrell, op. cit., p. 4.
 16

d. Thinking inclusively or open minded;

e. Having an effective communication with others in coping with complex
problems.15
Based on the explanations above, critical thinking may be considered as
the ability which is important for every individual and particularly for students
since it helps them do their tasks effectively and accurately, for instance as they
are writing, they may find themselves easily develop their ideas since they can
think the ideas inclusively, also they may find themselves will be able to keep in
touch with others effectively to deal with any problems. All of these tasks can be
facilitated as they have the adequate critical thinking ability.

5. RED Model of Critical Thinking

The keys to critical thinking encompass three factors which are used in
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal® as the indicator to assess critical
thinking which is shown by Figure 2.1 as follows:

R ecognize assumptions
Keys to
Critical
Thinking
E valuate arguments

D raw conclusions
Figure 2.1
RED Model16
The RED model in figure 2.1 above is described as follows:
a. Recognize Assumptions
Assumptions are considered as the statements which are supposed to be true
without some proves. These are one of the key elements or components in
critical thinking which help discover information gaps and improve or develop
views of issues arise. Also, these help individuals evaluate the merits of a
15
Richard Paul and Linda Elder, loc. cit.
16
Watson-Glasser™ User Guide and Technical Manual UK Supervised and Unsupervised
Versions 2012, (UK: Pearson Education, Inc., 2011), p. 6, (www.talentlens.co.uk)
 17

proposal, policy or practice in case the individuals are aware of the

assumptions and directly assessing the assumptions’ appropriateness to the
situation encountered;
b. Evaluate Arguments
Arguments are considered as the statements of which purpose is to persuade
someone to believe or to act a certain way. To evaluate arguments, someone is
required to have the ability to analyze statements objectively and accurately.
The ability to evaluate arguments is useful to determine the influence of the
statements and what actions should be conducted by considering the
statements presented;
c. Draw Conclusions
It is the ability to reach a conclusion which logically follows the evidence
provided. It comprises the ability to evaluate the relevant information, to make
a judgment about the plausibility of different conclusions, and to determine or
to choose the conclusion which is the most appropriate with the evidence and
to avoid overgeneralization of statements which are outside of the evidence
presented. In addition, the ability to draw conclusions is assessed through
three kinds of tests, i.e. inference, interpretation, and deduction.17
1. Test of inference refers to the test to determine the truth of conclusion
based on the available information;
2. Test of interpretation refers to the test to consider evidence and to decide
whether the generalizations or conclusions gained from the available data
are reasonable;
3. Test of deduction refers to the test to decide if the conclusions provided
are plausible based on the available information.18
In conclusion, the RED model presented above is only one of the many
models of critical thinking proposed by some experts that can be used as one of
the alternatives to structure the critical thinking assessment. This model is given

17
Ibid., p. 7.
18
Ibid., pp. 3—4.
 18

here to provide the overview of the scheme of the critical thinking test used in this
study.

B. The Concept of Writing Ability

1. Nature of Writing
Writing is one of the four major language skills. It is commonly
considered as the active or productive language skill. Through writing, people can
convey their ideas to someone else.
According to Browne, writing is a complex activity involving many skills
to determine ideas and to transfer the ideas onto a piece of a paper clearly and
comprehensibly for the readers.19
Meanwhile, Ploeger states that writing is an activity intended to observe
the knowledge and feeling of a writer about something, which, then the result is
20
communicated to his/her audience/readers. On the other hand, Langan asserts
that writing is a skill that can be learned and developed through practices.21
Based on the explanations above, it may be concluded that writing is an
activity that involves a series of steps to transfer thought or ideas to paper. When
the writers are writing, they try to convey the things in their mind to readers
through the writing that they write. Also, writing is a skill that can be learned and
developed through practices which mean the more often the learners practice to
write, the better they will be able to write.

2. Writing Process
To write well, there are a number of processes to consider by writers. Each
writing process has its own significance and goal. Therefore, in order that writers
can create the effective composition, each writing process should be conducted
carefully.

19
Ann Browne, Teaching and Learning Communication, Language and Literacy,
(London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 2007), p. 81.
20
Katherine Ploeger, Simplified Paragraph Skills, (Illinois: NTC/Cotemporary Publishing
Group, 2000), p. xiii.
21
John Langan, Exploring Writing: Paragraph and Essay, (New York: The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., 2008), p. 7.
 19

Oshima and Hogue propose the four steps in the writing process
comprising creating ideas, organizing ideas, writing a rough draft, and polishing
the rough draft by editing and making any revisions needed.22
In line with Oshima and Hogue’s view above, Ploeger reveals that the
writing skill covers five processes as follows:
a. Planning
To think and contemplate about what to write by determining a topic, and
gathering some information related to the purpose, audience, topic, and main
idea of the writing;
b. Drafting
The process in which a writer pours his/her outline or idea into a text;
c. Simmering
This is the incubation time on which the writer takes a break or keeps away
from the writing activity for a few moments. In case there is any ideas come
into the writer’s mind, the ideas will be saved into a folder to be used later;
d. Revising
To reconsider and focus on different aspects of the composition, for instance
the organization of the ideas and the sentence structure;
e. Editing
To have any correction of the shortcoming or errors of the writing found, such
as punctuation, spelling, and so on.23
Moreover, Ruetten and Pavlik state that there are four steps of the writing
process as follows:
a. Prewriting
The step which is commonly conducted in the initial process of writing before
the writer writes his/her thought onto a piece of paper. It comprises the
activity of considering audience or the readers, getting ideas, narrowing the
topic through brainstorming, deciding a controlling idea, choosing support of
the idea, and organizing the idea logically;
22
Alice Oshima and Ann Hogue, Introduction to Academic Writing, (New York: Pearson
Education, Inc., 2007), 3rd Edition, p. 15.
23
Katherine M. Ploeger, op. cit., pp. 6—10.
 20

b. Drafting
The step in which a writer writes any ideas that come into his/her mind into a
paragraph;
c. Revising
The step in which a writer makes any warranted changes of his/her work and
makes sure that the ideas will be understandable and able to be followed by
the reader;
d. Editing
The steps in which a writer rechecks his/her composition, particularly in terms
of its grammar, punctuation, and spelling.24
To sum up, based on the explanations above, the writing process
respectively comprises:
a. Making a preparation, planning and creating the ideas about what to write;
b. Transferring the thought/ideas into a text;
c. Making sure whether or not the ideas are developed well;
d. Rechecking the writing again if there are still some errors on its punctuation,
spelling, grammar and so on.
Nevertheless, Harmer argues that to get a real final version of writing, a
writer frequently needs to repeat some stages/steps as described in Figure 2.2:

Planning Drafting

Final Version? Editing

Final Version

Figure 2.225
The Writing Process Wheel

24
Mary K. Ruetten and Cheryl Pavlik, Developing Composition Skills: Academic Writing
and Grammar, (Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning, 2012), 3rd Edition, pp. 20—25.
25
Jeremy Harmer, How to Teach Writing, op. cit., p. 6.
 21

Figure 2.2 above reveals that the writing processes which lead to the last
real final version of writing are a recursive process. A writer needs to do some
stages, processes, or steps to finish his final draft. Although it seems that the
writer has attained his/her final draft version, he/she should recheck his writing
through re-planning, re-drafting, and re-editing to get his/her real final draft
version. In addition, Figure 2.2 above also indicates that among one stage and
other stages might be overlapping during the writing process. For instance, as a
writer is in the planning process, he/she can do the editing process while he/she is
also trying to do a drafting process, and vice versa.
In conclusion, the writing process which consists of some stages/steps
depends upon the writer’s views whether he/she has already obtained the goal of
his/her writing. It is feasible for him/her to do some recursive stages/steps until
he/she feels that the real final version of his/her writing has been obtained.

3. Characteristics of Good Writing

The quality of writing which is considered as the good one is established
through the writer’s endeavor to create a work that is not only valuable for
him/her but also for others; besides, it is also associated with the elements
building the writing, for instance the word choice used, a sequence in which it is
organized, and the other formal agreement (usage).
Hairston mentions that there are some characteristics of good writing as
follows:
a. Significant
A writing which is considered as a significant work is if it can fulfill the
readers’ need. In this case, not only they can enjoy as they read it but also they
can learn something from it;
b. Clear
A clear writing provides an apparent depiction or explanation to the readers
that lead them not to reread it many times to get its point or idea;
 22

c. Unified and Well Organized

A unified and well organized writing is developed coherently, namely each
sentence in a paragraph develops or supports the main idea of the paragraph
and connects to sentences preceding and following it. In other words, it
develops with a logical sequence;
d. Economical
Wordiness is not found in an economical writing; in this case, a writer
conveys and expresses his/her ideas directly to the point;
e. Adequately Developed
An adequately developed writing makes the readers to read it easily for it is
provided and supported with key points that enable them to understand it well;
f. Grammatically Acceptable
Mistakes (in terms of usage and mechanics) are not found as the writing is
grammatically acceptable because the standard or formal language and
appropriate punctuation as well as spelling are applied and employed well.26
Moreover, White points out that a good writing is produced through a
careful thinking that goes along with four pillars as follows:
a. The Appeal to Target Audience
The audience/readers’ needs have been understood and considered well by the
writer so that they are interested to read the writing;
b. A Coherent Structure
The organizational patterns or schemes (i.e. introduction, body, and
conclusion) are connected one another well;
c. A Smooth, Detailed Development
The ideas of the writing are developed and expanded through raising the
general points and discussing them in detail;
d. An Appropriate Style
The meaningful combination of word choices in conveying the intended ideas
are provided well.27

26
Maxine Hairston, Contemporary Composition Short Edition, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1986), pp. 5—10.
 23

In summary, based on the explanations given above, the good writing has
the characteristics as follows:
a. Something beneficial or knowledge is provided so that the readers will be
interested to read it;
b. A good sequence is provided to develop the ideas between the sentences or
paragraphs;
c. The ideas of the writing are expressed clearly and directly to the point;
d. The word choice or diction, and correct grammar or usage are employed well
and appropriately.

4. Uses of Writing
The uses of writing associate with the writer’s goal as well as adjust to the
readers’ needs. Therefore, in case one is willing to create a work in the written
form, he/she is required to determine first what he/she is writing for and to whom
he/she will communicate it.
Grenville points out that writing has several uses as follows:
a. To Entertain
It is considered as a way to keep in touch with readers, particularly by
engaging their feeling through providing emotion or exciting plot in the
writing. Some examples of this use can be found in novels, stories, poems,
song lyrics, plays, and screenplays;
b. To Inform
It is a writing which is intended to tell readers about something. For instance,
it can be found in the form of newspaper, articles, scientific or business
reports, instructions or procedures, and essay for school and university;
c. To Persuade
Providing evidence is essential in this kind of writing since the main purpose
of this kind of writing is to convince the readers about something they read. A

27
Fred D. White, The Writer’s Art: A Practical Rhetoric and Handbook, (New York:
Wadsworth, Inc., 1986), pp. 7—9.
 24

number of examples of this writing use can be found in advertisements,

articles, newspaper, and magazine.28
Moreover, Browne reveals the other uses of writing other than Grenville’s
view above which consist of writing to convey a feeling/opinion/idea, to make a
request, and to create a record.29
To sum up, each use of writing reveals the reason of why writers create a
composition. In addition, different products or forms of the writing depends upon
the use of the writing itself.

C. Related Previous Studies

The following are the previous studies related to the variables of the
present study comprising critical thinking ability and writing ability. First, a study
which entitles The Relationship between Critical Thinking and Language
Proficiency of Malaysian Undergraduates was conducted by Rosyati Abdul
Rashid and Rosna Awang Hasyim. The study was conducted to find out the
critical thinking ability of Malaysian undergraduates and its relationship with their
language proficiency. It was carried out in Universiti Utara Malaysia of which
total of the participants were 280 undergraduates taken from the university. The
instruments used in the study comprised a demographic questionnaire and a test.
The demographic questionnaire was intended to gain and to collect the
undergraduates’ language proficiency data—encompassing speaking, reading,
writing, and grammar—which derived from Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) and
Malaysian University English language Test (MUET); whereas the test (the
translated Bahasa Malaysia version of the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X)
was used to find out the undergraduates’ critical thinking. The data analysis of the
study used Pearson product moment correlation. Based on the findings of the

28
Kate Grenville, Writing From Start to Finish: A-Six Steps Guide, (Crows Nest: Allen &
Unwin, 2001), pp. 1—2.
29
Ann Browne, op. cit., pp. 81—82.
 25

study, it was found that there was a significant correlation between the
undergraduates’ critical thinking ability and their language proficiency. 30
The next study of which title is The Effect of Critical Thinking on
Enhancing Writing among Iranian EFL Learners was conducted by Nader
Assadi, Hanief Davatgar, and Parinaz Jafari. It was carried out to find out whether
critical thinking has effects on learners’ writing. In addition, it was conducted in
private English language institute in Tabriz, Iran. There were 60 students, whose
proficiency level was intermediate, as the participants of the study. The method
used in the study was experimental study. The participants of the study were
equally divided randomly into two groups, i.e. the first group was the control
group and another one was the experiment group. In the experimental group, the
participants got some treatments associated with the successful critical thinking
strategies over three weeks instructions, whereas the control group did not receive
any treatment like in the experimental group. The study concluded that critical
thinking instruction had effects on learners’ writing; in this case, it showed that
the participants from the experimental group had the higher scores in post test
than the control group.31
In addition, The Relationship between the Critical Thinking Skills and the
Academic Language Proficiency of Prospective Teachers was the next related
previous study conducted by M M Grosser and Mirna Nel. It was carried out at a
South African university of which participants was 89 first year students studying
in Bachelor of Education (BEd) degree. The study used a correlation design. The
instruments used were tests, one was the test to measure the participants’ critical
thinking, i.e. Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, and another one was to
find out their academic language proficiency, i.e. Test of Academic Literacy
Levels (TALL). The data was analyzed using Pearson product moment correlation

