oru.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Argue for Criticality The Potential of Argumentation and Critical Thinking in the English Subject in Swedish Upper-Secondary School
Örebro University, School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences.
2018 (English)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

The steering documents for Swedish upper-secondary school set great store by the cultivation

of critical thinking. It is one of the overarching aims. Yet, statistics indicate that young

Swedes are not as good at critical thinking as students from some other countries of

comparable socioeconomic status (World Economic Forum 7). One way to address this

problem might be to teach argumentation.

The goal of this paper is to examine to what extent chapter three in Writing Logically,

Thinking Critically—a textbook about argumentation and critical thinking—succeeds in

helping students develop critical thinking skills through training in argumentation. To

examine this, a materials analysis of said chapter is conducted using Ian McGrath’s checklist

method. The examination is based in Richard Andrews’s theory that argumentation and

critical thinking are in an interdependent relationship, a theory that this research paper

supports. In this study, it is proposed that although said chapter does not seem to address

critical thinking in full, it seems likely to be suitable for teaching critical thinking to a certain

extent. Findings indicate that said chapter seems to address careful analysis, rationality, and

discriminating thought successfully, but open-mindedness and dialectical thinking not at all.

Therefore, it is concluded that teachers should search beyond said chapter in their attempts to

teach argumentation and critical thinking, which the steering documents imply they should

teach.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. , p. 47
National Category
Learning
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-68822OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-68822DiVA, id: diva2:1246821
Subject / course
English; English
Supervisors
Available from: 2018-09-10 Created: 2018-09-10 Last updated: 2020-04-15Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(564 kB)3 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 564 kBChecksum SHA-512
9fac247017f093e96ce0e7354b6c539ed8681f8d01b10b718a9b5def44d8d58578394a289d79c884f5e219a4a8db72a0bf13be376221b7690ebdb28a061f5bbb
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences
Learning

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 79 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 65 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf