ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT AND ARGUMENTATION MADE BY S1 STUDENTS OF
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT 1 ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT AND ARGUMENTATION MADE BY
S1 STUDENTS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT Raga Driyan PratamaEnglish
Education, Languages and Arts Faculty, State University of Surabaya
[email protected] Lies Amin Lestari English Education,
Languages and Arts Faculty, State University of Surabaya
[email protected] Abstrak
Berdasarkanhasilpra-observasi,mayoritasmahasiswaProdiPendidikanBahasaInggris(ProdiPBI)di
UniversitasNegeriSurabayabelumdapatmenyusunargumendenganbaik.Halinidibuktikanmelalui
sistematikapenyusunandanlogikaargumentyanglemahpadalatarbelakangmasalahpadaskripsi.
Walaupunbeberapamahasiswasudahmampuberargumensesuaidenganelemenpenyusunanargumen
yangbaik(klaim,alasan,bukti,dankonklusi),merekamasihbelumbisamengaplikasikanketerampilan
berpikirkritissebagaiprosesberargumen.Sayangnya,fenomenasepertiinimungkinsudahterjadilebih
dari10tahunsilamtanpaadaanalisispotretretorikaargumendanberpikirkritis.Olehkarenaitu,
penelitianinibertujuanuntukmenganalisisbagaimanasebuahklaimdidukungdenganalasandanbukti
yangrelevandanmenganalisisbagaimanaketerampilanberpikirkritisdigunakanuntukmenyusun
argumen.Denganpendekatankualitatif,penelitianinimenganalisislatarbelakangmasalahyangterdapat
padaBab1enambuahskripsiyangditulismahasiswaProdiPBIsebagaisumberdata.Hasilpenelitian
menunjukkan hanya 1 dari 6 sampel skripsi yang diteliti memaparkan
alasan dan bukti yang relevan untuk
mendukungklaim-klaimyangadapadaargumen.Temuanlaindaripenelitianiniadalahhanya1dari6
sampelyangditelitiyangmampumenggunakanketerampilanberpikirkritisuntukmenyusunargumen-argumen
secara logis. Kata Kunci: argumen, proses berargumen, keterampilan
berpikir kritis, latar belakang masalah, skripsi. Abstract
AnearlyobservationontheundergraduatetheseswrittenbystudentsmajoringatEnglishEducationat
State University of Surabaya shows that students could not present
systematic and logical arguments in the
backgroundofthestudyoftheirundergraduatethesis(skripsi).Eventhoughsomeofthemcouldbuild
argument through argument traits (claim, reason, evidence, and
attempt to influence), they did not present criticalanalysis
tosupport theirargument.It might be thatsuchphenomenonhas happened
more than 10 years. However, it is predicted that research on such
matters has not been undertaken yet. This study aims
toanalyzehowreasonsandevidenceinthebackgroundofthestudyoftheskripsisupportclaimsof
argumentsandhowcriticalthinkingskillsareused to
buildarguments.SixtheseswrittenbytheEnglish Education Study Program
of UNESA were analyzed qualitatively to answer such questions.
Result shows
thatonlyoneoutofsixskripsipresentsargumentsystematicallyandlogicallybyprovidingrelevant
reasons and evidence to support claims of arguments. Another
important result of the study is there is also one out of six
students who can fulfill the specific skills of critical thinking
to build
argument.Keywords:argument,argumentation,criticalthinkingskills,backgroundofthestudy,undergraduate
thesis. INTRODUCTION Since 1991, writing a skripsi (undergraduate
thesis) is one ofrequirementsforS1graduatesatStateUniversityof
Surabaya.However,writingagoodskripsiisnotaseasy
astheresearchproceduresexplain.First,toproducea
goodskripsi,thestudentsshouldunderstandindepththe elements and the
aims of each chapter. Moreover, students
shouldbeabletowritesuchwhattheelementsclaim.
Second,toproduceagoodskripsi,studentsshouldbe
awaretothematterofconveyingideastopersuade readers. In term of
persuasion, students need to make what they write in systematic and
logical order. For instance, by
completingbothqualificationsabove,studentsmight
producebetterskripsiasthedemandofrequirementsof graduation.