30
Rosyati Abdul Rashid and Rosna Awang Hasyim, The Relationship between Critical
Thinking and Language Proficiency of Malaysian Undergraduates, Edu-COM 2008 International
Conference, 2008, pp. 373—384.
31
Nader Assadi, Hanieh Davatgar, and Parinaz Jafari, The Effect of Critical Thinking on
Enhancing Writing among Iranian EFL Learners, International Journal of Scientific and
Engineering Research, 4, 2013.
 26

which mentioned that there was a significant correlation between academic

language proficiency and critical thinking as a general competency.32
Furthermore, a study under the title The Impact of Critical Thinking Tasks
on Paragraph Writing Ability of Iranian EFL Learners was conducted by
Samaneh Khodabakhsh, Shahrokh, and Morteza Khodabandehlou. It was
conducted in Kish language school in Tehran, Iran. The total participants of the
study were 60 students who studied English in the school. The instruments used
were tests comprising Oxford Placement Test (OPT), the Cornell Critical
Thinking test form X, and a test of written English. They were divided into two
groups, i.e. control and experimental groups, determined randomly based on the
result of the tests covering English proficiency, paragraph writing ability, and
critical thinking. The experimental group had a treatment involving some critical
thinking tasks while they were learning paragraph writing tasks; meanwhile, the
participants from the control group only learned paragraph writing based on a
handout taken from a certain book. After the participants received a post test, then
the data of the study were analyzed using descriptive statistical methods (mean
and standard deviation), inferential statistics (t-test), and analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA). The findings of the study mentioned that the participants who
received techniques of critical thinking while they were learning paragraph
writing over the instructions attained a greater improvement in their writing
abilities; it was shown from the experimental group who outperformed the control
group in terms of writing ability.33
In comparison with the related previous studies discussed and reviewed
above, this study has the position and similarity or difference from those related
previous studies above portrayed in Figure 2.3 as follows:

32
M M Grosser and Mirna Nel, The Relationship between the Critical Thinking Skills and
the Academic Language Proficiency of Prospective Teachers, South African Journal of Education,
33, 2013, pp. 1—17.
33
Samaneh Khodabakhsh, Shahrokh Jahandar, and Morteza Khodabandehlou, The Impact
of Critical Thinking Tasks on Paragraph Writing Ability of Iranian EFL Leaners, Indian Journal
of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 3, 2013, pp. 639—648.
 27

This Study
Assadi, Khodabakhsh, (Critical
Rashid and Grosser and Davatgar, and Jahandar, and
Thinking Ability
Nel (2013) Khodabandehlou
Hasyim (2008) Jafari (2013) (2013) and Writing
Ability)

Figure 2.3
Degree of Similarity between the Previous Studies and This Study
Figure 2.3 above shows the similarity between the previous studies and
this study. The darker the color, the more similar the previous study with this
study. In this case, this study is more specific and detail than other investigations
conducted by other researchers. First, although Grosser and Nel and Rashid and
Hasyim carried out the studies with similar design to this study (the correlational
design), the inspection in their studies are broader than this study. They
investigated critical thinking in relation to the language proficiency as a general
competency in a unity. On the other hand, this study is conducted to find out
critical thinking ability in relation to one of the parts of the language proficiency,
i.e. writing skill. Next, in comparison with the study conducted by Assadi,
Davatgar, and Jafari and another one which is conducted by Khodabakhsh,
Jahandar, and Khodabandehlou, although those studies investigated the same
variables, i.e. critical thinking and writing, they applied different design from this
study. Their studies’ designs are categorized as an experimental design since those
studies are intended to find out the impact or influence of critical thinking toward
the writing skill. By any considerations of the reviews of the related previous
studies above, it can be considered that this study is not a replica of the previous
studies, instead it is an expansion as well as a more specific research focusing on
critical thinking ability and writing ability as the variables of this study.

D. Conceptual Framework
Writing is an activity that is not easy to do for some certain people. To
write well, a writer needs some processes and practices. Besides, writing is not
only to use a pen or pencil to input a series of words onto a piece of paper;
however, it is a process of discovering ideas and communicating the ideas into a
written form; thus, it requires the writers to have some considerations to make
 28

their writing interesting as well as meaningful for their readers. The writers are
required to have the ability to employ and involve their mind by providing some
adequate evidence and information that are reasonable for their readers. As a
result, the writers’ critical thinking ability to do such thing is needed. Following,
Figure 2.4 describes the estimated relationship between critical thinking ability
and writing ability.

Critical
Thinking Writing
Ability Ability

Figure 2.4
Conceptual Framework of Critical Thinking Ability and
Writing Ability
Figure 2.4 above reveals that the relationship between critical thinking
ability and writing ability may be directly proportional. It means that if the writers
are good at critical thinking ability, they are supposed to have a good writing
ability; meanwhile, if they have poor critical thinking ability, they are supposed to
have a poor writing ability.

E. Research Hypotheses
This study proposes some hypotheses as follows:
1. Null hypothesis (H0): there is no any significant relationship between critical
thinking ability and writing ability of the sixth semester students of
Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic
University Jakarta academic year 2013/2014;
2. Alternative hypothesis (Ha): there is any significant relationship between
critical thinking ability and writing ability of the sixth semester students of
Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic
University Jakarta academic year 2013/2014.
 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the research methodology which comprises the

period on which this study was executed, the scheme underlying the way the data
was analyzed, the number of subjects participating in this study, the instruments
which were used and the way in administering those instruments, as well as the
way the data were analyzed. These are respectively presented in time and place of
the study, research design, population and sample, research instrument, technique
of data collection, and technique of data analysis.

A. Time and Place of the Study

This study was carried out from April to June 2014 at Department of
English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta.

B. Research Design
A correlational design, included as a quantitative research, was used in this
study. It was employed to find out and measure the relationship between two
variables covering an independent variable (critical thinking ability) and a
dependent variable (writing ability) by using a correlational analysis.

C. Population and Sample

The population of this study was all the students in the sixth semester of
Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University
Jakarta, academic year 2013/2014. The sixth semester students were decided as
the participants of this study due to a consideration that they had the adequate
knowledge related to the writing skill because they had already attended several
writing courses in Department of English Education. In addition, the sixth
semester students were spread into three classes, i.e. VI A, B, and C, in which
there were about 40 students in each class. The total of the population was 121
students. From the three classes, there were only 60 students who involved and

29
 30

participated as the sample of this study which were taken from class VI A and B.
They were determined as the sample of this study by using purposive sampling
technique since class VI C had taken part in the instrument try-out.

D. Research Instrument
The kinds of instruments used were tests encompassing:
1. Critical Thinking Test
The number of the critical thinking test items comprises 37 questions in the
form of multiple choices having two to five alternatives. The scheme and test
specification of this test follows and are similar to the Watson-Glaser Critical
Thinking Appraisal®. There are five sections included in this test consisting
of inferences, assumptions, deductions, interpreting information, and
arguments (see the instrument specification in Appendix 1). The tryout of
critical thinking test was conducted to some students who had the same level
as the targeted participants of this study. Based on the instrument try-out
result, it shows that the score of this test validity is various shown by the
discrimination index (DI) from 0.11 to 0.67. From the 37 items, there are 17
items included as the good or valid ones since these pass the threshold score
of validity (DI > 0.30), whereas the remaining test items of which DI=
0.11−0.29 were revised before these were administered to the targeted
participants (see Appendix 5). Besides, the reliability of this test, measured by
using Kuder-Richardson (KR-20) equation, indicates a fairly high reliability
that is shown by the reliability score 0.60 (see Appendix 6);
2. Test of Written English (Independent Essay)
This test is provided to find out the students’ writing ability. There are four
topics to develop by the participants in this test. The topics are taken from
TOEFL®. Additionally, the analytic scoring is used to assess the students’
writing ability.
 31

E. Technique of Data Collection

Before the data were collected, the researcher firstly made sure that he got
the consent and agreement to conduct this study to Department of English
Education as well as the consent to the participants about the time on which they
could take part in this study. The test battery of this study is chronologically
portrayed as follows:
1. Test Battery of Critical Thinking Test
a. First, the participants’ identities which comprises student’s name,
student’s register number (NIM/Nomor Induk Mahasiswa), and student’s
signature were taken. They were asked to fill the attendance list that
covered those participants’ personal identities;
b. Next, as the participants had already completed writing their identities on
the attendance list, they were informed about the instructions related to the
critical thinking test, and then when they were ready to do the test, the
researcher started to time and watch the test taking place;
c. The participants were asked to answer all the questions consisting of 37
items related to critical thinking on the answer sheet provided around 30
minutes;
d. After the participants completed this test, their answer sheets were rated
and their result were analyzed;
2. Test Battery of Test of Written English (Independent Essay)
a. The test of written English was administered exactly after the participants
had already finished doing the critical thinking test. It was conducted
simultaneously in the same day and occasion as critical thinking test;
b. Next, the participants were informed both about the instruction to do this
test and about the scoring criteria of their writing response;
c. The participants were freely to choose only one of the four topics given;
d. The participants were asked to do this test around 30 minutes with a
condition that their writing should be approximately 300-350 words
length;
 32

e. After the participants had already finished this test, their responses were
copied to be rated by two raters. The first rater is an English teacher who
had an experience in conducting a research on writing ability, whereas the
second rater is the writer/researcher himself who is currently taking
Bachelor degree at Department of English Education of Syarif
Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta.

F. Technique of Data Analysis

To analyze the data, the Pearson Product Moment correlation was
employed. In addition, computer software such as Microsoft Office Excel 2007
and SPSS version 18.0 were utilized to assist the writer in analyzing the data of
this study.

G. Statistical Hypothesis
The non-directional (two-tail) test was used in terms of the statistical
hypotheses, which is presented as follows:
1. H0 : r = 0 or if rxy<rt, H0 is accepted, and Ha is rejected;
2. Ha : r ≠ 0 or if rxy>rt, Ha is accepted, and H0 is rejected.
 CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter reports and discusses the research findings from the data that
had been already collected. The findings and discussions are elaborated in data
description, testing hypotheses, research discussions, and limitations or challenges
that were found as the research was being conducted.

A. Data Description
1. Critical Thinking Ability Data
The critical thinking ability of the sixth semester students of Department
of English Education is determined by calculating the number of the correct
responses in the critical thinking test. This is illustrated in Figure 4.1 as follows:

25
Frequency

20
15
10
5
0

Grouped Score

Figure 4.1
Histogram of Frequency Distribution of Critical Thinking Ability
Figure 4.1 above reveals that from 60 participants conducting the critical
thinking test, the most frequently occurring scores (Mode) are at the grouped
score (or interval score) 45.93−52.22 with 20 participants. Besides, 5 participants
are found to have the highest score indicated by the last highest interval score
64.83−71.12, and 2 participants are in the last lowest interval score 27.03−33.32.
Moreover, the description of the critical thinking ability data is described
in detail in Table 4.1 as follows:

33
 34

Table 4.1
Descriptive Statistics of Critical Thinking Ability Data
Mode 51.35
Median 51.35
Mean 50.14
Minimum 27.03
Maximum 70.27
Range 43.24
Semi-interquartile Range 13.51
Standard Deviation 8.99
Variance Coefficient (%) 17.82
Skewness -0.11
Standard Error of Skewness 0.31
Skewness Ratio -0.35
Kurtosis -0.09
Standard Error of Kurtosis 0.61
Kurtosis Ratio -0.14

Based on Table 4.1 above, the central tendency distribution of critical

thinking ability data of the 60 sixth semester students Department of English
Education is indicated by the mode, mean, median, minimum, and maximum
scores. In this case, it is found that the most frequently score (Mode) of critical
thinking ability data is 51.35. Next, the middle point in the data distribution
(Median) found is 51.35. Besides, the average score is shown by the Mean score
50.14. Meanwhile, the lowest score (Minimum) obtained is 27.03, and the highest
score (Maximum) found is 70.27.
In addition, the dispersion or variability distribution of critical ability data
is shown by the scores of range, semi-interquartile range, standard deviation,
variance coefficient, skewness, and kurtosis. First, based on Table 4.1 represented
above, the range score between maximum and minimum scores found is 43.24.
The next indicator of variability which is based on the range of the middle 50
percent of the test scores is shown by the semi-interquartile range score 13.51.
Besides, the standard deviation score found is 8.99. Meanwhile, the percentage of
the comparison between standard deviation and the mean scores is shown by the
coefficient variance 17.82. Next, the dispersion shape of the data distribution is
indicated by skewness and kurtosis scores found respectively are -0.11 and -0.09
(both of these scores indicates that the shape of data dispersion is slightly-left
 35

skewed and peaked. It is interpreted as a reasonably normal distribution for the

skewness ratio (-0.35) and kurtosis ratio (-0.14) are included in the reasonably
accepted score of normal data distribution, i.e. between -2 and 2).
Furthermore, to provide an additional vivid description of the data
distribution of the critical thinking ability data, Figure 4.2 gives the histogram of
frequency distribution with the probability normal curve formed as follows:

Mean: 50.14
Std. Deviation: 8.99

Figure 4.2
Histogram with Normal Curve of Critical Thinking Ability Data
Apparently, Figure 4.2 shows that critical thinking ability data is normally
distributed. This is indicated by the histogram which resembles the symmetrical
and bell-shaped graphical representation.

