HIGHER-ORDER THINKING SKILLS IN

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ WRITING

THESIS PROPOSAL

Advisors:
Dra. Pratiwi Retnaningdyah, M.Hum., M.A., Ph.D.
Prof. Dr. Susanto, M.Pd.

By
Nila Syarifun Nisak
17070835004

ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE EDUCATION

POSTGRADUATE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF SURABAYA
2018
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Higher-order Thinking is the highest levels of cognitive process and the ability of

completing the given tasks. (Yee et al., 2015) Nguyễn & Nguyễn (2017) mention that

higher-order thinking skills that can be seen when learners face uncommon problems,

uncertainties, dilemmas and questions. In this case, memory is not the exact way to help

learners in this kind of situation, therefore reflective, critical, logical, and creative

thinking is needed. The needs of higher-order thinking skills shows that being critical

and able to find ideas are the keys of learning. (Heong et al., 2012) Practically, teaching

thinking skills objective including the assessment is not clearly stated; so, students’

language skills and proficiency levels become priorities. (Heong et al., 2012) It is has

been a challenge for language teachers and educators to make sure that students learn

language use practically and theoretically without neglecting students’ learning

processes.

The successful implementation of HOT skills requires the thoughtful consideration

of current instructional techniques and the commitment for active student-centered

teaching learning environment. HOT is best teaching learning technique in real world

contexts and by varying the scenarios students can use their newly acquired skills.

(Mainali, 2013) Issues related to higher order thinking skills in education, especially for

English learning, have been frequently investigated. Language skills are also connect to

3
the thinking skills. (Pollock, 2014) Unlike reading comprehension measures, measures

of writing have not been usually included in batteries assessing cognitive abilities.

Indeed, the skills measured by critical thinking tests are those commonly involved in

reasoning tasks. (Preiss, Castillo, Flotts, & San Martín, 2013)

Addressing to writing skill, Faragher & Huijser (2014) find out that the quality of

writing in English does not always reflect students’ quality of thinking. The results show

that the Bachelors of Education program at the University of Southern Queensland

scripts there was some evidence of HOTS according to the framework. Taken from a

research in international students’ HOTS in writing, a third of the former international

students who had graduated from their universities and obtained a permanent resident

visa in Australia in 2005–06 were assessed as having poor English. (Bretag, 2007)

Singh, Singh, M. T. M., Mostafa, & Singh, (2017) reviewed several research on the

use of higher order thinking skills to teach writing. The results shows that most of

researches are not related to a language classroom; it is necessary to produce with

research pertaining the usage of Higher Order Thinking Skills in a language classroom.

In addition, students with no English experience outside classroom need strategies such

as higher order thinking skills to increase their thinking skills in their daily life.

From the previous studies mentioned above, Higher Order Thinking Skills in EFL

students’ writing of Higher Education students have not been explicitly investigated. In

addition, most of the subjects of the studies are students who have English as their first

language. Only one of the studies focused on students of Higher Education learning

4
 English as their second language; but they are still international students who of course

have higher level of English proficiency. These of course will bring different result of

English writing and thinking level which will be ended up bringing different result of

study as well.

The present study is considering the case that Academic Writing, which was actually

taught in 5th semester, is now taught in 2nd semester EFL students in a University; it

brings different results in the quality of the students’ writing. The Students’ HOTS in

writing and any other aspects affecting their thinking skill in their writing will be

investigated. In particular, this research comes to formulate a research problem: “What

are higher-order thinking skills shown in undergraduate students’ writing?”

1.2 Research Questions

In relation to the background of the study previously outlined above, the problem of

the study can be formulated as these following questions:

1. How is knowledge utilization shown in undergraduate students’ writing?

2. How is metacognition shown in undergraduate students’ writing?

3. How is self-system thinking shown in undergraduate students’ writing?

1.3 Objective of the Study

The main purpose of the present study is to figure out higher level of thinking in

undergraduate students’ academic writing. To be more specific, based on the research

questions formulated above, this research aims to find out:

5
 1. Knowledge utilization shown in undergraduate students’ writing.

2. Metacognition shown in undergraduate students’ writing.

3. Self-system thinking shown in undergraduate students’ writing.

1.4 Scope and Limits of the Study

The scope of this study is English language pedagogy. Specifically, assessing

writing will be the focus of the study. In addition, the main data is taken from the

students’ writing. The material taught will be argumentative essay: How to write,

Generic Structure, and the writing Standards. Writing taught in the University

Furthermore, the study is limited to students in 3rd semester. They are EFL learners in

English Department of the University who are taking Academic Writing Class.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The result of the study is expected to give contribution for both English learners and

teachers. In particular, this study can be one of sources in recognizing and realizing

students’ of higher education thinking level in writing. For students who tend to think

critically but find it difficult to express in form academic writing, hopefully will survive.

In addition, this research can give extra information about the ways learners think about

every information they get and express it through their writing in different senses;

knowledge utilization, metacognition and Self-system.

Furthermore, this study can show students’ writing ability in specific level of

education with specific learning objectives. This hopefully can be lecturers’ and,

6
 probably, curriculum developers’ consideration in designing courses for students.

Additionally, the results shown in this study can increase students’ awareness to the

relationship between their thinking skills and their writing ability. From this stage, it

will be a great outcome if the result of this study can give particular or alternative

suggestion to improve students’ writing and thinking skill.

1.6 Definition of Key Terms

In order to have the same idea and concept in this study, the researcher clarifies the

terms used in this study, as the details are:

1. Higher-order Thinking Skills:

In defining the term Higher-order Thinking, this study is in line with Zohar and

Cobern (2004) that it is cognitive activities that are beyond the stage of understanding

and lower-level application according to Taxonomy levels. To be more specific, this

research will apply the work of Marzano & Kendall (2006) related to thinking level

for students’ writing. Three thinking levels which are considered as the Higher-

Order Thinking in this study are knowledge utilization, metacognition, and self-

system thinking. The skills are students’ operational processes related to the three

thinking levels mentioned; these that will be analyzed in the study.

2. Writing:

Meeting the needs of higher education students’ needs today, writing skill

become crucially required. Specifically, writing in this research represents students’

7
 academic writing in the course taught by the lecturer in the second semester.

Academic writing here is represented by argumentative essay with rhetorical

purpose; writing in communicative purpose of text. (Coffin, 2005) There will be

around 2-3 writing assignments produced by the students. The assignments are given

after the students have accepted the materials of the course; those are grammar,

generic structures of the text, and the topic for their writing.

3. Undergraduate Students

Undergraduate students representing students in higher education here stands for the

2nd semester students of English Teacher Education Department in a University in

Surabaya. They are EFL students who are taking Academic Writing Course and

doing the assignment given by the lecturer.

8
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Writing in Higher Education

All writing practitioners aim to address academic writing as ‘writing to learn’ for

all students, not just a remedial service to ‘weak students’. Nevertheless, the ways of

how to put teaching and learning goals into practice are different. (Björk, Bräuer,

Rienecker, & Jörgensen, 2003) Academics negotiate “standards” where the writing is

poor for a range of reasons. It is possible that if they had been able to evaluate the

writing in terms of an analysis of thinking skills, their attitude might have been more

positive and also the students might have benefited educationally. (Bretag, 2007) The

concept of teaching and learning of writing in higher education have been explored by

Coffin (2005) as these following explanation:

2.1.1 Student Writing in a Changing Higher Education Context

Student writing is at the center of teaching and learning in higher education,

fulfilling a range of purposes according to the various contexts in which it occurs.