Oneofsectionsinskripsiwhichneedaserious attentionis the background
ofthestudy. The background
ofthestudytakesanimportantroleasitisasetof
reasoningsectionofdoingsuchworthinvestigation
(Kothari,2004;Lestari,2013).Moreover,itshouldalso
includethebriefsummaryofrelevanttheoriesand
researches(Kothari,2004).Aryetal(2010)gives
additionalinformationthatitalsoincludesargumentative
foundationwhichisusedtoconveyreasonsandother
supportsinthebackgroundofthestudysystematically
andlogically(Lombard,2011;Lestari,2013).Thus,the
backgroundofthestudyneedsresearchersskillin constructing argument
systematically and logically.
Agoodargumentshouldconsistofclaim,reason,
evidenceandattempttoinfluence(Warnick&Inch, 1994). A claim is
statement of stance over what people try
toprove,toconveyortoargue(JDF,2012;Hillocks, 2010). In order to
stand out a claim, relevant and objective
reasonandevidenceshouldbeputassupports.Then,an
attempttoinfluenceshouldbeputintheendaspartof conclusion. By paying
attention to the argument traits and
avoidingsomeirrelevances,agoodargumentcanbe effective to deliver a
certain perspective.Inaddition,argumentation,aprocesstomake
argument,shoulddealwithcriticalthinkingskillsto
produceacceptableargumentinthebackgroundofthe
study.Thereare8specificskillsofthinkingcritically
namelyidentifyingthecaseelements,identifying
assumption,clarifyingtheproblems,assessingclaims
acceptability,evaluatingthevariousargument,making
judgment,makinginferences,andcreatingargument
(Fisher,2001;Fisher,2009;Cottrell,2005).Those
specificskillsarethesimplestindicatorsofcritical
thinking,whichlaterhelptoproducesystematicand
logicalargument.Thus,studentsshouldconsciouslyuse critical thinking
skills as argumentation.
Unfortunately,therearesurprisingphenomenainthe
fieldthatbeingfastgraduatesorgettingscoreAfor skripsi do not
guarantee the better quality of argument and
criticalthinkingskills.Basedonanearlyobservation,
studentswhofinishedtheirstudieslessthan4yeartime
andwhoseskripsigotscoreAarenotevenbetterthan
thosewhofinishedmorethan4yeartimeandwhose
skripsigotB.Thus,thephenomenaarereallyshocking since the smartest
the students, the fastest they
graduate.Inaddition,therearetwomoreinterestingproblems
foundinthefieldregardingtoargumentand
argumentationmadebyS1studentsmajoringEnglish Education at State
University of Surabaya. First, argument
inthebackgroundofthestudy,mostly,doesnotrequire
argumenttraitsnamelyclaim,reason,evidenceand
attempttoinfluence.Moreover,therearesomereasoning
fallaciesthatmakeargumentirrelevant(JDF,2012). Another finding is
there are lacks of critical thinking skills
inmakingtheargumentprovenbymessystructure,
illogicalchronology,andirrelevantclaimstosupport proposition. Thus,
it is necessary to conduct study toward argument and argumentation
analysis.Severalscholarshaveconductedstudiesrelatedto
argumentandcriticalthinkinganalysis.First,Kuhnand Udell (2003)
conduct an experimental study to investigate thedevelopment of
argument skillsfor 34subjectsinthe eighth grades of New York City
public school. The result of their study is that peer dialogues can
improve students argument skills. Second, Triastuti (2006) conducts
a study onhowtoteachcriticalthinkingincorporatingwith argumentation
study. She reveals specific skills of critical
thinking,typesandfallaciesofargument,andsome
argumenttraits.Basically,sheonlyprovidestheoryof
teachingcriticalthinkinginargumentativecomposition
withoutportrayingstudentsobstaclesandrhetoricin building argument
and using critical thinking
skills.Thispresentstudytriestoinvestigate1)howreason
andevidencesupportclaimsofargumentand2)how critical thinking skills
are used as argumentation. To differ
thisstudyfromthepreviousones,thisstudyaimsto
portraystudentsargumentativeandcriticalthinking
rhetoricinbuildingargument.Moreover,thisstudyalso
portraysfallaciesofreasonandevidenceappearedinan
argument.Thus,thisanalysisisexclusivetodobefore
comingtoproviderelevantteachingtechniqueof argument and critical
thinking skills. METHOD
Inthisstudy,therewere6theseswhichwerewrittenby
thosewhofinishedtheirstudyin2014/2015majoring
EnglishEducationatStateUniversityofSurabaya.Two
thesescategorizedintothreeclusters;1)2theseswritten by S1 students
who finished their study in less than 4 year ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT
AND ARGUMENTATION MADE BY S1 STUDENTS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT 3
timeandgotscoreA,2)2theseswrittenbyS1students
whofinishedtheirstudyin4years(induetime)andgot
scoreA-,and3)2theseswrittenbyS1studentswho
finishedtheirstudymorethan4yeartimeandgotscore
B+.Therationalofchoosing6theseswastofulfillthree clusters above.
Sincethis studywas qualitative, theexact
numberofthesubjectswasnotimportantbutthe importance was the depth
analysis of the subjects (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2005).
Therewere2typesofchecklisttosupportthisstudy
namelyArgumentAnalysis(AA)checklistandCritical
ThinkingAnalysis(CTA)checklist.AAchecklistaimed
toanswerhowreasonandevidencesupportclaimsof
argumentsinthebackgroundofthestudywhileCTA
checklistusedtorevealhowcriticalthinkingskillswere used as
argumentation. Table 1. Contents of Argument Analysis Checklist
Table1showsindicatorsinargumentanalysis
checklisttorevealhowreasonandevidencesupported
claimsofarguments.Thistypeofchecklistwasadapted
fromWarnickandInch(1994)andBowellandKemp (2010) relating to
argument analysis.Table 2. Contents of Critical Thinking Checklist
Table2showsindicatorsincriticalthinkingchecklist
whichwereadaptedfromFisher(2009),Cottrell(2005), and Warnick and
Inch (1994).Thereweretwostagestocollectdatanamely1)
collectingandcategorizingand2)readingandusing
checklist(Kothari,2004).Afterthat,thedatawere
analyzedthrough3stages;organizingandfamiliarizing,
codingandreducing,andinterpretingandrepresenting (Ary et al,
2010).Table 3. Subject Coding
Tomakeeasyrecognitionofthesubjects,thesubject
codingwasdrawnregardingtotheclusterswherethe
subjectsbelonged(Table3).Whiletoeasethecontent
analysis,therewascontentcodingincluding;Casclaim
ofargument,Rasreasonofargument,Easevidenceof argument, and I as
Attempt to Influence. RESULTSThe results areused to answer two
research questions; 1) howreasonandevidencesupporttheclaiminthe
background of the study and 2) how critical thinking skills are
used as argumentation in the background of the study. The Use of
Reason and Evidence to Support Claims
Basedontheresultofthestudy,thereare4wayshow argument is made; 3
subjects support the claim by reason,
evidenceandattempttoinfluence(codedasC-R-E-I),1 subject supports
the claim by reason and evidence (coded
asC-R-E),1subjectsupportstheclaimbyreasonand
attempttoinfluence(coded asC-R-I),and1subject only provides reason
to support the claim (coded as C-R). a.C-R-E-I Type There are 3
subjects who use this argument rhetoric by stating all argument
traits namely claim, reason, evidence,
andattempttoinfluence.Thistypeisthemostrelevant one to Warnick and
Inch (1994). However, there is only 1 out of 3 subjects namely S5G3
who can support claims of
argumentinthebackgroundofthestudywithrelevant reason and evidence.
Table 4. S5G3s Argument Table 4 shows thatS5G3 uses
factual-relational claim
toprovethatthereisanimportantrelationbetween reading and peoples
daily activities. In relation to the first claim (C1), she uses
causal-reasoning type to explain that reading creates some
benefits, i.e., getting experience and
knowledge.Shealsosupportsherclaimandreasonwith
relevantevidencethroughfactualevidencetype.Asan
evidence,sheproveshowreadingbooksandliteratures
benefitsthestudents.Beforecomingtotheattemptto influence, she
continues to the second claim (C2) by using factual-relational
claim because she relates the importance
ofreadingtostudentsobligationinsecondlanguage mastery. To support
C2, she uses a quasi-logical type with patternifAmastered
B,AwouldgetC.Moreover,she gives relevant evidence by referring to
Hammers opinion thatmasteringreadingwillenrichstudentsvocabulary,
grammar,sentenceandparagraphconstruction.Referring
totheresultsabove,S5G3succeedstoproviderelevant reason and evidence
to both C1 and C2. In addition, S5G3 extends her claims and the
supports to an attempt to influence (I). According to the result,
she statesthatstudentsgetlotsofadvantagesinlearning
Englishbymasteringreadingskill.Thisattemptto
influenceisalsorelevanttosumuptwopreviousclaims
namelytheimportanceofreadingindailylifeand
studentsobligationtomasterreadingskill.Moreover,
theattempttoinfluenceisinfluencingandconvincing since it reflects a
logical inference from previous claims.
Therefore,basedontheresultabove,S5G3successesto support her claims
with relevant reason and evidence.
DifferentfromS5G3,S2G1andS4G2similarly
cannotsupportclaimsofargumentsinthe backgroundof the study with
relevant reason ad evidence.Table 5. S2G1s Argument
Table5showsthatS2G1makes3differentclaimsin
oneargumentwhichtwoofthemcontainneitherreasons nor evidences. In
claim 1 (C1), she uses relational claim to
relateteachingEnglish(condition1)toitsculturein
communicationpurposes(condition2).InC3,sheuses
causal-reasontype1bystatingthattherearebadhabits while listening
that make students difficult to catch ideas.
However,sheisconfusingsincesheexplainsbadhabits
oflisteninginthenextparagraphwithnewanddifferent
claim.Therefore,referringtotheresultsofC1andC3, S2G1 is failed to
stand and to support C1 and C3.
Insteadofprovidingrelevantreasonsandevidenceto
C1andC3,S2G1makesthesecondclaim(C2)whichis
exactlydifferenttopicfromC1andC3.InC2,sheuses
relationalclaimtorelatestudentstotheirobligationin
learningthe4Englishskills.Asreason(R2),shestates
irrelevantreasonrelatedtotheclaim(C2)byexplaining
whatproductiveandreceptiveskillsare.Moreover,she
makesgroundstemfallacyintheexample(E2)by
explainingthefrequencyofusingeachEnglishskill.She
statesthatlisteningtakesthehighestfrequencyofusein
dailycommunicationcomparedtothatofothers.The evidence does not
support the reason and the claim since it is out of the topic.
Further, the failed reason and evidence cause an irrelevant attempt
to influence to link back to C2.
Thus,eventhoughS2G1requiresargumenttraitsby stating claim (C),
reason (R), evidence (E), and attempt to influence (I), she cannot
convey her argument very well. b.C-R-E Type Table 6. S3G2s Argument
BasedonTable6,S3G2directlystatesthesecond
claim(C2)insteadofprovidingreasonandevidencefor
claim1(C1).InC2,sheusesrelationalclaimtorelate
material(condition1)togoodteachingandlearning process (condition
2). Based on the relational claim, there
isoneburdenofproofnamelyhowmaterialcreategood
teachingandlearningprocess.However,shecannot
providegoodreasonsandevidencetosupporttheclaim. She states that
material, such as instructional material, is a
factortodetermineasuccessfulteachingandlearning ANALYSIS OF
ARGUMENT AND ARGUMENTATION MADE BY S1 STUDENTS OF ENGLISH
DEPARTMENT 5 process.However,thereasonsareirrelevanceand
tautological.Theirrelevantfallacycanbeprovenbyno
reasonsansweredtheburdenofproofoftheclaimwhile
tautologicalcanbeprovenbyrepetitivereason(R2).
Eventhoughtheopinionastofactevidenceisobjective and relevant to R2,
the evidence does not give significant support to C2 since the
reason is invalid. Thus, S3G2 does not support C2 with relevant
reasons and evidence. c.C-R-I Type Table 7. S1G1s Argument S1G1
does not support 2 out of 3 claims with reasons
andevidence(Table4.1).Asthefirstclaim(C1),she
usesrelationalclaimwith3conditionstoclaimthat
lecturer(condition1)mustknowstudentscharacteristic
(condition2)tomakethestudentscomfortablein
teachingandlearningprocess(condition3).Sherelates condition 1 to 2
which affects condition 3. However, she
doesnotprovideanyreasonandevidencetojustifyC1.
Second,thethirdclaim(C3)alsodoesnotcontainany
reasonandevidencebyrelating2conditionsnamely
monologuecharacteristicsoraims(condition1)and
classroomspeakingactivities(condition2).Basedon
relationalclaimasC3,again,shedoesnotexplainC3 with relevant reason
and evidence. S1G1onlyprovides1claimwithitsreasonand evidence. As
the second claim (C2), she uses value claim
typetoclaimthattherearetwokindsofspeaking
activitiesnamelydialogueandmonologue.Thisis
actuallyavalueclaimsinceS1G1shouldprovideeach notion
ofspeakingactivitiesthendifferthemin purposes
andapplications.Unfortunately,sheonlyexplains monologue notion and
its relevance to classroom speaking
activitieswithoutexplainingthedialogueones.Referring
totheexplanationorreason,sheisconsideredmaking irrelevance fallacy.
Without stating evidence, she directly
providesanattempttoinfluencewhichisalsoirrelevant,
subjective,andillogicalbynotreflectingtheprevious claims. d.C-R
Type S6G3istheonlyonewhoisuniquesincesheonly
providesreasontosupportherclaim.Moreover,sheis
alsotheonlyonewhousesanalogyasreasoning.
However,sheconstructsargumentunsystematicallyand illogically (Table
8). Table 8. S6G3s Argument
Table8showsthatS6G3usesavalueclaimtoclaim
thatmonolingualdictionaryisbetterthanbilingualones
(C1).However,herreasons(R1.1andR1.2)cannot support and stand C1
since they are irrelevant. Firstly, she uses analogy by analogizing
healthy foods as monolingual
andunhealthyonesforbilingual.However,shefailedto
explainwhatgoodnessofusingmonolingualifonly
healthyfoodsaregoodforbodyshealth.Asthesecond
reason(R.1.2),sheusescausal-reasoningtypetoexplain
thatmonolingualdictionarymaybeasolvencyfor
difficultunderstandinganduncomfortablelearning. Eventhough the
reason sounds relevant to the claim, it still does not make sense
and tends to be subjective. She never
reasonshowbilingualisirrelevantandmaybenota
solvencyfordifficultunderstandinganduncomfortable
learning.Sincethereisnoevidencetosupportthe
reasons,thereasonstendstobesubjectiveideas. Therefore, S6G3 is
failed to convey her claim with further supporting details. The Use
of Critical Thinking Skills in Argumentation Thereisonly S5G3
whocan apply critical thinkingskills
asargumentationinherargumentofthebackgroundof the study.
a.Argumentation with Critical Thinking Skills
ThereisonlyS5G3whocanuseallspecificskillsof
criticalthinkingasargumentation.Table9showshow
S5G3fulfillsindicatorofcase,relatedcaseelements,
clarityofproblem,assumption,variousargumentand inference creation.
Table 9. S5G3s Arguments to Represent Critical Thinking Skills
Table9showshowS5G3pointsouttheproblem appeared in the background of
the study includingwhy it appears. As indicator of case, shestates
that the problem isbadreadingability(line16)withsomerelatedcase
elementsnamelylackofunderstandingtext,
comprehendinggrammarandvocabulary,and
willingness(line3-4andline10-12).Tosupportthe
relatedcaseelementstheoretically,sheusesHammers theory (line 6) to
establish the reason why reading can be
unsuccessful.Practically,shestatesstatisticaldatato
supporttheproblembygivingaveragescoreofstudents (line20-21). By
looking atthetheoretical and pragmatic
basis,shemakesnoassumptionorpersonalperspective
andcaselimitationtodrawtheproblemsothatthe
problemisclear,straightforwardandacceptable.Thus,
basedontheexplanationabove,shefulfillssuccessfully
indicatorofcase,relatedcaseelements,clarityof
problem,assumption,variousargument,andinference
creation.Todescribeindicatoroftheacceptabilityofclaim,
judgmentcreation,andargumentcreation,Table4.8
showsthesumofallclaimsrelatingtoS5G3s
proposition.S5G3spropositionistoimplement
cooperativelearningSTADinteachingreading comprehension of recount
text. Table 10. Claims to Support S5G3s Proposition Based on Table
10, in connection with the proposition,
S5G3providesfairandrelevantclaimstosupportthe
proposition.Therelevancecanbeprovenbynoclash
betweenclaimsandtheproposition.Moreover,she makes the claims in
chronological order, fromgeneral to
themostspecificones.Shestatestheclaims
systematicallyandlogicallythatcanmakeideasor
thoughtsunderstandable.Basedontheunderstandable
ideas,shecanprovideconsistentargumentbyno
backlashingorincongruousargument.Moreover,the
consistenceofeachargumentcanalsobeprovenby referring to argument
analysis (look at Table 4 for S5G3).
Thus,fromtheresultthatdescribes9indicatorsofthe
specificskillsofcriticalthinking,S5G3usescritical thinking in her
argumentation successfully.b.Argumentation with No Critical
Thinking Skills Thereare5out6subjectswhodonotusecritical
thinkingskillsasargumentation.ThereareS1G1,S2G1,
S3G2,S4G2,andS6G3.Generally,theyhavesimilar
problemsnamelyrequiringonly2to3indicatorsof specific skills of
critical thinking. To cope with that, here
aresomeresultsrepresentingargumentationwithno critical thinking
skills.Table 11. S4G2s Arguments to Represent Critical Thinking
Skills Toprovethatthereisnoassumption,S4G2provides
Mayerstheorytosupportwhyvideoisbeneficialfor
studentswhilethebenefitsareexplainedinline5-7.To
copewithvariousargument,S4G2limitsthediscussion
totheapplicationofvideobyDreamWorksAnimation
(DWA)SKG,Inc.ShestatedthatDWASKGaimsto
improvestudentswritingabilityinnarrative(line11). Thus, referring
to result, S4G2 is successfull to give topic limitation with no
assumption or personal perspective. Table 12. Claims to Support
S4G2s Proposition ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT AND ARGUMENTATION MADE BY S1
STUDENTS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT 7
Onthecontrary,S4G2doesnotrequiretheother7
indicatorsofspecificskillsincriticalthinking;indicator
ofcase,relatedcaseelements,clarityofproblems,
acceptabilityofclaim,judgmentcreation,inference,
argumentcreation.Table12showsthatS4G2doesnot
providethecaseandrelevantclaim,judgmentand
argument.S4G2cannotfulfillindicatorofcase,related
caseelements,andclarityofproblemsbecauseshedoes
notprovideagapinherbackgroundofthestudy.
EventhoughshestatedthatDWAvideocanhelpthe students to write
narrative text, unfortunately she does not portray any students
problems in writing narrative text. Table 13. S6G3s Arguments to
Represent Critical Thinking Skills Anotherresult of
argumentationwithno critical
thinkingskillsisdonebyS6G3.Table13showshow S6G3 provides a problem
and states the focus of it in her
backgroundofthestudy.Sheoffersaproblemnamely
badreadingcomprehensionbyfocusingonthelackof
understandingvocabularies(line6-7).Eventhoughshe
statestheproblemanditsfocus,shedoesnotfulfillthe indicator of
related case elements since she only justifies
thecasebytheoreticalbasis.Byonlyexplainingthe
theory(line1-3),theproblemisnotacceptablesince
theremaybenoexactprobleminthefield.Further,she
alsofailstoclarifyherproblemandtodrawsystematic and logical claims
to support her proposition (Table14).
Intheendoftheexplanation,shedoesnotprovide
relevantjudgmentandconsistentargumentassheis
failedtoconveyproblemanditsrelatedelementinthe beginning.Table 14.
Claims to Support S6G3s Proposition DISCUSSIONS
First,themajortendencythatmakesfalacyargumentis
thatmostofsamplesignorethestructureofargument
traitsnamelyclaim(C),reason(R),evidence(E),and
attempttoinfluence(I).Therearetwominortendencies
ofcomposingbadargument;1)samplescreateaclaim
withoutstatingitsreasonandevidencethenmoveto
otherclaimswhichareabsolutelydifferent,and2)
samplescomposeunsystematicargumenttraits,i.e.,
S4G2makesaclaimthentheexamplebeforethereason
andS6G3makesaclaimbetween2reasons.