2. Writing Ability Data

The writing ability of the sixth semester students of Department of English
Education is determined from the students’ responses in the test of written English
(independent essay) which were rated by two raters. Table 4.2 below describes the
comparison scores of the writing ability rated by the first rater and the second
rater as follows:
 36

Table 4.2
Descriptive Statistics of Writing Ability Data
of Rater 1 and Rater 2
Rater 1 Rater 2
Mode 73.00 74.00
Median 73.50 67.00
Mean 74.77 67.02
Minimum 58.00 42.00
Maximum 90.00 87.00
Range 32.00 45.00
Semi-interquartile Range 6.75 13.75
Standard Deviation 6.46 9.43
Variance Coefficient (%) 8.64 14.07
Skewness 0.56 -0.32
Standard Error of Skewness 0.31 0.31
Skewness Ratio 1.81 -1.03
Kurtosis 0.48 -0.02
Standard Error of Kurtosis 0.61 0.61
Kurtosis Ratio 0.79 -0.03

Based on Table 4.2 represented above, in terms of the central tendency of

data distribution between the two raters, the most frequently scores of the first and
the second rater found respectively are 73.00 and 74.00. Next, it is found that the
median and mean scores of the first rater is higher than the second rater
(Median=73.50>67.00 and Mean=74.77>67.02). Similarly, the higher scores are
also found in the first rater in the case of the minimum and maximum scores in
comparison to the minimum and maximum scores of the second rater
(Minimum=58.00>42.00 and Maximum=90.00>87.00).
In addition, according to Table 4.2, the variability of data distribution
between the first and second raters also encounters some various scores. First, the
first rater is found to have the lower range score than the second rater
(32.00<45.00). Meanwhile, it is found that the semi-interquartile obtained from
the first rater is lower than the second rater (6.75<13.75). Also, the standard
deviation and variance coefficient of the first rater is found to have the lower
score than the second rater (Standard Deviation=6.46<9.43 and Variance
Coefficient=8.64% < 14.07%), which mean that the writing ability data set of the
first rater is more homogenous than the second rater. Besides, the data distribution
 37

of the first rater is slightly right-skewed (0.56) and peaked (0.48), whereas the
second rater is slightly left-skewed (-0.32) and peaked (-0.02). In addition, the
skewness ratio (1.81, -1.03) and kurtosis ratio (0.79, -0.03) of the two raters’ score
are between -2.00 and 2.00, which mean that the data have a fairly normal
distribution.
Next, Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 below give an additional illustration of the
data distribution of the writing ability data sets of the first and second raters
through the histogram of frequency distribution with the probability normal curve
formed as follows:

Mean: 74.77
Std. Deviation: 6.46

Figure 4.3
Histogram with Normal Curve of Writing Ability Data of Rater 1

Mean: 67.02
Std. Deviation: 9.43

Figure 4.4
Histogram with Normal Curve of Writing Ability Data of Rater 2
 38

By examining Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 presented above, the writing
ability data sets of the two raters clearly form a symmetrical and bell-shaped
curve, which mean that the data are normally distributed.
Furthermore, the inter-rater reliability is used in terms of the writing
ability data since every single participant’s writing response was rated by two
different raters. In this case, before the inter-rater reliability is measured, the
linearity and normality distribution of each data set from the two raters are tested
first as a condition to determine what kind of analysis should be used to find out
the coefficient correlation, indicating the inter-rater reliability, between the two
raters. The test of linearity and normality distribution are described as follows:
a. Test of Linearity
The linearity of the writing ability data set of the first rater and the second
rater is found out through examining the scattered diagram depicted in Figure 4.3
as follows:

Figure 4.5
Scattered Diagram of the Linearity between Rater 1 and Rater 2
The scattered diagram in Figure 4.3 above reveals that the scores given by
the first rater and the second rater tend to have a linear relationship as the dots in
that diagram shows an indication as a linear line. Next, the scores given by the
first rater and the second rater tend to have a fairly relationship since most of the
dots in that diagram are fairly close to the line which can be drawn from the dots.
Besides, it can be assumed that there is a positive relationship between the score
 39

data from the first rater and the second rater for the dots in that scattered diagram
shows an indication that the data starts from the down left side to the up right side
of the diagram.
In addition, to have more accurate investigation of the linearity between
the first rater and the second rater, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) is
conducted. The result of ANOVA between the two raters is presented as follows:
Table 4. 3
ANOVAb between Rater 1 and Rater 2
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 830.611 1 830.611 29.553 0.000a
Residual 1630.122 58 28.106
Total 2460.733 59
a. Predictors: (Constant), Rater_2
b. Dependent Variable: Rater_1
Based on Table 4.3 above, the F-Test value obtained is 29.553 with level
of significance or p-value at 0.000. Due to the fact that the p-value is lower than
the 95% and 99% levels of confidence (0.000<0.050, 0.000<0.010), it can be
considered that the regression model between the two raters is linear.
b. Test of Normality Distribution
The normality distribution is tested based on two approaches as follows:
1. Graphical Approach
Although Figure 4.3 and 4.4 may have already considered to be used as
the graphical approach representation depicting that the writing ability data
sets of the two raters are normally distributed, in which the histogram
represented in Figure 4.3 and 4.4 resemble a symmetry and bell shape, to more
ensure the normality distribution have been met, some further inspections
through employing other charts which are commonly used in terms of
graphical approach may be necessarily provided. In this case, the whisker-and-
box plot and Q-Q (Quantile-Quantile) plot are employed to examine the
normality distribution of the data set from each rater as follows:
 40

Figure 4.6
Whisker-and-Box Plots of Rater 1 and Rater 2
By examining the whisker-and-box plots illustrated in Figure 4.6
above, the data distributions of the two raters are fairly normal (symmetrical)
indicated by the height of the box and the height of the whisker lines. Besides,
the same description as revealed in the descriptive statistics in Table 4.2 is
also found in Figure 4.6 above; in this case, the first rater has the higher
median score than the second rater, shown by the middle horizontal line of the
box. Also, according to the whiskers shown by the lines above and below the
box, the first rater has the higher minimum and maximum scores than the
second rater. Next, the second rater has the higher semi-interquartile range and
considered as having a higher variability (standard deviation), indicated by the
length of the box. Although, the two raters’ data distributions look fairly
normal, the first rater has several extreme scores (participant 53, 25, 24, 8, and
45). To judge whether these extreme scores are extreme cases/outliers (cause
for exclusion the participants to the calculation of correlation coefficient) or
facilitating cases (the participants can still be retained to the calculation of
correlation coefficient), these will be confirmed by Q-Q plots of the two raters
as follows:
 41

Figure 4.7
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Rater 1

Figure 4.8
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Rater 2
Based on the detrended normal Q-Q plot of Rater 1 represented in
Figure 4.7 above, the extreme scores (participants 53, 25, 24, 8, and 45) which
are shown in the whisker-and-box plot illustrated in Figure 4.6 cannot be
considered to be the outliers since they are still within the acceptable range of
standard deviation (i.e. between -3 and 3), instead they should be considered
as the facilitating cases included to the calculation of coefficient correlation.
Unexpectedly, in the detrended normal Q-Q plot of Rater 2 presented in
Figure 4.8, the participants (53 and 46) appear as having more than three of
standard deviations from the mean. However, by comparing the scores of the
participants (53 and 46) given by the two raters (see Appendix 8), and also by
reexamining the participants’ writing responses on the answer sheets, they
 42

should not be treated as the outliers since the participant 53 and 46 indeed
poorly perform in the written test of English (independent essay).
2. Numerical Approach
The numerical approach is used to test the data normality distribution
as a companion and a confirmation of the interpretation of graphical approach
previously. By using the numerical approach, the data normality distribution
can be estimated and calculated precisely. The descriptive statistics
represented in Table 4.2 above has already contained the necessary
information related to normality test. The Table 4.2 reveals that based on the
skewness ratio (1.81, -1.03) and kurtosis ratio (0.79, -0.03), the data sets of the
two raters can be regarded as a normal distribution since these are within the
reasonably accepted range score (between -2.00 and 2.00). Although,
according to the graphical approach, in which the whisker-and-box plot has
informed that there are some extreme scores in the data set deriving from the
first rater (Figure 4.6), as well as based on the detrended normal Q-Q plot
which shows the data set of the second rater has also several extreme scores
(Figure 4.8), by examining the numerical approach (using the skewness ratio
and kurtosis ratio), the assumption of normal distribution of the data sets from
the two raters have met the requirement in which the two raters’ data sets are
normally distributed. In addition, in order to have more accurate results of the
normality distribution of the data sets of the two raters, another inspection of
numerical approach (the Shaphiro-Wilks W test) is employed. Next, the
hypotheses related to the normality distribution of the writing ability data sets
of the first rater and the second rater that are tested by Shaphiro-Wilks W test
as follows:
a. Null hypothesis (H0): writing ability data sets of the first rater and the
second rater are normally distributed;
b. Alternative hypothesis (Ha): writing ability data sets of the first rater and
the second rater are not normally distributed;
or in terms of statistical hypotheses:
a. H0: F(x)=F0(x), if p>0.05 or p>0.01, H0 is accepted;
 43

b. Ha: F(x) ≠ F0(x), if p<0.05 or p<0.01, H0 is rejected.

The results are provided in Table 4.4 as follows:
Table 4.4
Inferential Normality Distribution Test of Rater 1 and Rater 2
Shaphiro- Asymp. Sig. 95% level of 99% level of
Wilks W (2-tailed) confidence confidence
(p) (p>0.05) (p>0.01)
Rater 1 0.94 0.04 0.04<0.05 0.04>0.01
Rater 2 0.98 0.62 0.62>0.05 0.62>0.01
Based on Table 4.4 above, at the 99% of level of confidence (p>0.01),
it appears to be no problem regarding to the normality distribution. In this
case, the test shows that the asymptotic significance of the two raters obtained
is higher than the 99% level of confidence (rater 1=0.04>0.01, rater
2=0.62>0.01), so H0 is accepted. In other words, the writing ability data sets
of the first rater and the second rater are normally distributed. However,
inconsistency result of the first rater’s data set is found as the level of
significance is lowered to the 95% level of confidence. It is found that the first
rater’s asymptotic significance is lower than the 95% level of confidence
(0.04<0.05); thus, H0 is rejected. Consequently, the writing data set of the first
rater is considered as not normally distributed. Meanwhile, at the 95 % level
of confidence, the data distribution of the second rater is found to be
consistent (p>0.05 or 0.62>0.05); therefore, H0 is accepted. In other words,
the second rater’s data set is normally distributed.
To reach the decision of the normality distribution of the two raters, all
the normality methods are compared. The result summary of each method is
compared as follows:
Table 4.5
Comparison of Normality Distribution Test Results between
Skewness-Kurtosis Ratios and Shaphiro-Wilks W Test of
Rater 1 and Rater 2
Skewness-Kurtosis Shaphiro-Wilks Test
Ratios p>0.05 p>0.01
Rater 1 Normal Not Normal Normal
Rater 2 Normal Normal Normal
 44

Table 4.5 presented above indicates that there is only one

result/condition in which the data set is not normal, namely the first rater’s
data set tested by Shaphiro-Wilks W test at the 95% level of confidence (or
p>0.05). Meanwhile, the remaining test results for the two raters have the
normal distribution.
By examining the normality distribution test results above, the
evaluation for the risks to create errors in hypothesis testing to coefficient
correlation indicating the inter-rater reliability is necessary to considered.
Firstly, a type I error is feasible to create since the 95% level of confidence
(p>0.05) has a higher chance to reject the null-hypothesis which states that the
data is not normally distributed, in fact in reality the data distribution is
normal. Meanwhile, a type II error is likely to occur as the level of confidence
is increased to 99% in which the null hypothesis is accepted (the data is
considered as normally distributed), in fact in reality the data is not normally
distributed. Despite having the possibility to make a type I error or a type II
error, the parametric statistics (Pearson Product Moment correlation) is
preferred to be used since this takes some considerations the first rater’s data
set is considered to be normally distributed due to the fact that its skewness
and kurtosis ratios (1.81 and 0.79) are reasonably normal and the represented
histogram resembles a symmetrical and bell-shaped graphical representation
(Figure 4.3), as well as confirmed by the result of the Shaphiro-Wilks W test
at the 99% level of confidence.
Next, after determining that each writing ability data set of the first rater
and the second rater tends to be linear and is normally distributed, the calculation
of the inter-rater reliability of the writing ability is continued to measure the
correlation coefficient by using Pearson Product Moment correlation. Based on
the calculation of the inter-rater reliability between the two raters, the score of the
inter-reliability (ry1y2) obtained is 0.58 (see Appendix 14). Then, it is compared
with the score of r table (rt) at the levels of significance 0.05 and 0.01 (α=5% and
α=1%). With df=58, the ( ) and ( ) obtained respectively are 0.26 and 0.34
(with interpolation) (see Appendix 16). Therefore, the score of the inter-rater
 45

reliability is higher than the score of the r table at the levels of significance 0.05
and 0.01, or ry1y2=0.58> ( ) =0.26 and ry1y2=0.58> ( ) =0.34. In other words,
there is any significant relationship between the writing ability data set rated by
the first rater and the second rater. Hence, it can be considered that the writing
ability scores rated by the two raters are interchangeable.
Moreover, the final score of the writing ability data is shown in Figure 4.9
as follows:
25
Frequency

20

15

10

0
50−55 56−61 62−67 68−73 74−79 80−85 86−91

Grouped Score

Figure 4.9
Writing Ability Data (Final Score)

Figure 4.9 above illustrates the final score of the writing ability obtained
from the average score between the first rater and the second rater. In this case, it
reveals that from the test of written English (independent essay) conducted by the
60 participants, the most frequently score found is shown by the interval score 68-
73 of which participants are 20. Besides, 1 participant is found to have the highest
score within the interval score 86-91, and similarly there is 1 participant included
into the lowest interval score 50-55 found.
In addition, Table 4.6 below gives the detail description of students’
writing ability data as follows:
 46

Table 4.6
Descriptive Statistics of Writing Ability Data (Final Score)
Mode 65.00
Median 70.25
Mean 70.89
Minimum 50.00
Maximum 86.50
Range 36.50
Semi-interquartile Range 10.25
Standard Deviation 7.10
Variance Coefficient (%) 10.02
Skewness -0.24
Standard Error of Skewness 0.31
Skewness Ratio -0.77
Kurtosis 0.27
Standard Error of Kurtosis 0.61
Kurtosis Ratio 0.44

Based on Table 4.6 above, in terms of the central tendency distribution, the
final score of the writing ability of the 60 sixth semester students of Department
of English Education averagely is 70.89. Next, the most frequently score found is
65.00. Meanwhile, the middle score obtained is 70.25. Besides, the lowest score
found is 50.00, and the highest score found is 86.50.
In addition, in terms of the variability distribution of the final score of the
writing ability data, the range score between maximum and minimum scores
found is 36.50. Next, the semi-interquartile range obtained is 10.25. With standard
deviation score 7.10 and variance coefficient 10.02 percent, the skewness and
kurtosis scores found respectively are -0.24 (slightly left-skewed) and 0.27
(peaked).
Moreover, to provide an additional vivid description of the writing ability
data, Figure 4.10 presents a histogram of frequency distribution with the
probability normal curve as follows:
 47

Mean: 70.89
Std. Deviation: 7.10

Figure 4.10
Histogram with Normal Curve of Writing Ability Data (Final Score)
Figure 4.10 reveals that the final score of writing ability data has a normal
distribution since the histogram of the frequency distribution resembles a
symmetrical and bell-shaped graphical representation.