These purposes include:

• Assessment, which is often a major purpose for student writing. Students may

be required to produce essays, written examinations, or laboratory reports

whose main purpose is to demonstrate their mastery of disciplinary course

content. In assessing such writing, lecturers focus on both the content and the

9
 form of the writing, which is the language used, the text structure, the

construction of argument, grammar and punctuation.

• Learning, which can help students grapple with disciplinary knowledge as

well as develop more general abilities to reason and critique (Hilgers et al.,

1999). Separately from or simultaneously with writing for assessment,

students may also be asked to write texts that trace their reflections on the

learning process itself, as with journals where they record thoughts,

questions, problems, and ideas about readings, lectures, and applied practice.

• Entering particular disciplinary communities, whose communication norms

are the primary means by which academics transmit and evaluate ideas (Prior,

1998). As they progress through the university, students are often expected

to produce texts that increasingly approximate the norms and conventions of

their chosen disciplines, with this expectation peaking at the level of

postgraduate study.

2.1.2 Institutional Provision of Writing Instruction

A range of approaches to teaching writing has developed in different

geographical contexts and for different historical and socio-political reasons. In

Australia, pedagogical models designed to foster students’ awareness of academic

conventions and practices have emerged from the study of disciplinary genres and

the field of systemic functional linguistics (see e.g. Martin and Veel, 1998). In the

United States, for decades courses in ‘freshman composition’ have taught the

10
 presumed generic skills of academic writing to first-year students as well as

nonnative speakers of English (Leki, 2001; Zamel and Spack, 1998). Recently

interest has grown in teaching writing in the disciplines or across the curriculum,

in recognition of the discipline-specific nature of much of academic writing and

the usefulness of writing to the learning process.

Institutional structures around the world tend to include any of four main

locations for the teaching of writing: dedicated writing courses, disciplinary

subject courses, English for academic purposes/English for speakers of other

languages departments, and study skills or writing centers. In addition to these

face-to-face venues, on-line writing instruction has recently added another

dimension – or at least the possibility for it – to all of these domains.

2.1.5 Writing for Different Disciplines: Writing an Essay

Words such as ‘essay’, ‘laboratory report’ and ‘case study’ are problematic in

that they denote a wide variety of types of text. For ease of reference in discussing

text types we continue to use these labels, but we emphasize that you cannot

assume that the knowledge of what to expect in a certain text type is shared by

students. The essay, for example, may contain different elements depending on

whether it is framed as a critical review, a discussion, a personal response or an

exposition. The implicit knowledge of what to expect from text types in response

to certain prompts, such as ‘discuss’, ‘critically evaluate’, ‘compare and contrast’,

informs the judgments that we make about the success of students’ texts as a

11
 whole. The way we can generalize text types enables us as teachers to isolate

certain traits and make them explicit to students, but we need to bear in mind that

text types vary in response to the function that a text performs, which is not always

reflected in the descriptive term applied to it.

2.2.Higher Order Thinking Skills in Writing

The exact key notes of Higher-order Thinking cannot be specifically defined, but

higher-order thinking skills can be recognized when it is showed up. (Zohar & Cobern,

2004) Many perspectives regarding to thinking levels have been revealed. It is not

something that have any behavioral indices, therefore it is not easy to observe it in

action. (McGregor, 2007) In teaching ‘thinking’, different kinds and different levels of

‘thinking’ become an important issue for teachers. As McGregor (2007) mentions, a

French philosopher, Rene Decrates argued that thinking is reasoning, and that reason is

a chain of simple ideas, linked by applying strict rules of logic. In the other words,

‘thinking’ is part of direct physiological connections between logical thinking and the

functioning of the brain.

Talking about ‘thinking’ level, Bloom’s Taxonomy then of course takes significant

roles in this. In order to discern the similarities and the differences of learners’ ability

in relating the teaching and learning goals and instructional programs, taxonomy is used

as an encouragement to develop definition and classification of learners’ ability.

(Krathwohl et.al, 1956) The term higher-order thinking then appear in pair with Lower-

12
order Thinking. These are firstly stated by Anderson (Krathwohl, 2002) in revision of

Bloom’s Taxonomy. Of course these thinking levels cannot simply recognized by

educators or teachers without any observable actions. As the result, lower-order

thinking skills and higher-order thinking skills are appeared.

Higher-order thinking skills is used to delineate any cognitive activities that are

beyond the stage of understanding and lower-level application. (Anderson, et.al, 2001)

Based on this taxonomy, memorization and recall of information, etc. are no longer

classified into the higher-order thinking skills; but, those are included into lower-order

thinking skills. While the skills that are classified into higher-order thinking skills are

analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating. (Zohar & Cobern, 2004) The highlighted

observable activities of the higher-order thinking skills mentioned above are basically

the same. Likewise, Chinedu (Heong et al., 2012) mentions that analyzing information

to distinguish problems, evaluating problems and creating new practical solution are

included into higher-order thinking. In line with this, Marzano & Kendall, (2006)

propose the new taxonomy for educational objectives that is defined as an opportunity

to change whatever one is doing or attending to at a particular time. The Higher Order

Thinking skills can be classified as these following points:

2.2.1 Knowledge Untilization

Knowledge utilization processes are those that individuals employ when they

wish to accomplish a specific task. For example, an engineer might use knowledge

of Bernoulli’s principle to solve a specific problem related to lift in the design of

13
a new type of aircraft. Specific tasks are the venue in which knowledge is rendered

useful to individuals.

In the New Taxonomy, four general categories of knowledge utilization tasks

have been identified: (1) decision making, (2) problem solving, (3) experimenting,

and (4) investigating.

Decision Making

The process of decision making is used when an individual must select

between two or more alternatives (Baron, 1982, 1985; Halpern, 1984).

Metaphorically, decision making might be described as the process by which an

individual answers questions such as, “What is the best way to _____?” or “Which

of these is most suitable?”

There are a number of models describing the process of decision making

(Baron, 1982, 1985; Baron & Brown, 1991; Ehrenberg, Ehrenberg, & Durfee,

1979; Halpern, 1984; Wales, Nardi, & Stager, 1986). All of these models focus

on thoughtful identification of alternatives and selection among them based on

sound criteria.

Problem Solving

The process of problem solving is used when an individual attempts to

accomplish a goal for which an obstacle exists (Halpern, 1984; Rowe, 1985;

Sternberg, 1987). Metaphorically, problem solving might be described as the

14
process one engages in to answer questions such as, ‘How will I overcome this

obstacle?’ or ‘How will I reach my goal but still meet these conditions?’ At its

core, a defining characteristic of a problem is an obstacle or limiting condition.

Critical attributes of the problem solving process include the following: (1)

Identifying obstacles to the goal (2) Identifying alternative ways to accomplish

the goal (3) Evaluating the alternatives (4) Selecting and executing the

alternatives.

Experimenting

Experimenting is the process of generating and testing hypotheses for the

purpose of understanding some physical or psychological phenomenon. Defined

as such, experimenting is rightfully thought of as central to scientific inquiry

(Bacon, et.al, 1981; Aiken, 1991; Himsworth, 1986). Metaphorically,

experimenting might be described as the process used when answering questions

such as, ‘How can this be explained?’ or ‘Based on this explanation, what can be

predicted?’

Critical attributes of experimenting include the following: (1) Making

predictions based on known or hypothesized principles, (2) Designing a way to

test the predictions, (3) Evaluating the validity of the principles based on the

outcome of the test (Halpern, 1984; Ross, 1988)

Investigating

15
 Investigating is the process of generating and testing hypotheses about past,

present, or future events (Marzano, 1992; van Eemeren, Grootendorst, &

Henkemans, 1996). Metaphorically, investigation may be described as the process

one goes through when attempting to answer such questions as, ‘What are the

defining features of _____?’ or ‘How did this happen?’ or ‘Why did this happen?’

or ‘What would have happened if _____?’