Unfortunately,thefirstminortendencyisirrelevantto
whatWarnickandInch(1994)statesthatargument consistently includes
claim, reason, evidence, and attempt
toinfluence.Moreover,thesecondminortendencyisin contrast with the
theory of logical argument construction
(Warnick&Inch,1994;Harrell,2004;Cottrell,2005;
Hunter&Besnard,2008).Thus,mostsamplesfailto
constructagoodargumentativecompositionthrough relevant argument
traits. Thoseresultsabovearealmostrelevantwithastudy
conductedbyKuhnandUdell(2003)intermsof
obstaclestoconstructgoodargument.Thesimilarity between this study
and Kuhn and Udell (2003) is that the
majorityofsamplesdoesnotprovidereasonand evidence to support what
they claim. On the contrary, the
minorityofsamplesusesconsistentargumenttraits namely claim, reason,
evidence, and attempt to influence.
However,whatmakesthisstudylittlebitdifferenttoo
KuhnandUdell(2003)isthattherearesomesamples construct unsystematic
argument traits, i.e.
reason-claim-reason,reason-claim-evidence-claim,andsoon.Thus,
thisstudycannotbecategorized100%similartothe previous study.
Second,themajorityofsamplesreflectsunreflective
thinkingandcircularrhetoricinsteadofcriticalthinking
todrawtheirideas.Somehow,theydirectlyclaim
somethingwithoutfurtherexplanation.Theirtypeof
processisinvalidregardingcriticalthinkingskillsand
argumenttraits(Cottrell,2005;Fisher,2009;Warnick
andInch,1994).Inotherphenomenon,theyclaim
somethingbutthendirectlystatetheinference.This
unsystematiclogiconlyhazardtheresultoftheir
argumentwhichshowslackofapplicationofcritical
thinking(Cottrell,2005;Fisher,2009;Bassham,Irwin,
Nardone,Wallace,2011).Thus,therearestilllacksof critical thinking
skills in doing argumentation. Moreover,
theycometocircularrhetoricwhentheyapply tautological reasoning,
i.e., doing repetitive reasons (JDF,
2012).Indeed,circularrhetoricdoesnotconnectand
structureargumentintellectuallyandeventendtoblock
theexistenceofcriticalthinking(Paul&Elder,2008; Kaplan, 1966).
Therefore, since majority use unreflective thinking and circular
rhetoric, critical thinking is not exist in the argument they
produce. Figure 1. Kaplans thinking Rhetoric Regarding to Cultures
(Kaplan, 1966) The findings relating to critical thinking are
supported byKaplan(1966)whoinvestigatesthethinkingrhetoric
basedonculture.Whenthemajorityofstudentsas
samplesdotautologicalfallacyinargumentation,a.k.a.
repetitivereasoning,theyactuallydocircularrhetoric
thinking.Sincethinkingcircularlyisthemajor patternof thought in
Asia, the findings in this study which is done to
IndonesianEFLstudentsarerelevanttothatofKaplans
(1966).Kaplan(1966)provides5differentpatternof thinking regarding
to culture of particular regions (Figure 1).
BasedonKaplansthinkingpatternregardingto5
differentcultures,Indonesianstudentsarecategorizedin
orientaltypenamelycircularrhetoric.Thethinking
processisalmostnotreflectedcriticalthinkingskillsor linier
thinking, i.e., thinking pattern in English. By having
no-linierorcircularrhetoricthinking,moststudents
cannotfulfillspecificskillsincriticalthinkingstatedby
Cottrell(2005)andFisher(2009).Thus,thefindingsin
thisstudyregardingtocriticalthinkingskillsin
argumentationarerelevanttoKaplanstheoryintermof thinking pattern.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION Conclusion Mostly, students still have
obstacles in building argument
throughsystematicandlogicalcomposition,regardless how long they
study in the university and what score they
earnfortheirtheses.Theytendtoclaimanideawithout
relevantreasonandevidenceandtodrawanidea unsystematically.
Moreover, they face difficulties to make
coherentandcohesiveargumentstosupportthe
proposition.Inconnectionwiththelogic,thereisa
tendencythattheyproducesomefallaciesofreasonand
evidence,i.e.,irrelevance,false-cause,groundstem,and tautological.
Inthe end,studentsarefailed to transfer the
messageofideasthroughargumentativecomposition, especially in the
background of the study of skripsi.
Inaddition,studentstendtoproduceunreflective
thinkingandcircularrhetoricinsteadofcriticalthinking. Some students
state the problem or the gap of argument in
thebackgroundofthestudywhilesomeothersdoesnot.