B. Data Analysis and Testing Hypotheses

1. Data Analysis
Before the data is analyzed, the linearity and normality distribution of the
data sets of the two variables (critical thinking ability and writing ability) are
tested first. The explanation of test of linearity and normality distribution are
presented as follows:
a. Test of Linearity
The linearity of the critical thinking ability and writing ability data sets is
tested through examining the scattered diagram represented in Figure 4.11 as
follows:

Figure 4.11
Scattered Diagram of the Linearity between CT and FWA
 48

The scattered diagram presented in Figure 4.11 above reveals that the CT
(Critical Thinking) ability and FWA (Final score of Writing Ability) tend to have
a linear relationship as the dots in that diagram shows an indication as a linear
line. Also, critical thinking ability and writing ability tend to have a fairly
relationship since the dots in that diagram are close to the line which can be drawn
from the dots. Moreover, it can be estimated that there is a positive relationship
between the critical thinking ability and writing ability for the dots in that
scattered diagram shows an indication that the data starts from the down left side
to the up right side of the diagram.
Besides, the result of the scattered diagram represented in Figure 4.11
above is also confirmed by the result of ANOVA between the two variables as
follows:
Table 4.7
ANOVAb between CT and FWA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1088.739 1 1088.739 33.565 0.000a
Residual 1881.307 58 32.436
Total 2970.046 59
a. Predictors: (Constant), CT
b. Dependent Variable: FWA
Table 4.7 above reveals that F-test value is 33.565 with p-value obtained is
0.000. Because the p-value is lower than both at 95% and 99% the level of
confidence (0.000<0.050, 0.000<0.010), the regression model between CT and
FWA is considered linear.
b. Test of Normality Distribution
The normality distribution of critical thinking ability and writing ability
data is tested through graphical approach and numerical approach as follows:
1. Graphical Approach
According to Figure 4.2 and 4.10, the critical thinking ability data set and
writing ability data set have been regarded as a normal distribution since the
histograms represented in Figure 4.2 and 4.10 have some resemblance to the
symmetrical and bell-shaped curve. Nevertheless, drawing some comparisons
 49

between histogram and probability normal curve represented in Figure 4.2 and
4.10, the whisker-and-box plot as well as the Q-Q plot are also necessarily
provided in order to have a more accurate depiction of the normality distribution
of each data set. The whisker-and-box plot and Q-Q plot are presented as follows:

Figure 4.12
Whisker-and-Box-Plot of CT and FWA
Figure 4.12 above shows that CT ability and the FWA data sets can be
considered to be normally distributed (symmetrical) shown by the boxes and
whisker lines of the two data sets. Besides, Figure 4.12 also reveals that FWA data
set has a higher middle score (median) indicated by the middle line of the box. In
addition, the FWA has also a higher maximum and minimum score shown by the
upper end and lower end horizontal lines of the whiskers lines located higher than
CT. Moreover, by comparing the two data sets’ length of boxes, the CT data set is
considered to have a higher semi-interquartile range than FWA; thus, the CT data
also has higher standard deviation which means that CT data is more
heterogeneous than FWA. Besides, there is an extreme score (indicated by
participant 53) found in the FWA data set. However, by considering and
comparing the scores between CT and FWA, it is not found that there is any
invalid measure deriving from the data of the participant 53. Thus, he/she should
not be treated as an outlier since he/she poorly performs on the two tests. As a
 50

result, the participant 53 can still be retained to the calculation of coefficient

correlation later.
Another graphical inspection of the normality distribution between the two
data sets is through examining the Q-Q plots as follows:

Figure 4.13
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of CT

Figure 4.14
Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of FWA
Based on the detrended normal Q-Q plot represented in Figure 4.13, there
are no any significant outliers—moving away from more than the accepted range
(three standard deviations from the mean)—that can be found. Meanwhile, Figure
4.14 indicates that the participant 53 is found to locate more than three standard
deviations. Nevertheless, by carefully reexamining the data processing trail,
including the inspection of the participant’s answer sheets on the two tests (test of
written English and CT test) and comparing the scores between the two tests, the
participant 53 had indeed been found to have poorly performed in the two tests
 51

due to his/her lack of ability in conducting the two tests. Therefore, the participant
53 should not be excluded from the calculation of coefficient correlation.
2. Numerical Approach
The same as numerical approach conducted to test the normality
distribution of data sets previously (i.e. the first rater and the second rater data
sets), the normality distribution of CT and FWA data sets are also tested by using
the numerical approach to present a more accurate and objective judgment of the
normality distribution of the two data sets between CT and FWA and to justify the
interpretation of graphical approach conducted previously. In this case, based on
the skewness ratio (-0.35, -0.77) and kurtosis ratio (-0.14, 0.44), the CT and FWA
data sets are considered as having a normal distribution since these are still within
the accepted range score, between -2 and 2 (see Table 4.1 and Table 4.5).
Furthermore, to have more accurate result, the Shaphiro-Wilks W test is employed
as well. The drawn hypotheses related to normality distribution of CT and FWA
as follows:
a. Null hypothesis (H0): the CT and FWA data sets are normally distributed;
b. Alternative hypothesis (Ha): the CT and FWA data sets are not normally
distributed,
or in terms of statistical hypotheses:
a. H0: F(x)=F0(x), if p>0.05 or p>0.01, H0 is accepted;
b. Ha: F(x) ≠ F0(x), if p<0.05 or p<0.01, H0 is rejected.
The results are summarized in Table 4.8 as follows:
Table 4.8
Inferential Normality Distribution Test of CT and FWA
Shaphiro-Wilks Asymp. Sig. 95% level of 99% level of
W (2-tailed) confidence confidence
(p) (p>0.05) (p>0.01)
CT 0.99 0.81 0.81>0.05 0.81>0.01
FWA 0.99 0.74 0.74>0.05 0.74>0.01
Based on Table 4.8 presented above, the CT and FWA data sets have
higher asymptotic significance than both at the 95% level of confidence
(0.81>0.05, 0.74>0.05) and 99% level of confidence (0.81>0.01, 0.74>0.01). As a
 52

result H0 is accepted. Thus, it can be considered that the CT and FWA data sets
are normally distributed.
In addition, to provide a clear decision, each method of numerical
approach of the normality distribution test is compared as follows:
Table 4.9
Comparison of Normality Distribution Test Results between
Skewness-Kurtosis Ratios and Shaphiro-Wilks W Test of CT and FWA
Skewness- Shaphiro-Wilks Test
Kurtosis Ratios p>0.05 p>0.01
CT Normal Normal Normal
FWA Normal Normal Normal
Table 4.9 reveals that both of skewness-kurtosis ratios method and
Shaphiro-Wilks W test method appear to have no problem. Consequently, the data
sets of CT and FWA are considered as a normal distribution.
Due to the fact that both of the data sets of critical thinking ability and
writing ability tends to be linear and are normally distributed, the parametric
statistic (in this case Pearson Product Moment correlation) can be used to find out
the correlation coefficient between critical thinking ability and writing ability. The
correlation coefficient for both of the variables is symbolized with rxy. The
calculation of rxy is presented in details as follows:
N = 60
∑x = 3008.11
∑y = 4253.50
∑xy = 215528.37
= 155580.70
= 304507.75
( )( )
rxy =
√( ( ) )( ( ) )

( ) ( )( )
=
√( ( ) ( ) )( ( ) ( ) )

=
√( )( )

=
√( )( )
 53

=
√

rxy = 0.605 ≈ 0.61

(Note: the scores of N, ∑x, ∑y, ∑xy, , above are taken from Appendix 15).
In addition, to know the contribution of variable x (critical thinking
ability) towards variable y (writing ability), the determination coefficient ( ) is
measured. The detail calculation of is presented as follows:
=( ) x 100
=( ) x 100
=0.3721 x 100
=37.21
Furthermore, the regression analysis is conducted to estimate the value of
one variable through the other variable. The regression equation comprises
Ŷ=a+bX. To get the Ŷ=a+bX equation, the values of a and b are examined. The
detail calculations of the values of a and b are presented in detail as follows:
N = 60
∑x = 3008.11
∑y = 4253.50
∑xy = 215528.37
= 155580.70
= 304507.75
( )( ) ( )( )
a=
( ) ( )
( )( ) ( )( )
=
( ) ( )

=
a=46.937 ≈ 46.94

( ) ( )( )
b=
( ) ( )
( ) ( )( )
=
( ) ( )

=
 54

=
b=0.477≈0.48
(Note: the scores of N, ∑x, ∑y, ∑xy, , above are taken from Appendix 15).
From the calculation of the value a and b above, the regression equation
obtained is Ŷ= 46.94 + 0.48X.

2. Testing Hypotheses
This study is to answer the following hypotheses:
a. Null hypothesis (H0): there is no any significant relationship between critical
thinking ability and writing ability;
b. Alternative hypothesis (Ha): there is any significant relationship between
critical thinking ability and writing ability,
or in terms of the statistical hypotheses, these can be portrayed as follows:
a. H0 : ρ = 0 or if rxy<rt, H0 is accepted, and Ha is rejected;
b. Ha : ρ ≠ 0 or if rxy>rt, Ha is accepted, and H0 is rejected.
According to the research findings, the calculation of rxy obtained is 0.61.
Then, the score rxy=0.61 is compared with r table (rt) at the level of significance
0.05 (α=5%) and the level of significance 0.01 (α=1%). With df=58, the ( )( )

gained is 0.26 (with interpolation), and the ( )( ) obtained is 0.34 (with

interpolation) (see Appendix 16). Therefore, rxy=0.61> ( )( ) =0.26, and
rxy=0.61> ( )( ) =0.34. As a result, Ha is accepted, and H0 is rejected, which
means there is any significant relationship between critical thinking ability and
writing ability.
In addition, to generalize the result of rxy above to the population, the
significance of correlation coefficient should be tested by t-test to see whether ρ=0
or ρ≠0. The calculation of t-test is presented in details as follows:
r=0.61
N=60
df=58
√
t= √
 55

√
=
√ ( )

√
=
√
( )
=
√

t=5.868 ≈5.87
The score of t=5.87 obtained is compared with the score of t table ( ) at
levels of significance 0.05 and 0.01 (α=5% and α=1%). With df=58, the at the
levels of significance 0.05 and 0.01 obtained respectively are 2.01 and 2.68 (with
interpolation) (see Appendix 17). Therefore, t=5.87> ( )( )
=2.01 and

t=5.87> ( )( )
=2.68.

Next, to determine the relationship between critical thinking ability and

writing ability employed to the population is tested based on the following
criteria:
a. H0 : ρ = 0 or if t< , H0 is accepted, and Ha is rejected;
b. Ha : ρ ≠ 0 or if t> , Ha is accepted, and H0 is rejected.
Due to the fact that t> ( ) and t> ( ), Ha is accepted, and H0 is

rejected. This result can be interpreted that there is any significant relationship
between critical thinking ability and writing ability of the sixth semester students
of Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic
University Jakarta academic year 2013/2014.
Notes:
Df(Degree of freedom) = N(Number of cases) – nr(number of research variables)
Df =60–2=58

C. Discussions
Based on the data description above, it is found that in terms of critical
thinking ability, the sixth semester students of Department of English Education
averagely still have poor critical thinking ability, which is indicated by the result
of the average score found is 50.14. However, in terms of the writing ability, their
 56

craft of writing is averagely fairly good. The average score the writing ability of
the sixth semester students of Department of English Education found is 70.89.
Meanwhile, in terms of the inter-rater reliability between the first rater and the
second rater, although there is any significant relationship between the two raters,
the correlation coefficient of the inter-rater reliability still indicates a moderate
relationship; in this case, it is shown by the score obtained for the inter-rater
reliability is 0.58.
In addition, based on the calculation and data analysis above, the score of
correlation coefficient (rxy) is higher than the score of r table (rt). In this case, the
correlation coefficient found is 0.61, and this score is compared with rt at the
levels of significance 0.05 and 0.01. The rt at the levels of significance 0.05 and
0.01 obtained respectively are 0.26 and 0.34. Therefore, in terms of the levels of
significance 0.05 and 0.01, the score of rxy is higher than the score of rt or
rxy=0.61> ( ) =0.26, and rxy=0.61> ( ) =0.34, which mean that the alternative
hypothesis (Ha) is accepted and null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. In other words,
there is any significant relationship between critical thinking ability and writing
ability.
Furthermore, based on the calculation of t-test, the score of t=5.87 is
higher than the score of t table at the levels of significance 0.05 and 0.01, or
t=5.87> ( ) =2.01 and t=5.87> ( ) =0.34. This t result is applied to the

population of this study which means that there is any significant relationship
between critical thinking ability and writing ability of the sixth semester students
of Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic
University Jakarta academic year 2013/2014.
Besides, the rxy can also be interpreted with Table of r Score Interpretation
presented in Table 4.10 as follows:
Table 4.10
Table of r Score Interpretation1
The r score Interpretation
0.80—1.00 Very high
0.60—0.79 High