To some extent, the knowledge utilization process of investigation is similar

to the knowledge utilization process of experimenting in that hypotheses are

generated and tested. However, it differs from experimenting in that it employs

different so-called rules of evidence (Abelson, 1995; Evans, Newstead, & Bryne,

1993). The rules of evidence for investigation adhere to the criteria for sound

argumentation described in the discussion of analyzing errors: The evidence used

to support a claim within an investigation is a well-constructed argument.

However, the rules of evidence for experimenting adhere to the criteria for

statistical hypotheses testing.

Critical attributes of investigating include the following: (1) Identifying what

is known or agreed upon regarding the phenomenon under investigation, (2)

Identifying areas of confusion or controversy regarding the phenomenon, (3)

Providing an answer for the confusion or controversy, (4) Presenting a logical

argument for the proposed answer

16
2.2.2 Metacognition

The metacognitive system has been described by researchers and theorists as

responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and regulating the functioning of all other

types of thought (Brown, 1984; Flavell, 1978; Meichenbaum & Asarnow, 1979).

Taken together, these functions are sometimes referred to as responsible for

executive control (Brown, 1978, 1980; Flavell, 1979, 1987; Sternberg, 1984a,

1984b, 1986a, 1986b). Within the New Taxonomy, the metacognitive system has

four functions: (1) specifying goals, (2) process monitoring, (3) monitoring

clarity, and (4) monitoring accuracy.

Specifying Goals

One of the primary tasks of the metacognitive system is to establish clear

goals. As we see in the next section, it is the self-system that determines an

individual’s decision whether or not to engage in an activity. However, once the

decision is made to engage, it is the metacognitive system that establishes a goal

relative to that activity. In terms of the New Taxonomy, the goal specifying

function of the metacognitive system is responsible for establishing clear learning

goals for specific types of knowledge.

As part of the goal-specification process, an individual will usually identify

what Hayes (1981) refers to as a clear end state; what the goal will look like when

completed. This might also include the identification of milestones to be

accomplished along the way. Last, it is the job of the goal specification function

17
to develop a plan for accomplishing a given learning goal. This might include the

resources that will be necessary and even timelines in which milestones and the

end state will be accomplished. It is this type of thinking that has been described

as strategic in nature (Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983).

Process Monitoring

The process monitoring component of the metacognitive system typically

monitors the effectiveness of a procedure being used in a task. Process monitoring

also comes into play when a long-term or short-term goal has been established for

information.

Monitoring Clarity and Accuracy

Monitoring clarity and monitoring accuracy belong to a set of functions that

some researchers refer to as dispositional (Amabile, 1983; Brown, 1978). The

term disposition is used to indicate that monitoring clarity and monitoring

accuracy are ways in which an individual is or is not disposed to approach

knowledge.

In summary, the metacognitive system is in charge of conscious operations

relative to knowledge that include goal setting, process monitoring, monitoring

for clarity, and monitoring for accuracy. Salomon and Globerson (1987) refer to

such thinking as being mindful: The individual can be expected to withhold or

inhibit the evocation of a first, salient response, to examine and elaborate

18
 situational cues and underlying meanings that are relevant to the task to be

accomplished, to generate or define alternative strategies, to gather information

necessary for the choices to be made, to examine outcomes, to draw new

connections and construct new structures and abstractions made by reflective type

processes.

2.2.3 Self-System Thinking

The self-system consists of an interrelated arrangement of attitudes, beliefs,

and emotions. It is the interaction of these attitudes, beliefs, and emotions that

determines both motivation and attention. The self-system determines whether an

individual will engage in or disengage in a given task; it also determines how

much energy the individual will bring to the task. Once the self-system has

determined what will be attended to, the functioning of all other elements of

thought (i.e., the metacognitive system, the cognitive system, and the knowledge

domains) are, to a certain extent, dedicated or determined. This is why the act of

the self-system’s selecting a task has been referred to as “crossing the Rubicon”

(Garcia & Pintrich, 1993; Pintrich & Garcia, 1992).

There are four types of self-system thinking that are relevant to the New

Taxonomy: (1) examining importance, (2) examining efficacy, (3) examining

emotional response, and (4) examining overall motivation.

19
Examining Importance

One of the key determinants of whether an individual attends to a given type

of knowledge is whether that individual considers the knowledge important.

Obviously, if students consider the skill of reading a contour map important, they

will be more likely to expend time and energy developing this mental skill. What

an individual considers to be important is probably a function of the extent to

which it meets one of two conditions: it is perceived as instrumental in either

satisfying a basic need or in the attainment of a personal goal. As explained by

psychologists such as Maslow (1968), human beings have evolutionarily designed

needs that might even exist in somewhat of a hierarchic structure. Although

Maslow’s hierarchy has been criticized (Wahba & Bridwell, 1976), it provides

powerful insights into human motivation.

As Covington (1992) explains, “it provides a useful way of thinking about the

factors that activate normal human beings”. In Maslow’s (1968) hierarchy, needs

such as physical safety, food, and shelter are more basic than needs such as

companionship and acceptance. If a specific knowledge component is perceived

as being instrumental in meeting one or more of these needs, it will be considered

important by an individual.

20
Examining Efficacy

Bandura’s (1997) theories and research have brought the role of beliefs about

efficacy to the attention of both psychologists and educators. In simple terms,

beliefs about efficacy address the extent to which individuals believe they have

the resources, ability, or power to change a situation. Relative to the New

Taxonomy, examining efficacy would involve examining the extent to which

individuals believe they have the ability, power, or necessary resources to gain

competence relative to a specific knowledge component. If students believe they

do not have the requisite ability, power, or resources to gain competence in a

specific skill, this might greatly lessen their motivation to learn that knowledge,

even though they perceive it as important.

The research indicates that a sense of efficacy is not necessarily a

generalizable construct. Rather, an individual might have a strong sense of

efficacy in one situation yet feel relatively powerless in another. Seligman’s

(1994) research also attests to the situational nature of one’s sense of efficacy and

underscores the importance of these beliefs. He has found that a low sense of

efficacy can result in a pattern of behavior that he refers to as learned helplessness.

Examining Emotional Response

The influence of emotion in human motivation is becoming increasingly clear.

Given the biology of emotions, many brain researchers assert that emotions are

involved in almost every aspect of human behavior. A good case can be made for

21
the contention that emotion exerts a controlling influence over human thought

(Katz, 1999; Pert, 1997). This case is well articulated in LeDoux’s (1996) The

Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. As a result

of his analysis of the research on emotions, LeDoux (1996) concludes that human

beings (a) have little direct control over their emotional reactions, and (b) once

emotions occur, they become powerful motivators of future behavior. Relative to

humans’ lack of control over emotions, LeDoux notes, “Anyone who has tried to

fake an emotion, or who has been the recipient of a faked one, knows all too well

the futility of the attempt.” While conscious control over emotions is weak,

emotions can flood consciousness. This is so because the wiring of the brain at

this point in our evolutionary history is such that connections from the emotional

systems to the cognitive systems are stronger than connections from the cognitive

systems to the emotional systems.

Relative to the power of emotions once they occur, LeDoux (1996) explains,

they chart the course of moment-to-moment action as well as set the sails toward

long-term achievements. But our emotions can also get us into trouble. When fear

becomes anxiety, desire gives way to greed, or annoyance turns to anger, anger to

hatred, friendship to envy, love to obsession, or pleasure to addiction, our

emotions start working against us. Mental health is maintained by emotional

hygiene, and mental problems, to a large extent, reflect a breakdown of emotional

order. Emotions can have both useful and pathological consequences.