Eventhoughthestudentslimittheargumenttopic,they
cannotjustifyeverysingleburdenofproofwithrelevant
claims.Inacertaincase,sometimesstudentsmake
irrelevant,outoftopic,backlashingorincongruous
claims.Theydorepetitivereasoningfrequentlythat triggers the
existence of circular rhetoric. Therefore, it can be concluded that
students still fail to use critical thinking skills in their
argumentation. Suggestion
Sincetheconclusionrelatingtoargumentanalysisis
categorizedasdisappointing,lecturersneedtoprovide more experiences
for students to practice in argumentative
writingclass.Forinstance,inthelearningprocessof
argumentativewriting, lecturers should not only focus on
vocabulariesandgrammarsbutalsotheargumenttraits. To cope with it,
lecturers should understand some types of reason and evidence,
fallacies of reason and evidence. By understanding those, lecturers
can decide how far students
canconstructargumentbyrelevantclaim,reason,
evidence,andattempttoinfluence.Inaddition,this
suitablepracticecanhelpstudentsconstructgood
argumentinthebackgroundofthestudyinthe introductory section of
skripsi. Sincemoststudentsdocircularrhetoricand
unreflectivethinking,lecturersshouldincludecritical
thinkingskillswhiledoingargumentation.Lecturerscan
providerelevantteachingcriticalthinkinginany
classroomactivitiestoboostuptheexposureofthinking
critically.Especiallyinargumentativewritingclass, lecturers need to
evaluate the performance of each specific
skillincriticalthinkingskillsdonebythestudents.In
addition,studentsshouldbeawarethattheyneedtodo
independentlearninginordertothinkingcritically.In
otherwords,lecturersandstudentsshouldworkhandin
handtosucceedthelearningprocessofcriticalthinking skills.
REFERENCES Ary,Donald.(2010).IntroductiontoResearchin
Education.USA:Wadsworth,Cengage
Learning.Bassham,G.,Irwin,W.,Nardone,H.,&Wallace,J.
(2007).CriticalThinking:AStudents
Introduction4thEdition.NY:McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc.Bowell,T.,&Kemp,G.(2010).CriticalThinking:A Concise Guide
3rd Edition. Oxon: Routledge.ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT AND ARGUMENTATION
MADE BY S1 STUDENTS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT 9
Cohen,L.,Manion,L.,Morrison,K.(2005).Research Methods in Education
5th Edition. NY: Taylor & Francis E-Library
Cottrell,S.(2005).CriticalThinkingSkills:Developing
EffectiveAnalysisandArgument.NY:Palgrave Macmillan.
Fisher,Alec.(2001).CriticalThinking.Cambridge University Press.
Fisher,Alec.(2009).BerpikirKritis:SebuahPengantar (Indonesian
Version). Erlangga.Harrell,Maralee.(2004).UsingArgumentDiagramsto
Improve Critical Thinking Skills in Introductory Philosophy.
Carnegie Mellon University
Hillocks,G.(2010).TeachingArgumentforCritical Thinking and
Writing:An Introduction.English Journal, 99(6), 24-32. Hunter, A.,
& Besnard, P. (2008). Elements of Argument. UK: The MIT Press.
JDF.(2012).HandbookofParliementaryDebating. Yogyakarta: JDF Press
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in
Inter-CulturalEducation.LanguageLearning,16(1-2)
Kothari,C.,R.(2004).ResearchMethodology:Methods
andTechniques(SecondRevisedEdition).New Delhi: New Age
International (P) Ltd.Kuhn,D.,&Udell,W.(2003).TheDevelopmentof
ArgumentSkills.ChildDevelopment,74(5), 1245-1260.
Lestari,A.(2003).RisetMedia:LatarBelakang
Penelitian.UniversitasMercubuana:Pusat Bahan Ajar dan E-learning.
Lombard.(2011).ResearchProposalGuidelines.
UniversityofJohannesburg:Departmentof Marketing
Management.Triastuti,A.(2006).IncorporatingArgumentationStudy
forTeachingCriticalThinkinginEFL
Instruction:AProposalforEFLCurriculum. TEFLIN. Warnick, B., &
Inch, Edward S. (1994). Critical Thinking
andCommunication:TheUseofReaasonin
Argument(SecondEdition).UnitedStatesof America: Macmillan
Publishing Company.