1
Sugiyono, Statistika untuk Penelitian, (Bandung: Alfabeta, 2013), p. 231.
 57

The r score Interpretation

0.40—0.59 Moderate
0.20—0.39 Low
0.00—0.19 Very low

Based on Table 4.10 above the rx score is included in the scale between 0.60—
0.79. It indicates that there is a high relationship between variable X (critical
thinking ability) and variable Y (writing ability). Hence, it can be considered that
the critical thinking ability and writing ability of the sixth semester students of
Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University
Jakarta academic year 2013/2014 have any significant and high relationship. This
result can be confirmed to what Assadi, Davatgar, and Jafari found in their
research that critical thinking ability has a positive influence towards the learners’
writing.2 In addition to the relationship between critical thinking ability and the
writing skill, Heffernan and Lincoln argue that learners’ writing must go hand in
hand with their mind and hand.3 Therefore, students who are able to think
critically of what they have written will be able to refine any ideas in their
composition which lead to their attainment in writing, as what Ruggiero points out
that abundance of ideas will appear and flow as critical thinking ability is
employed in writing.4
Next, based on the regression equation Ŷ= 46.94 + 0.48X, the score of
writing ability (Y) can be estimated from the score of critical thinking ability (X)
that is multiplied by 0.48 and contributed by the constant 46.94. In this case, if X
goes up by one, Y is predicted to go up by 0.48.
Moreover, based on the calculation of determination coefficient ( )
obtained, critical thinking ability has the contribution 37.21% towards writing
ability. In other words, the writing ability of the sixth semester students of
Department of English Education in academic year 2013/2014 is influenced by
37.21% of their critical thinking ability, and it is influenced by 67.29% other
factors, for instance knowledge of vocabulary, usage/grammar, and so on. As

2
Nader Assadi, Hanieh Davatgar, Parinaz Jafari, loc.cit.
3
James A. W. Heffernan and John E. Lincoln, loc. cit.
4
Vincent Ryan Ruggiero, Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking, op. cit., p. 22.
 58

Hedge proposes that to write effectively, people not only should pay attention to
the ideas and information they organize, but they also need to equip themselves
with knowledge of grammatical devices, the word choice, and sentence structure.5

D. Limitations
In conducting this study, there were some challenges which lead this study
to have some limitations. First, one of the instruments has very low validity;
familiarity with the instrument used might be the cause of their low result in
critical thinking ability as well; in this case, the instrument consists of the items of
which two to five alternatives that must be answered based on the extract or
passage of each item, and also it was found that as the critical thinking test was
administered, even though the explicit and clear explanation of the instruction
provided in the test, there were some of the participants who were still confused of
the instruction of the test. The language used in the critical thinking test should
also be considered, because it is possible that the low students’ result of critical
thinking ability may be affected by their knowledge of language, as a result any
translation in the native language of the participants can be the preference as
found in the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal® Manual 6, and also in
the other critical thinking test, for instance Cornell Critical Thinking Test that was
used in a study conducted by Rashid and Hasyim; in this case, they used the
participants’ native language, i.e. Bahasa Malaysia.7 Therefore, any obtained
implications from findings may be less accurate. In case there are several
implications or generalizations drawn in this study, these may be under the
assumptions that the research instrument is valid and credible. As a result, this
study may be considered to tend to be explanatory in nature and it mainly
provides a description of the possibilities and alternative conclusions.
In addition, some difficulties were found in terms of looking for some
raters who were competent and willing to assess the 60 participants’ writing

5
Tricia Hedge, loc. cit.
6
Watson-Glasser™ User Guide and Technical Manual UK Supervised and Unsupervised
Versions 2012, op. cit., p. 1.
7
Rosyati Abdul Rashid and Rosna Awang Hasyim, op. cit., p. 376.
 59

responses. Also, there was only limited time to administer the instrument; in this
case, the participants had some courses to attend as well as there were some tests
they should take.
Another shortcoming found was the difficulty to access and look for some
related previous studies which were done in Indonesia. Even though it was
believed that there were also some studies related to the critical thinking ability
and writing ability carried out in Indonesia, lacks of access to search them and
only limited publication related to the studies of critical thinking ability and
writing appeared to be a problem.
 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION

This final chapter reveals the conclusion drawn from the previous chapter,
and it also provides some pedagogical implications associated with critical
thinking ability and teaching of the writing skill. Besides, some suggestions in
terms of students’ critical thinking ability and their writing ability as well as for
any further studies in the same field are discussed here.

A. Conclusion
Based on the findings described in the previous chapter, this study arrives
at a conclusion that there is any significant relationship between critical thinking
ability and writing ability of the sixth semester students of Department of English
Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta academic year
2013/2014. The students with the better critical thinking ability have the better
writing ability than the poor ones. The more critical they are, the more creative
they develop the writing ideas which lead to their good writing attainment.

B. Implication
Based on the findings of this study, the critical thinking ability has
37.21% contribution towards the writing ability of the sixth semester students of
Department of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University
Jakarta academic year 2013/2014. Consequently, the lecturers of Department of
English Education are expected to design the writing course that is not only can
facilitate students to develop their writing ability but also can explore and develop
their critical thinking ability more.

60
 61

C. Suggestion
This study proposes several suggestions as follows:
1. Beside the language proficiency that must be considered by the sixth semester
students of Department of English Education in the English learning process,
they also should equip themselves with critical thinking ability for it will not
only provide them with the good academic performance (for instance, the
writing ability), but it will also make them able to cope with the problems they
find in their real life.
2. The raters of students’ writing should have the same agreement and
understanding about the topics of the test of written English; therefore, any
training and discussions should be more provided before the participants’
writing responses are rated;
3. The participants’ native language can be the preference that is used in critical
thinking test in order that there is not any vague result (that is distorted by the
participants’ knowledge of language) of the critical thinking test conducted by
the participants.
 62

REFERENCES

Assadi, Nader, Hanieh Davatgar, and Parinaz Jafari. The Effect of Critical
Thinking on Enhancing Writing among Iranian EFL Learners.
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research. 4, 2013.

Browne, Ann. Teaching and Learning Communication, Language and Literacy.

London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 2007.
Bachman, Lyle F. Statistical Analyses for Language Assessment. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Clouse, Barbara Fine. Pattern for a Purpose: A Rhetorical Reader. New York:
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2006.

Cottrell, Stella. Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and

Argument. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Dunn, Dana S., Jane S. Halonen, and Randolph A. Smith (Eds.). Teaching Critical
Thinking in Psychology: A Handbook of Best Practices. Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.

Ennis, Robert H. Critical Thinking Assessment. Theory into Practice. 32, 1993.

Facione, Peter A. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for

Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Millbrae: The
California Academic Press, 1990.

Fromkin, Victoria, Robert Rodman, and Nina Hyams. An Introduction to

Language. Massachusetts: Wadsworth, 7th Edition, 2003.

Grenville, Kate. Writing From Start to Finish: A-Six Steps Guide. Crows Nest:
Allen & Unwin, 2001.

Grosser, M M and Mirna Nel. The Relationship between the Critical Thinking
Skills and the Academic Language Proficiency of Prospective Teachers.
South African Journal of Education. 33, 2013.

Hairston, Maxine. Contemporary Composition Short Edition. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Company, 1986.

Harmer, Jeremy. The Practice of English Language Teaching. New York:

Longman Publishing, 1996.

-------. How to Teach Writing. Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 2007.

 63

Hedge, Tricia. Writing: Resource Books for Teachers. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1990.

Heffernan, James A. W. and John E. Lincoln. Writing: A College Handbook.

New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2nd Edition, 1986.

http://www.assessmentday.co.uk, 2014.

http://www.ets.org, 2014.

Khodabakhsh, Samaneh, Shahrokh Jahandar, and Morteza Khodabandehlou. The

Impact of Critical Thinking Tasks on Paragraph Writing Ability of Iranian
EFL Leaners. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences.
3, 2013.

Krathwohl, David R. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory

into Practice. 41, 2002.

Langan, John. English Skills. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 7th
Edition, 2001.

-------. Exploring Writing: Paragraph and Essay. New York: The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., 2008.

Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker. Critical Thinking. New York: The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 8th Edition, 2007.

Oshima, Alice and Hogue. Introduction to Academic Writing. New York: Pearson
Education, Inc., 3rd Edition, 2007.

PASW Statistics 18, released July 30, 2009. (http://www.winwrap.com)

Paul, Richard and Linda Elder, “The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking:
Concepts and Tools”. www.criticalthinking.org, 2014.

Pedoman Akademik Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

2009-2010. Jakarta: Biro Administrasi Akademik dan Kemahasiswaan
Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2009.

Ploeger, Katherine. Simplified Paragraph Skills. Illinois: NTC/Cotemporary

Publishing Group, 2000.

Rashid, Rosyati Abdul and Rosna Awang Hasyim. The Relationship between
Critical Thinking and Language Proficiency of Malaysian Undergraduates.
Edu-COM 2008 International Conference. 2008.
 64

Ruetten, Mary K. and Cheryl Pavlik. Developing Composition Skills: Academic

Writing and Grammar. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning, 3rd Edition,
2012.

Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan. The Art of Writing. California: Alfred Publishing, Co.
Inc., 1981.

-------. Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking. New York: The McGraw-
Hill Companies, Inc., 2004.

Sugiyono. Statistika untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta, 2013.

Teays, Wanda. Second Thoughts: Critical Thinking for a Diverse Society. New
York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 3rd Edition, 2006.

Trask, R.L. Why Do language Changes. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2011.

Washburn, Phil. The Vocabulary of Critical Thinking. New York: Oxford

University Press, Inc., 2010.

White, Fred D. The Writer’s Art: A Practical Rhetoric and Handbook. New York:
Wadsworth, Inc., 1986.
“Watson-Glasser™ User Guide and Technical Manual UK Supervised and
Unsupervised Versions 2012”. UK: Pearson Education, Inc., 2011.
www.talentlens.co.uk, 2014.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Instrument Specification
Variable of the Total of
Indicator Test Number in the instrument
Study Test Item
Critical Thinking 1. Analyzing inferences. A1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 6
Ability 2. Analyzing assumptions. A7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 11
3. Analyzing deductions. A18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 7
4. Interpreting information. A25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 6
5. Analyzing and evaluating arguments. A31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 7
Writing Ability 1. Developing the content of writing well.
2. Organizing the writing ideas well, logically,
and cohesively.
3. Using the effective and appropriate word
choice or vocabulary. B1 1
4. Using language usage (grammar and sentence
structure) well and correctly.
5. Using mechanics (spelling, punctuation, and
other writing conventions) correctly.
Total 38

65
 66

Appendix 2
CRITICAL THINKING TEST1
Time: 30 Minutes
Direction:
1. write down clearly on the answer sheet: your name, student’s number
(NIM), and day/date of the test;
2. in this part of the test, there are five sections:
-section 1: Inferences
-section 2: Assumptions
-section 3: Deductions
-section 4: Interpreting Information
-section 5: Arguments
3. each section has its own instructions that will be explained later;
4. read the instructions of each section carefully;
5. cross one of the options that you think is the best answer for each question,
e.g.:
for section 1:
A B C D E
for section 2-5:
A B
6. if you want to correct the answer you have already chosen, just give two
horizontal lines on the wrong answer, and then cross another option for the
correct one,
e.g.:
for section 1:
A B C D E
for section 2-5:
A B

7. read each question carefully before you answer it;

8. recheck your work before it is submitted.

1
http://www.assessmentday.co.uk, 2014.
 67

Section 1 (Inferences)
Instructions:
1. an inference is a conclusion drawn from observed or supposed facts. For
example, if someone presses a light switch but the light does not turn on, they
might infer that the filament has burnt out. However, inferences may or may
not be correct; for example in this case, the bulb could be missing, or a fuse
could be blown;
2. in this section, the test will begin with a statement of facts that must be
regarded as true. After each statement you will be presented with possible
inferences which might be drawn from facts in the statement. Analyze each
inference separately and decide on its degree of truth;
3. for each inference, you will be provided with 5 possible answers: TRUE,
PROBABLY TRUE, MORE INFORMATION REQUIRED,
PROBABLY FALSE, and FALSE;
- select TRUE if you believe the inference is definitely true, i.e. it correctly
follows beyond a reasonable doubt;
- PROBABLY TRUE if, based on the facts at hand, you think the inference
is PROBABLY TRUE; that it is more likely to be true than false, but not
true beyond a reasonable doubt;
- MORE INFORMATION REQUIRED, if you decide that there is no
enough data to make a decision based on the provided facts (or lack of
facts);
- PROBABLY FALSE if, based on the facts presented, you think the
inference is PROBABLY FALSE, i.e. it is more likely to be false than
true, but there is not enough evidence to suggest that it is definitely false;
- FALSE if you think the inference is definitely FALSE, i.e. it must be
incorrect because it misrepresents the facts provided or contradicts the
facts provided in the statement.
 68

Example:
Statement
Some people think that prospective employees should include a photograph with
their application form. Such practice traditionally been criticized for allowing
more attractive individuals to get ahead in their career over “plain” colleagues.
However, one study demonstrates that this is, in fact, untrue. Ruffle, the creator of
this study, attributes his findings to the “dumb-blonde hypothesis”—that beautiful
women are thought to be unintelligent. Ruffle submits that companies would be
better advised adopting the selection model employed by the Belgian public
sector, where CVs are anonymous and candidate names, gender, and photographs
are not allowed to be included on CVs. Such a model allows the candidate to be
selected on factors relevant to the role applied for.
Inference 1: The “dumb-blonde hypothesis” says that more attractive women are
incapable of being intelligent.
Correct Answer: True. (The passage states that the “dumb-blonde hypothesis” is
that people think beautiful women are thought to be unintelligent; therefore, the
answer is “True”.)