22
 For LeDoux (1996), emotions are primary motivators that often outstrip an

individual’s system of values and beliefs relative to their influence on human

behavior. Relative to the New Taxonomy, examining emotions involves analyzing

the extent to which an individual has an emotional response to a given knowledge

component and the part that response plays in one’s motivation. The importance

of such self-analyses has received a good deal of attention in the popular press

over the past three decades (Goleman, 1995; Langer, 1989).

Examining Overall Motivation

As might be inferred from the previous discussion, an individual’s motivation

to initially learn or increase competence in a given knowledge component is a

function of three factors: (1) perceptions of its importance, (2) perceptions of

efficacy relative to learning or increasing competency in the knowledge

component, and (3) one’s emotional response to the knowledge component.

It is important to note that these three self-system determiners are probably not equal

in terms of their effect on motivation. It is likely that a perception of importance can

override a perceived lack of efficacy and a negative emotional response. In terms of the

New Taxonomy, examining motivation is the process of identifying one’s level of

motivation to learn or increase competence in a given knowledge component and then

identifying the interrelationships between one’s beliefs about importance, beliefs about

efficacy, and emotional response that govern one’s level of motivation.

23
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

In addressing to answers for the research questions of this study, descriptive analysis

and explanation. When a research aims to develop a theory that will explain what was

experienced by observing and interpreting reality qualitative method is used. (Bordens

& Abbott, 2011) The depth of understanding the undergraduate students’ higher order

thinking skills in academic writing will be obtained. This study can be assumed as

document and content analysis for it will be focused on students’ written material to

seek about their thinking skills; however, this can be a basic interpretative study if

interviews might be needed to collect data. (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, & Ary, 2010)

3.2 Research Setting

The study will take place in a State University in Surabaya. English Education

Department has been activated and programmed since 13 years ago, and the curriculum

have been changed frequently for particular reflections. This academic year, English

Writing Course specifically academic writing will be taught in 2nd semester. There will

be one class to be investigated and chosen randomly; under the consideration of their

scores in English grammar and Vocabulary are varied. There will be one class to be

investigated. As it is stated before, students English skills are varied as well as their

thinking skills.

24
3.3 Research Subjects

There are around 20 to 25 students in the class of the Course. They are 2nd semester

students of English Teacher Education Department who are taking English writing

course, specifically for Academic Writing.

3.4 Data and Source of Data

The data of this research is the students’ words in their writing production for

English Writing Course. Furthermore, the source of data is the students’ writing. It will

be actually assignments given by the lecturer as one of the way to assess the students’

ability for the course. There will be 2 kinds of writing with different topics for academic

writing. Specifically, the kind of the text to be written will be argumentative essay;

based on the theory and topics explained by the lecturer.

3.5 Data Collection Technique

Creswell stated that various ways in collecting data are included into qualitative

method, those are: researcher can collect information through unstructured or semi-

structured observations, interviews, documents, and audio-visual recorded information.

He also suggested not to doing random sampling or selection of a large number of

participants. (Creswell, 2009) Specifically, in this research, the data will be collected

from documents, and if it is needed, interviewing the lecturer will be obtained as well.

Unstructured interview will be gained based on the situation as questions may be arise

after the collected data is analyzed.

25
 Documents refers to text-based or any other form of artefacts to be analyzed. (Ary

et al., 2010) Documents can be categorized into 4 classifications, those are: public

records, personal documents, physical materials, and researcher-generated documents.

Public records means every information that can be accessed from public, such as news,

federal government in education, websites, etc. Personal documents stands for typically

first person narratives such as diaries, letters, etc. Physical materials represents many

objects, such as equipment, photographs, and so on. Researcher-generated documents

are documents kept by participants in fulfilling the researcher’s wish. In particular, this

research will use personal documents, as the students’ writings are including their

beliefs, opinion and expression of their thought.