Inference 2: The model of selecting future employees adopted by the Belgian

public sector aims to reduce discrimination based on appearance and gender.
Correct Answer: Probably True (The passage fails to state why the Belgian public
sector has chosen to implement this method of selection; however, we can infer,
based on the nature of the information in the passage and the topic discussed, that
this is a likely reason behind the method chosen. As we cannot be certain of this,
the correct answer is “probably true”)
 69

Inference 3: The method of selecting future employees adopted by the Belgian

public sector has helped to eliminate discrimination in the Belgian public sector.
Correct Answer: More Information Required (The passage fails to provide
information on the success rate of this selection method; it simply outlines the
method. Therefore, we cannot say whether this model has been successful. For
this reason, we require further information before we can make this inference)

Inference 4: The method of selecting future employees adopted by the Belgian

public sector has had the effect of increasing discrimination based on appearance
within the Belgian public sector.
Correct Answer: Probably False (While the passage fails to provide information
on the success rate of this model of employee selection, it states that under this
model, future employees cannot provide pictures of themselves with their
application. This would suggest that discrimination would be reduced, rather than
increased. However, based on the information provided, we cannot say this for
certain. For example, increased visual discrimination may in fact take place in the
interview.)

Inference 5: The “dumb-blonde hypothesis” says that more attractive women are
less capable of being intelligent.
Correct Answer: False (The passage states that the “dumb-blonde hypothesis” is
that people think beautiful women are thought to be unintelligent. So based on the
passage alone we are told that the theory describes how people perceive beautiful
women to be unintelligent, yet does not state that they are actually less
intelligent.)
 70

Questions 1-4
Statement one
Although it is agreed that China is rapidly modernizing its army, there is some
doubt surrounding the exact amount it is spending. The research institute „PIPPI‟,
submits that the annual Chinese defense spending has risen from almost $31
billion in 2000 to over $120 billion in 2010. This figure is almost double the
official figure published by the Chinese government, who fail to include other
areas such as research and development in the official figure each year. In 2010,
the United States government spent around $400 billion on military defense.
Based on the current level of military growth, statistics suggest that China‟s
defense spending could overtake America‟s by 2030. In addition to military
spending, China‟s army continues to enjoy the largest number of people within
the ranks of its army than any other country.

1. Inference 1: The Chinese government published the official figure in terms of

their military spending, and this figure is thought to be misleading or in
contradiction with the result of research institute „PIPPI‟.
A. True D. Probably False
B. Probably True E. False
C. More Information Required

2. Inference 2: The passage notes that the Chinese government fail to include
areas such as „research‟ and „development‟ from their official figure; however,
this would also raise some implications that other areas of spending are also
absent from the official figure.
A. True D. Probably False
B. Probably True E. False
C. More Information Required
 71

3. Inference 3: This is only a clerical error, in case there are any anomalies
between the published figure on military spending and the actual figure spent.
A. True D. Probably False
B. Probably True E. False
C. More Information Required

4. Inference 4: In 2010, in comparison with the Chinese government, the United

States of America had less spending on its military defenses.
A. True D. Probably False
B. Probably True E. False
C. More Information Required

Questions 5-6
Statement two
Turkey is a surprising addition to the list of rapidly developing economies; with a
GDP increase of 8.5% in the year 2011 alone. However, such rapid growth leaves
worries regarding possible side-effects. For instance, in 2011 Turkey‟s rate of
inflation was well above that of its peers. Secondly, there is increasing concern
regarding Turkey‟s growing dependency on foreign capital. A large portion of the
Turkish banking system is part-owned by banks within the Eurozone. As the
single currency is uncertain, such dependency raises questions about the stability
of Turkish growth.

5. Inference 1: Turkish banks are part owned by European banks because this
provides greater economic links with Eurozone.
A. True D. Probably False
B. Probably True E. False
C. More Information Required
 72

6. Inference 2: There was a stagnant economy in Turkey in 2011.

A. True D. Probably False
B. Probably True E. False
C. More Information Required
 73

Section 2 (Assumptions)
Instructions:
1. an assumption is something which is presupposed or taken for granted. When
a person says: “I will see you tomorrow”, it is taken for granted that they will
be around tomorrow, and that they will not have last-minute plans which
prevent them from seeing you tomorrow;
2. in this section you will be provided with a number of statements. Each
statement will be followed by a series of proposed assumptions;
3. you must decide which assumptions are logically justified based on the
evidence in the statement;
4. if you think that the assumption is taken for granted in the statement, and is
therefore logically justified, select “Assumption Made”;
5. if you think that the assumption is not taken for granted in the statement, and
is not therefore logically justified, select “Assumption Not Made”;
6. remember to judge each question individually and base your responses on the
statements provided.
Example:
Statement
Monarchic nations, i.e. those with royal families, differ from republican nations in
several ways. An example of this difference is that citizens of monarchic nations
pay more tax than citizens of republican nations.
Assumption 1: Republican nations do not have a royal family.
Correct Answer: Assumption Made (The statement says that monarchic nations
are those with a royal family. The statement is assuming that this is one aspect
which differentiates monarchic nations from republican nations. Thus, it can be
assumed that Republican nations do not have a royal family.)

Assumption 2: The only types of nation are monarchic and republican.

Correct Answer: Assumption Not Made (The statement is just talking about the
differences between two types of nation; it does not imply that these are the only
two nor does the statement rely on there being just two types.)
 74

Question 7-8
Statement one
In 2008, the president of the USA promised to prevent the country entering
economic depression, but he failed because at the beginning of 2012, over 12
million USA citizens were unemployed.
7. Assumption 1: The number of jobless USA citizens should be less than 12
million.
A. Assumption Made
B. Assumption Not Made

8. Assumption 2: Presidents should stick to their promises.

A. Assumption Made
B. Assumption Not Made
Questions 9-10
Statement two
Monarchic nations, i.e. those with royal families, differ from republican nations in
several ways. An example of this difference is that citizens of monarchic nations
pay more tax than citizens of republican nations.
9. Assumption 1: The governments of monarchic nations are responsible for
setting tax rates on their citizens.
A. Assumption Made
B. Assumption Not Made

10. Assumption 2: A monarchic nation cannot be a republican nation.

A. Assumption Made
B. Assumption Not Made
 75

Questions 11-14
Statement three
Chilean students were right in 2012 to stage protest demanding that university
education in Chile should be made free.
11. Assumption 1: There are some universities outside of Chile which are free.
A. Assumption Made
B. Assumption Not Made

12. Assumption 2: Staging protests will influence the costs of Chilean university
education.
A. Assumption Made
B. Assumption Not Made

13. Assumption 3: Chilean students do not have the funds for the cost of
university education.
A. Assumption Made
B. Assumption Not Made

14. Assumption 4: Chilean students want to study in university.

A. Assumption Made
B. Assumption Not Made
 76

Questions 15-17
Statement four
Charities don‟t have to charge VAT (value added-tax) to customers, which mean
charity bookshops can change lower prices than those charged by second-hand
bookshops which are not registered as a charity.

15. Assumption 1: Non-charities pay more tax than charities.

A. Assumption Made
B. Assumption Not Made

16. Assumption 2: Customers prefer to pay lower prices.

A. Assumption Made
B. Assumption Not Made

17. Assumption 3: VAT increases the price customers pay for things.
A. Assumption Made
B. Assumption Not Made
 77

Section 3 (Deductions)
Instructions:
1. in this section, a statement will be provided followed by a series of suggested
conclusions. Here, you must take the statement to be true;
2. after reading each conclusion underneath the statement, you must decide
whether you think it follows from the statement provided;
3. if you agree that the conclusion follows the statement, choose
CONCLUSION FOLLOWS. However, if you do not consider the
conclusion to follow, then choose CONCLUSION DOES NOT FOLLOW;
4. you must select your answer based only on the information presented; not
using general knowledge. Similarly, you are advised not to let your own
opinions or prejudices influence your decisions; stick to the statements and
base your judgments solely on the facts presented.

Example:
Statement: Sarah owns a new company. New companies are more likely to fail
than well established companies. Therefore …

1. Conclusion one: Well-established companies are more likely to succeed

than new companies.
Correct answer: Conclusion Follows.
Explanation: The statement notes that new companies are more likely to fail
than well-established companies. Well-established companies are therefore
more likely to succeed, by comparison to new companies.

2. Conclusion two: Sarah‟s company will fail.

Correct answer: Conclusion Does Not Follow
Explanation: The statement notes that new companies are more likely to fail.
This does not mean that all new companies will fail.
 78

Questions 18
Statement one
Statistics have shown that companies selling baked goods, such as cakes and
pastries, are more likely to be successful if they are advertised as French or
Belgian. Therefore:

18. Conclusion 1: French and Belgian products are more costly.

A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow

Questions 19-20
Statement two
May 2012 had the highest level of rainfall on record for the preceding fifty years.
Therefore:

19. Conclusion 1: The rainfall in May 2012 was more than expected.
A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow

20. Conclusion 2: The rainfall in May 2012 was greater than in May 2011.
A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow
 79

Questions 21-22
Statement three
Facebook was launched on the American stock market in May 2012. However,
statistics suggest that several previously high-performing companies, such as
Pandora, Groupon, and LinkedIn fell in value after they were launched on the
American stock market. Therefore:

21. Conclusion 1: Social networking sites perform badly once they become
publicly listed on the stock market.
A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow

22. Conclusion 2: All companies decrease in value when first launched on the
American stock market.
A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow

Questions 23-24
Statement four
Coley is a company that produces scented candles, using only natural products.
Coley is against testing on animals and does not use pesticides in any of its
products. Therefore:
23. Conclusion 1: The scent from Coley‟s candles is made from fruits and
berries.
A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow

24. Conclusion 2: Coley‟s products are likely to be more costly.

A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow
 80

Section 4 (Interpreting Information)

Instructions:
1. the following questions will consist of a passage of information, followed by
a series of conclusions. You are instructed to assume all information in the
passage is true. The task is to judge whether or not each of the proposed
conclusion logically follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the information
given in the paragraph;
2. if you think that a conclusion follows beyond a reasonable doubt (but perhaps
not absolutely), select “CONCLUSION FOLLOWS”;
3. if you think the conclusion does not follow beyond a reasonable doubt based
on the facts given, select “CONCLUSION DOES NOT FOLLOW”;
4. do not use general knowledge when answering, only use the information
provided in the passage. Remember to judge each conclusion individually.

Statement
The British National Library has the largest collection of publicly-owned books in
the United Kingdom. Therefore:
Conclusion 1: The British National Library is in the United Kingdom.
Correct Answer: Conclusion Follows (The statement notes that the British
National Library has the largest collection of publicly-owned books in the United
Kingdom. For this reason, we can deduce that the British National Library is itself
within the United Kingdom. Thus, the correct answer is “Conclusion Follows”)

Conclusion 2: There might be a larger collection of publicly-owned books in the

United Kingdom.
Correct Answer: Conclusion Does Not Follow (The statement notes that the
British National Library is the largest collection of publicly-owned books in the
United Kingdom. For this reason, it is not possible for there to be a larger publicly
owned collection in the UK. Thus, the correct answer is “Conclusion Does Not
Follow”)
 81

Question 25-26
Statement one
The Tapoloa Club is a Hawaiian-themed night club in central London. Its most
popular drink is the Volcano, which emits sparks and flames. The Tapoloa Club
also offers a range of cocktails in perverse containers such as pineapples and
coconuts, such as the “Coconut Express” and the “Pineapple Pick-Up”
respectively. Therefore:
25. Conclusion 1: The “Coconut Express” is the second most popular drink sold
by the Tapoloa Club.
A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow

26. Conclusion 2: The “Coconut Express” is contained in a pineapple, and the

“Pineapple Pick-Up” is contained in a coconut.
A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow

Questions 27-28
Statement two
People with a master‟s degree in business administration (MBA) earn an income
on average 70% higher than people with just an undergraduate degree. MBA
students from top business schools earn an income on average 50% higher than
the average income of people with MBAs.
27. Conclusion 1: A person‟s income will increase, if he/she gets an MBA.
A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow

28. Conclusion 2: The average income of a person obtaining an MBA from a top
business school is half higher than that of the average MBA graduate.
A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow
 82

Questions 29-30
Statement three
Hannah has been a solicitor for three years. She works for a law firm in central
London and has hopes of being promoted. To be promoted in Hannah‟s firm,
employees must have at least four years‟ experience practicing as a solicitor.
Therefore:
29. Conclusion 1: Hannah cannot have a promotion since she lacks enough
experience.
A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow

30. Conclusion 2: In 3 years‟ time, assuming that Hannah has not been promoted,
she will be over qualified for her current position.
A. Conclusion Follows B. Conclusion Does Not Follow
 83

Section 5 (Analyzing Arguments)

Instructions:
1. in this series of questions, each question is followed by a series of arguments.
For this section, you must regard each argument as true, regardless of whether
it is weak or strong;
2. if you consider an argument to be strong, select “Strong Argument”, or if
you consider an argument to be weak, select “Weak Argument”. Judge each
question and argument individually. Try not to take into account individual
opinion or general knowledge because each argument is considered to be true;
3. notes:
- a strong argument is both important and directly related to the question
- a weak argument is not directly related to the question, or is of minor
importance. It may also be related to a trivial aspect of the question, or
confuses correlation with causation (incorrectly assuming that because two
things are related, they cause each other to happen).
Example:
Statement
Should governments be engaging in space exploration research?

1. Argument 1: Yes, the findings of these space exploration research and

development programs have been successfully applied to industry, boosting the
economies of the host country.
Correct answer: Strong Argument. (The argument directly addresses the initial
question, and provides a detailed practical benefit of the initial premise, making
this a strong argument).

2. Argument 2: Yes, space exploration has led to numerous discoveries and

ushered in the space age.
 84

Correct Answer: Weak Argument (Although the agreement states that discoveries
have been made, it does not go into detail about the benefits of those discoveries,
and the reference to the space age does not imply a benefit).
Questions 31
Statement one
Should companies downsize their workforces to decrease expenses and maximize
profits?

31. Argument 1: Yes, companies which have no control over the size of their
workforce will be highly vulnerable to economic climates and market changes.
A. Strong Argument
B. Weak Argument

Questions 32-33
Statement two
Should banks and financial institutions be obligated to engage in socially-
responsible investing?

32. Argument 1: Yes, in comparison to banks which do not engage in socially-

responsible investing, the banks engaging in socially responsible investing leads
to a happier and more fulfilled workforce.
A. Strong Argument
B. Weak Argument
33. Argument 2: No, over-regulation in the financial sector causes reduced
opportunities and therefore reduces income and profit.
A. Strong Argument
B. Weak Argument
 85

Questions 34-37
Statement three
Should all members of the European Union join the Eurozone and adopt the euro?

34. Argument 1: No, countries may find it difficult to adapt to a new currency.
A. Strong Argument
B. Weak Argument

35. Argument 2: Yes, forming a single currency union is the role of the European
Union.
A. Strong Argument
B. Weak Argument

36. Argument 3: Yes, greater economic unity between countries will lead to
some improvement of foreign relations between those member countries, which in
turn make each country stronger.
A. Strong Argument
B. Weak Argument

37. Argument 4: No, instability of one Eurozone country could bring the whole
Eurozone unstable, which make a disruptive influence to the economies of all
countries that use the euro.
A. Strong Argument
B. Weak Argument
 86

Appendix 3
TEST OF WRITTEN ENGLISH (INDEPENDENT ESSAY)
Time: 30 Minutes
Direction:
1. read the essay questions/topics*) carefully;
2. there are four topics given, and you are free to choose only ONE of them;
3. the essay consists of introduction, body, and conclusion;
4. you have 30 minutes to plan, write, edit and revise your response;
5. the length of the essay you write should be approximately 300-350 words;
6. questions/topics:
a. It is better for children to grow up in the countryside than in a big city. Do
you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and details to develop your
essay.
b. In some countries, teenagers have jobs while they are still students. Do
you think this is a good idea? Support your opinion by using specific
reasons and details.
c. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Watching
television is bad for children. Use specific reasons and details to support
your answer.
d. Do you agree with the following statement? Face-to-face communication
is better than other types of communication, such as letters, email, or
telephone calls. Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.
No. Scoring Criteria Description
1. Content (30%) relevant with the topic chosen.
2. Organization (20%) ideas are clear, logical, supported, and organized
3. Vocabulary (20%) use various, effective, and proper words in
expressing ideas.
4. Usage (25%) the grammar used does not obscure the meaning.
5. Mechanics (5%) good in spelling, paragraphing, capitalization,
punctuation, (readable) handwriting, etc.
*)
the topics are adopted from http://www.ets.org/
 87

Appendix 4
Writing Assessment Rubric1
Participant: Topic: a/b/c/d*) Date:
Score
Aspect Criteria Score
Scale
30-27 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: knowledgeable • substantive • thorough development of
thesis • relevant to assign topic

26-22 GOOD TO AVERAGE: some knowledge of subject • adequate range • limited development of
Content

thesis • mostly relevant to topic, but lacks detail

21-17 FAIR TO POOR: limited knowledge of subject • little substance • inadequate development of
topic
15-13 VERY POOR: does not show knowledge of subject • non substantive • non pertinent • OR not
enough to evaluate
20-18 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: fluent expression • ideas clearly stated/supported • succinct •
well-organized • logical sequencing • cohesive
Organization

17-14 GOOD TO AVERAGE: somewhat choppy • loosely organized but main ideas stand out,
•limited support • logical but incomplete sequencing
13-10 FAIR TO POOR: non-fluent • ideas confused or disconnected • lacks logical sequencing and
development
9-7 VERY POOR: does not communicate • no organization • OR not enough to evaluate
20-18 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: sophisticated range • effective word/idiom choice and usage,
word form mastery, appropriate register
Vocabulary

17-14 GOOD TO AVERAGE: adequate range • occasional errors of word/idiom form, word choice,
usage, but meaning not obscured
13-10 FAIR TO POOR: limited range • frequent errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage •meaning
confused or obscured
9-7 VERY POOR: essentially translation • little knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word
form • OR not enough to evaluate
25-22 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective complex construction • few errors of agreement,
tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, preposition
21-18 GOOD TO AVERAGE: Effective but simple constructions • minor problems in complex
construction • several errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles,
Usage

pronouns, prepositions but meaning seldom obscured

17-11 FAIR TO POOR: major problems in simple/complex constructions • frequent errors of
negation, agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions and/or
fragments, run-ons, deletions • meaning confused or obscured
10-5 VERY POOR: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules • dominated by errors • does
not communicate • OR not enough to evaluate
5 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: demonstrates mastery of conventions • few errors of spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing
Mechanics

4 GOOD TO AVERAGE: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing,

but meaning not obscured
3 FAIR TO POOR: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing • poor
handwriting • meaning confused or obscured
2 VERY POOR: no mastery of conventions • dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, paragraphing • handwriting illegible • OR not enough to evaluate

Total Score
Comment: Rater,

………………

*)
Circle one of the letters in accordance with the topic chosen by the participant.

1
This is an analytic scoring developed by Jacob et. al, quoted in Sara Cushing Weigle, Assessing
Writing, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 116.
Appendix 6
Instrument Reliability of Critical Thinking Test (Using KR-20 Equation)*

Item no.
No. Participants Total Dev Dev^2
1 2 4 5 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 35 36 37 39 41 45 46 49 50 51 52 53
1 S106 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 25 7.485 56.02
2 S102 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 28 10.48 109.9
3 S114 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 23 5.485 30.08
4 S124 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 24 6.485 42.05
5 S113 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24 6.485 42.05
6 S112 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 23 5.485 30.08
7 S111 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 22 4.485 20.11
8 S103 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 21 3.485 12.14
9 S097 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 19 1.485 2.205
10 S121 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 18 0.485 0.235
11 S089 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 18 0.485 0.235
12 S122 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 17 -0.515 0.265
13 S101 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 0.485 0.235
14 S023 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 19 1.485 2.205
15 S108 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 17 -0.515 0.265
16 S104 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 18 0.485 0.235
17 S110 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 17 -0.515 0.265
18 S116 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 19 1.485 2.205
19 S105 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 14 -3.515 12.36
20 S093 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 18 0.485 0.235
21 S119 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 17 -0.515 0.265
22 S109 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 16 -1.515 2.296
23 S120 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 16 -1.515 2.296
24 S128 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 -2.515 6.326
25 S094 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16 -1.515 2.296
26 S079 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 16 -1.515 2.296
27 S115 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 14 -3.515 12.36
28 S096 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 -4.515 20.39
29 S092 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 14 -3.515 12.36
30 S091 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 12 -5.515 30.42
31 S129 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 9 -8.515 72.51
32 S095 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 -8.515 72.51
33 S107 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 9 -8.515 72.51
Total 8 10 4 24 7 16 12 13 15 15 15 8 22 16 13 17 18 24 12 19 19 15 16 26 17 14 11 10 19 17 11 17 15 18 20 21 24 578 -1E-14 672.2
p 0.242 0.303 0.121 0.727 0.212 0.485 0.364 0.394 0.455 0.455 0.455 0.242 0.667 0.485 0.394 0.515 0.545 0.727 0.364 0.576 0.576 0.45 0.485 0.788 0.515 0.424 0.333 0.303 0.576 0.515 0.333 0.515 0.455 0.545 0.606 0.636 0.727
q 0.758 0.697 0.879 0.273 0.788 0.515 0.636 0.606 0.545 0.545 0.545 0.758 0.333 0.515 0.606 0.485 0.455 0.273 0.636 0.424 0.424 0.55 0.515 0.212 0.485 0.576 0.667 0.697 0.424 0.485 0.667 0.485 0.545 0.455 0.394 0.364 0.273
pq 0.184 0.211 0.107 0.198 0.167 0.25 0.231 0.239 0.248 0.248 0.248 0.184 0.222 0.25 0.239 0.25 0.248 0.198 0.231 0.244 0.244 0.25 0.25 0.167 0.25 0.244 0.222 0.211 0.244 0.25 0.222 0.25 0.248 0.248 0.239 0.231 0.198
Ʃpq 8.364
M 17.52 Notes:
k 53 p: the proportion of participants who choose the right answer S^2: variance score
S^2 20.37 q: the proportion of participants who choose the wrong answer (q=1-p) Dev: deviation score from mean score
r11 0.601 Ʃpq: the total of multiplication between p and q Dev^2: deviation score from square mean score
k: the total of items r11: the instrument realibility using KR-20 (r11=(k/k-1)(S^2-Ʃpq/S^2))
M: the mean score of the right answer
*only the items which were accepted or not deleted after instrument try out/item analysis (see also Appendix: item analysis and instrument validity) 89
Appendix 7 90

Raw Data of Critical Thinking Ability

No. Participant Score

1 1 64.865
2 2 54.054
3 3 54.054
4 4 56.757
5 5 51.351
6 6 43.243
7 7 43.243
8 8 43.243
9 9 45.946
10 10 51.351
11 11 56.757
12 12 48.649
13 13 40.541
14 14 59.459
15 15 62.162
16 16 51.351
17 17 51.351
18 18 40.541
19 19 37.838
20 20 59.459
21 21 48.649
22 22 48.649
23 23 40.541
24 24 51.351
25 25 67.568
26 26 64.865
27 27 51.351
28 28 40.541
29 29 56.757
30 30 51.351
31 31 45.946
32 32 54.054
33 33 56.757
34 34 48.649
35 35 37.838
36 36 70.27
37 37 45.946
38 38 48.649
39 39 35.135
40 40 40.541
41 41 43.243
42 42 54.054
43 43 59.459
44 44 54.054
45 45 48.649
46 46 27.027
47 47 62.162
48 48 45.946
49 49 43.243
50 50 56.757
51 51 54.054
52 52 51.351
53 53 35.135
54 54 56.757
55 55 32.432
56 56 64.865
57 57 51.351
58 58 54.054
59 59 51.351
60 60 40.541
Total 3008.11
Maximum 70.27
Minimum 27.027
Range 43.243
Appendix 8 91
Raw Data of Writing Ability

Rater 1 Rater 2
No. Participant Total Total Final Score*
C O V U M C O V U M
1 1 21 13 14 18 4 70 17 13 13 13 3 59 64.5
2 2 23 14 14 18 4 73 21 14 15 17 4 71 72
3 3 23 16 14 18 4 75 24 17 17 15 4 77 76
4 4 22 15 15 19 4 75 22 15 16 17 4 74 74.5
5 5 22 17 13 18 4 74 19 17 13 13 3 65 69.5
6 6 23 14 13 18 4 72 18 13 10 10 2 53 62.5
7 7 21 13 13 17 4 68 15 10 10 14 3 52 60
8 8 27 20 17 21 4 89 23 18 14 15 4 74 81.5
9 9 22 15 15 18 4 74 21 13 13 11 3 61 67.5
10 10 24 15 16 18 4 77 23 15 14 18 4 74 75.5
11 11 23 14 15 18 4 74 22 14 14 17 4 71 72.5
12 12 22 14 14 17 4 71 22 13 13 15 3 66 68.5
13 13 22 14 14 17 4 71 14 11 12 11 3 51 61
14 14 23 15 15 11 4 68 24 15 14 15 4 72 70
15 15 21 13 13 18 4 69 21 14 14 18 4 71 70
16 16 20 13 13 21 4 71 19 13 13 19 3 67 69
17 17 24 15 17 23 4 83 23 12 14 18 4 71 77
18 18 27 18 18 19 5 87 21 16 13 13 3 66 76.5
19 19 22 16 16 17 4 75 20 13 12 12 3 60 67.5
20 20 22 15 17 20 4 78 24 17 19 18 4 82 80
21 21 27 15 18 18 4 82 22 14 14 18 3 71 76.5
22 22 22 16 14 21 4 77 19 13 14 15 3 64 70.5
23 23 22 14 15 18 4 73 16 13 13 12 3 57 65
24 24 26 17 18 22 5 88 22 14 18 17 3 74 81
25 25 27 17 18 21 5 88 24 14 13 19 4 74 81
26 26 22 14 14 18 4 72 24 19 17 18 4 82 77
27 27 20 16 15 20 3 74 19 13 16 16 3 67 70.5
28 28 22 14 14 16 4 70 21 12 10 14 3 60 65
29 29 22 15 14 18 4 73 23 17 16 18 4 78 75.5
30 30 22 14 13 11 4 64 22 13 14 14 3 66 65
31 31 26 16 18 21 4 85 23 14 16 17 4 74 79.5
32 32 22 14 13 18 4 71 23 17 17 13 4 74 72.5
33 33 25 17 15 18 4 79 23 19 15 17 4 78 78.5
34 34 21 13 14 16 3 67 22 14 9 13 3 61 64
35 35 25 16 13 18 4 76 23 14 13 11 3 64 70
36 36 22 14 15 18 4 73 22 17 15 21 4 79 76
37 37 22 13 16 18 4 73 20 12 14 16 4 66 69.5
38 38 22 16 14 18 4 74 22 17 11 11 3 64 69
39 39 21 14 15 18 4 72 17 14 11 12 3 57 64.5
40 40 21 13 15 18 4 71 20 10 11 11 3 55 63
41 41 23 15 14 18 4 74 21 13 10 12 3 59 66.5
42 42 21 14 14 17 4 70 21 14 13 16 3 67 68.5
43 43 23 15 15 18 4 75 22 18 17 19 3 79 77
44 44 26 16 16 19 4 81 22 17 12 12 3 66 73.5
45 45 28 17 19 21 5 90 23 14 16 18 3 74 82
46 46 21 13 10 18 4 66 14 8 10 10 3 45 55.5
47 47 22 14 17 18 4 75 20 13 14 17 4 68 71.5
48 48 22 16 17 14 4 73 19 13 14 13 3 62 67.5
49 49 17 13 17 18 4 69 17 11 14 18 4 64 66.5
50 50 23 15 15 18 4 75 19 14 15 15 4 67 71
51 51 25 18 16 18 4 81 25 17 17 16 4 79 80
52 52 22 14 15 18 4 73 21 10 9 17 3 60 66.5
53 53 17 10 13 15 3 58 15 9 8 8 2 42 50
54 54 24 18 18 21 5 86 27 18 17 21 4 87 86.5
55 55 17 12 16 20 4 69 14 10 13 13 3 53 61
56 56 26 17 17 20 4 84 23 17 17 21 4 82 83
57 57 22 16 17 19 4 78 20 14 14 15 4 67 72.5
58 58 22 14 15 18 4 73 23 15 16 18 4 76 74.5
59 59 21 14 14 17 4 70 17 13 14 15 3 62 66
60 60 21 13 14 18 4 70 20 13 12 12 3 60 65
∑ 4416 ∑ 4021 4253.5
*final score= average score of rater 1 and rater 2
Final Score Rater 1 Rater 2 Note:
Maximum 86.5 90 87 C: Content U: Usage
Minimum 50 58 42 O: Organization M: Mechanics
Range 36.5 32 45 V: Vocabulary
 92