3.6 Data Analysis Technique

After the data collected during the observation process, it will be analyzed using the

data analysis technique that is in line with the framework presented by Ary et al. (2010);

there are three stages needed in this technique, those are (1) familiarizing and

organizing, (2) coding and reducing, also (3) interpreting and representing. However,

in this study, only two stages will be done based the data collected. To be in line with

this study, the technique will be applied as these following explanation:

1. Familiarizing and Organizing

By applying this part, the researcher will reread and reorganized the data collected.

The researcher will occupied in the data; so the students’ writing will be read and

reread again before being analyzed. Regarding to the interview, transcription is of

26
 course needed. Therefore being familiar with the result of the interview is required.

Furthermore, the major task of organizing the information begins after the

familiarization. As the documents will seemingly be easier to be organized, this

stage will be applied to the result of interview; it can be based on questions or source

of data.

3. Interpreting and Representing

Interpreting here involves the reflection of words, sentences and every writing

aspects produced by the students. It is an inductive process in which the researcher

will make generalizations based in the connections and common aspects among the

categories and patterns. It is about bringing out the meaning, describing the cases

found, providing explanations and developing reasonable explanations. Particularly,

all of the data collected will be organized as research findings and will be connected

also explained based on the theoretical frameworks stated in chapter 2.

Representation involves how the data will be presented. Considering the purposes,

data, and the approach of this research, the analyzed finding will be presented

through descriptive details.

27
 REFERENCES
Anderson, L. ., Krathwohl, D. R., Mayer, R. ., & Pintrich, P. . (2001). A taxonomy for
learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational
objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Ary, D. (2010). Introduction to research in
education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Björk, L., Bräuer, G., Rienecker, L., & Jörgensen, P. S. (2003). Teaching Academic Writing
in European Higher Education.

Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2011). Research design and methods: a process approach.
New York; London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education ; McGraw-Hill [distributor.

Bretag, T. (2007). The emperor’s new clothes: Yes, there is a link between English language
competence and academic standards. People and Place, 15(1), 13.

Coffin, C. (2005). Teaching academic writing: a toolkit for higher education. London:
Taylor & Francis e-Library. Retrieved from http://www.myilibrary.com?id=11471

Faragher, L., & Huijser, H. (2014). Exploring evidence of higher order thinking skills in
the writing of first year undergraduates. The International Journal of the First Year
in Higher Education, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v5i2.230

Heong, Y. M., Yunos, J. M., Othman, W., Hassan, R., Kiong, T. T., & Mohamad, M. M.
(2012). The Needs Analysis of Learning Higher Order Thinking Skills for
Generating Ideas. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 197–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.265

Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain (Vol.

1). Longmans, Green.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into

Practice, 41(4), 212–218.

28
Mainali, B. P. (2013). Higher order thinking in education. Academic Voices: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(1), 5–10.

Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2006). The new taxonomy of educational objectives.
Corwin Press.

McGregor, D. (2007). Developing thinking ; developing learning a guide to thinking skills

in education. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Retrieved
from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10197030

Pollock, J. L. (2014). Language and thought (Vol. 699). Princeton University Press.

Preiss, D. D., Castillo, J. C., Flotts, P., & San Martín, E. (2013). Assessment of
argumentative writing and critical thinking in higher education: Educational
correlates and gender differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 193–
203.

Singh, R. K. A., Singh, C. K. S., M. T. M., T., Mostafa, N. A., & Singh, T. S. M. (2017). A
Review of Research on the Use of Higher Order Thinking Skills to Teach Writing.
International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(1), 86.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n1p86

Yee, M. H., Yunos, J. M., Othman, W., Hassan, R., Tee, T. K., & Mohamad, M. M. (2015).
Disparity of Learning Styles and Higher Order Thinking Skills among Technical
Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 143–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.127

Zohar, A., & Cobern, W. W. (2004). Higher Order Thinking in Science Classrooms:
Students’ Learning and Teachers’ Professional Development. Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands. Retrieved from
http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3071774

29