Appendix 9

Descriptive Statistics of Critical Thinking Ability Data

Descriptive Statistics Statistic Std. Error

CT Mean 50.1351 1.16065

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 47.8127

Mean Upper Bound 52.4576

5% Trimmed Mean 50.2002

Median 51.3510

Variance 80.827

Std. Deviation 8.99036

Minimum 27.03

Maximum 70.27

Range 43.24

Interquartile Range 13.51

Skewness -.108 .309

Kurtosis -.087 .608

 93

Appendix 10

Descriptive Statistics of Writing Ability Data (Rater 1)

Descriptive Statistics Statistic Std. Error

Rater_1 Mean 74.7667 .83374

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 73.0984

Mean Upper Bound 76.4350

5% Trimmed Mean 74.6481

Median 73.5000

Variance 41.707

Std. Deviation 6.45812

Minimum 58.00

Maximum 90.00

Range 32.00

Interquartile Range 6.75

Skewness .555 .309

Kurtosis .477 .608

 94

Appendix 11

Descriptive Statistics of Writing Ability Data (Rater 2)

Descriptive Statistics Statistic Std. Error

Rater_2 Mean 67.0167 1.21722

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 64.5810

Mean Upper Bound 69.4523

5% Trimmed Mean 67.2593

Median 67.0000

Variance 88.898

Std. Deviation 9.42857

Minimum 42.00

Maximum 87.00

Range 45.00

Interquartile Range 13.75

Skewness -.325 .309

Kurtosis -.018 .608

 95

Appendix 12

Descriptive Statistics of Writing Ability Data (Final Score)

Descriptive Statistics Statistic Std. Error

FWA Mean 70.8917 .91597

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 69.0588

Mean Upper Bound 72.7245

5% Trimmed Mean 71.0463

Median 70.2500

Variance 50.340

Std. Deviation 7.09505

Minimum 50.00

Maximum 86.50

Range 36.50

Interquartile Range 10.25

Skewness -.238 .309

Kurtosis .265 .608

 96

Appendix 13

Summary of Normality Test with Shaphiro-Wilks W Test

Shapiro-Wilk W

Statistic df Sig.

CT .988 60 .807
Rater_1 .938 60 .004
Rater_2 .984 60 .622
FWA .986 60 .743
Appendix 14 97

Inter-Rater Reliability of Writing Ability

Rater 1 Rater 2
No. Participant Total (y1) Total (y2) r*
C O V U M C O V U M
1 1 21 13 14 18 4 70 17 13 13 13 3 59 0.580987
2 2 23 14 14 18 4 73 21 14 15 17 4 71
3 3 23 16 14 18 4 75 24 17 17 15 4 77
4 4 22 15 15 19 4 75 22 15 16 17 4 74
5 5 22 17 13 18 4 74 19 17 13 13 3 65
6 6 23 14 13 18 4 72 18 13 10 10 2 53
7 7 21 13 13 17 4 68 15 10 10 14 3 52
8 8 27 20 17 21 4 89 23 18 14 15 4 74
9 9 22 15 15 18 4 74 21 13 13 11 3 61
10 10 24 15 16 18 4 77 23 15 14 18 4 74
11 11 23 14 15 18 4 74 22 14 14 17 4 71
12 12 22 14 14 17 4 71 22 13 13 15 3 66
13 13 22 14 14 17 4 71 14 11 12 11 3 51
14 14 23 15 15 11 4 68 24 15 14 15 4 72
15 15 21 13 13 18 4 69 21 14 14 18 4 71
16 16 20 13 13 21 4 71 19 13 13 19 3 67
17 17 24 15 17 23 4 83 23 12 14 18 4 71
18 18 27 18 18 19 5 87 21 16 13 13 3 66
19 19 22 16 16 17 4 75 20 13 12 12 3 60
20 20 22 15 17 20 4 78 24 17 19 18 4 82
21 21 27 15 18 18 4 82 22 14 14 18 3 71
22 22 22 16 14 21 4 77 19 13 14 15 3 64
23 23 22 14 15 18 4 73 16 13 13 12 3 57
24 24 26 17 18 22 5 88 22 14 18 17 3 74
25 25 27 17 18 21 5 88 24 14 13 19 4 74
26 26 22 14 14 18 4 72 24 19 17 18 4 82
27 27 20 16 15 20 3 74 19 13 16 16 3 67
28 28 22 14 14 16 4 70 21 12 10 14 3 60
29 29 22 15 14 18 4 73 23 17 16 18 4 78
30 30 22 14 13 11 4 64 22 13 14 14 3 66
31 31 26 16 18 21 4 85 23 14 16 17 4 74
32 32 22 14 13 18 4 71 23 17 17 13 4 74
33 33 25 17 15 18 4 79 23 19 15 17 4 78
34 34 21 13 14 16 3 67 22 14 9 13 3 61
35 35 25 16 13 18 4 76 23 14 13 11 3 64
36 36 22 14 15 18 4 73 22 17 15 21 4 79
37 37 22 13 16 18 4 73 20 12 14 16 4 66
38 38 22 16 14 18 4 74 22 17 11 11 3 64
39 39 21 14 15 18 4 72 17 14 11 12 3 57
40 40 21 13 15 18 4 71 20 10 11 11 3 55
41 41 23 15 14 18 4 74 21 13 10 12 3 59
42 42 21 14 14 17 4 70 21 14 13 16 3 67
43 43 23 15 15 18 4 75 22 18 17 19 3 79
44 44 26 16 16 19 4 81 22 17 12 12 3 66
45 45 28 17 19 21 5 90 23 14 16 18 3 74
46 46 21 13 10 18 4 66 14 8 10 10 3 45
47 47 22 14 17 18 4 75 20 13 14 17 4 68
48 48 22 16 17 14 4 73 19 13 14 13 3 62
49 49 17 13 17 18 4 69 17 11 14 18 4 64
50 50 23 15 15 18 4 75 19 14 15 15 4 67
51 51 25 18 16 18 4 81 25 17 17 16 4 79
52 52 22 14 15 18 4 73 21 10 9 17 3 60
53 53 17 10 13 15 3 58 15 9 8 8 2 42
54 54 24 18 18 21 5 86 27 18 17 21 4 87
55 55 17 12 16 20 4 69 14 10 13 13 3 53
56 56 26 17 17 20 4 84 23 17 17 21 4 82
57 57 22 16 17 19 4 78 20 14 14 15 4 67
58 58 22 14 15 18 4 73 23 15 16 18 4 76
59 59 21 14 14 17 4 70 17 13 14 15 3 62
60 60 21 13 14 18 4 70 20 13 12 12 3 60
∑ 4416 ∑ 4021
*in this case, the score r (inter-rater reliability) is calculated by using Excel Program (r=Pearson(y1 data set, y2 data set)
Appendix 15 98
Critical Thinking Ability and Writing Ability

No. Participant X Y XY X^2 Y^2

1 1 64.865 64.5 4183.7925 4207.4682 4160.25
2 2 54.054 72 3891.888 2921.8349 5184
3 3 54.054 76 4108.104 2921.8349 5776
4 4 56.757 74.5 4228.3965 3221.357 5550.25
5 5 51.351 69.5 3568.8945 2636.9252 4830.25
6 6 43.243 62.5 2702.6875 1869.957 3906.25
7 7 43.243 60 2594.58 1869.957 3600
8 8 43.243 81.5 3524.3045 1869.957 6642.25
9 9 45.946 67.5 3101.355 2111.0349 4556.25
10 10 51.351 75.5 3877.0005 2636.9252 5700.25
11 11 56.757 72.5 4114.8825 3221.357 5256.25
12 12 48.649 68.5 3332.4565 2366.7252 4692.25
13 13 40.541 61 2473.001 1643.5727 3721
14 14 59.459 70 4162.13 3535.3727 4900
15 15 62.162 70 4351.34 3864.1142 4900
16 16 51.351 69 3543.219 2636.9252 4761
17 17 51.351 77 3954.027 2636.9252 5929
18 18 40.541 76.5 3101.3865 1643.5727 5852.25
19 19 37.838 67.5 2554.065 1431.7142 4556.25
20 20 59.459 80 4756.72 3535.3727 6400
21 21 48.649 76.5 3721.6485 2366.7252 5852.25
22 22 48.649 70.5 3429.7545 2366.7252 4970.25
23 23 40.541 65 2635.165 1643.5727 4225
24 24 51.351 81 4159.431 2636.9252 6561
25 25 67.568 81 5473.008 4565.4346 6561
26 26 64.865 77 4994.605 4207.4682 5929
27 27 51.351 70.5 3620.2455 2636.9252 4970.25
28 28 40.541 65 2635.165 1643.5727 4225
29 29 56.757 75.5 4285.1535 3221.357 5700.25
30 30 51.351 65 3337.815 2636.9252 4225
31 31 45.946 79.5 3652.707 2111.0349 6320.25
32 32 54.054 72.5 3918.915 2921.8349 5256.25
33 33 56.757 78.5 4455.4245 3221.357 6162.25
34 34 48.649 64 3113.536 2366.7252 4096
35 35 37.838 70 2648.66 1431.7142 4900
36 36 70.27 76 5340.52 4937.8729 5776
37 37 45.946 69.5 3193.247 2111.0349 4830.25
38 38 48.649 69 3356.781 2366.7252 4761
39 39 35.135 64.5 2266.2075 1234.4682 4160.25
40 40 40.541 63 2554.083 1643.5727 3969
41 41 43.243 66.5 2875.6595 1869.957 4422.25
42 42 54.054 68.5 3702.699 2921.8349 4692.25
43 43 59.459 77 4578.343 3535.3727 5929
44 44 54.054 73.5 3972.969 2921.8349 5402.25
45 45 48.649 82 3989.218 2366.7252 6724
46 46 27.027 55.5 1499.9985 730.45873 3080.25
47 47 62.162 71.5 4444.583 3864.1142 5112.25
48 48 45.946 67.5 3101.355 2111.0349 4556.25
49 49 43.243 66.5 2875.6595 1869.957 4422.25
50 50 56.757 71 4029.747 3221.357 5041
51 51 54.054 80 4324.32 2921.8349 6400
52 52 51.351 66.5 3414.8415 2636.9252 4422.25
53 53 35.135 50 1756.75 1234.4682 2500
54 54 56.757 86.5 4909.4805 3221.357 7482.25
55 55 32.432 61 1978.352 1051.8346 3721
56 56 64.865 83 5383.795 4207.4682 6889
57 57 51.351 72.5 3722.9475 2636.9252 5256.25
58 58 54.054 74.5 4027.023 2921.8349 5550.25
59 59 51.351 66 3389.166 2636.9252 4356
60 60 40.541 65 2635.165 1643.5727 4225
Total 3008.108 4253.5 215528.37 155580.67 304507.75

Notes:
X: Students' Critical Thinking Ability
Y: Students' Writing Ability

X Y
Minimum 27.027 50
Maximum 70.27 86.5
 99

Appendix 16
Critical Values of Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient*)1
Non Directional (Two-Tail) Test
df
α=5% α= 1%
20 0.4227 0.5368
25 0.3809 0.4869
30 0.3494 0.4487
35 0.3246 0.4182
40 0.3044 0.3932
45 0.2875 0.3721
50 0.2732 0.3541
60 0.2500 0.3248
70 0.2319 0.3017
80 0.2172 0.2830
90 0.2050 0.2673
100 0.1946 0.2540
*) due to the needs or importance of this study, only some certain values of Pearson Product Moment
Correlation Coefficient (r) are presented here (i.e. r with df=20 up to df=100and at α=5% and α=1%).

1
Lyle F. Bachman, Statistical Analyses for Language Assessment, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 342
 100

Appendix 17
Critical Values of t*)2
Two-Tail Test
df
α=5% α=1%
21 2.080 2.831
22 2.074 2.819
23 2.069 2.807
24 2.064 2.797
25 2.060 2.787
26 2.056 2.779
27 2.052 2.771
28 2.048 2.763
29 2.045 2.756
30 2.042 2.750
40 2.021 2.704
60 2.000 2.660
120 1.980 2.617
∞ 1.960 2.576
*) due to the needs or importance of this study, only some certain values of t are presented here (i.e. t with
df=20 up to df= ∞ and at α=5% and α=1%).

2
Ibid., p. 336.
 101

Appendix 18

Preliminary Study: Writing Ability of the Sixth Semester Students of

Department of English Education
Score Percentage
No. Frequency Total
In number In letter (%) Category Average

1. 50 D 2 4.5
2. 57 D 1 2.3 11.3% Poor
3. 58 D 2 4.5
4. 60 C 6 13.6
5. 65 C 5 11.4 34.1% Fair
6. 68 C 4 9.1
9 20.5 67.15
7. 70 B
8. 72 B 2 4.5
43.1% Average
6 13.6
9. 75 B to Good
10. 78 B 2 4.5
11. 80 A 5 11.4 11.4% Good
(Source: Documentation of Department of English Education 2013/2014, Mid Semester Test of 44
students)