USING SOCIOCOGNITIVE-TRANSFORMATIVE APPROACH IN DEVELOPING

STUDENTS' CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

A Proposal Paper Presented to the Faculty of the

Senior High School Department

Silliman University

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for

English for Academic and Professional Purposes

Jess Blauta

Lina Pedro

Gina Mirasol

June 2020
 Abstract

Despite the government’s thrust in improving the critical thinking skills of

students, it has been observed that tertiary students in Metro Manila still lack the
necessary critical thinking skills in performing academic requirements. Hence, the
National University Research Center submits this project proposal which seeks to
develop the critical thinking skills of tertiary students using a sociocognitive-
transformative approach. Specifically, this project aims to answer the following
questions: (1) Is there a significant improvement in the learners’ critical thinking skills
after implementing sociocognitive-transformative approach? (2) Is there a difference
between the critical thinking skills of treatment group and control group after
implementing sociocognitive-transformative approach? (3) How do learners perceive
sociocognitive-transformative approach in promoting their critical thinking
development? To address the posted questions, this study will use a pretest-posttest
quasi-experimental design which comprises of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking
Appraisal test, reflective logs, focus group discussions, and classroom observations. To
ensure the effective implementation of the project, monitoring and evaluation activities
will be conducted by field specialists.

Keywords: 21st century literacy, ESL writing, sociocognitive approach, transformative learning,
ESL pedagogy

Introduction

Second language (L2) writing pedagogy has been constantly experiencing

paradigm shifts. From the heydays of product approach, it has shifted to post-process
pedagogy (Trimbur, 1994). Currently, there are four approaches to teaching writing:
product approach, process approach, genre approach, and process genre approach.
While product approach focuses on what a final piece of writing will look like and
measures the product using vocabulary use, grammar, mechanics, content, and
organization as criteria (Brown, 1994), process approach takes into consideration the
recursive nature of the writing process through constant revision and feedback from
others. It also guides teachers to concentrate first on the content of the preliminary drafts
before they focus on the forms (Ashwell, 2000). However, some limitations have been
observed in the use of process approach. First, it views process as the same for all writers
regardless of what is being written and who is doing the writing. Second, it lacks
emphasis on the social context and purpose of the piece of writing (Badger & White,
2000), Hyland (2003) also argued that in the process approach, writing seems to be a
decontextualized skill and that learners are not able to notice how different texts are
distinct in relation to their purpose, audience, and message. Also, learners are not given
explicit teaching in the structure of different genres. Finally, the process approach lacks
engagement with the socio-political realities of learners’ everyday lives.

As a reaction to the problems encountered in process approach, genre approach

was introduced. It is an approach that emphasizes that writing and learning to write is a
social activity and that learning to write is needs-oriented, requires explicit outcomes and
expectations, and involves learning to use the language (Hyland, 2007, p. 152-153). It
allows the learners to explicitly understand the text structure and the reason for writing
a genre the way it is written. It also uses texts that learners need in a specific context.
Moreover, genre approach allows the learners to perceive the differences in the structure
and form and apply what they learn to their own writing. One major concern about using
this approach is it undervalues the processes needed to produce a text and sees learners
as largely passive (Badger & White, 2000).

From the weaknesses and strengths of all the three earlier approaches, the process
genre approach came into place (Tribble, 1996) and then expanded and operationalized
by Badger and White (2000). Process genre approach is a synthesis of product, process,
and genre approach which allows learners to study the relationship between purpose and
form for a particular genre as they use recursive writing processes. It also develops
learners’ awareness of different genres and of the composing processes. More
importantly, this approach is not limited to cognitive view but sees writing from a social
perspective as well which makes the act of writing public, interactive, and situated
(Matsuda, 2003). From this context, it can be posited that the process genre approach
takes its roots from post-process pedagogy in L2 writing.

Unfortunately, despite considerable efforts to transform L2 writing pedagogy

practices, there is still this dearth of integrating sociocultural, pragmatic, and
transformative aspects into the teaching and learning of writing. More importantly, the
available approaches also failed to provide learners the opportunities to explore and
practice 21st-century skills considering that many Asian learners are confident and
already globally prepared to maximize the opportunities that are available for them in
the 21st-century (Belchamber, 2007). These conventional approaches in writing pedagogy
also failed to put emphasis on developing the critical thinking skills of students. On this
note, this paper aims to use sociocognitive-transformative approach in developing the
critical thinking skills of tertiary students.

The sociocognitive-transformative approach takes a functional-interactional view

of language in which writing is treated as an activity to express meaning as well as build
and realize interpersonal relations and social transactions between interlocutors. It is an
offshoot of Sociocognitive-Transformative Model in ESL Pedagogy developed by Barrot
(2013) for his doctoral dissertation. The approach does not only aim to produce
communicatively competent learners but also to produce 21st century multiliterate
lifelong learners who are able to participate in and contribute to this knowledge-based
and global society for social transformation. By social transformation, it means “an
accumulative process, that is, a process in which insignificant changes accumulate
quantitatively until they become significant enough to generate qualitative changes in the
entire society” (Kirby, 2000, p.11).
 To actualize the approach into specific classroom practices, it was fused with
process-genre approach and reading-into-writing approach. This fusion was premised
on the assertions of Condon and Kelly-Riley (2004) that reading quality written texts and
writing about what students have read is the best way to learn to think and of Ramsay et
al. (2009) that students would benefit if they practice reading and writing in various
genres and text types. Scholars claim that learners can greatly benefit from linking
reading and writing especially in the context of process genre pedagogy. First, reading-
into-writing helps learners acquire the necessary discourse rules for writing (Tsai, 2006).
Second, it allows learners to practice and improve their ability to think critically and
analytically which is necessary for effective writing (Gocsik, 2007). Third, it provides
learners something to write about (Gocsik, 2007). Finally, it allows learners to recognize
the conventions (vocabulary, grammatical structures, and rhetorical features) of a
particular genre and use that understanding in their own writing (Mayo, 2000).

For the stated purposes, this paper seeks to investigate the effects of
sociocognitive-transformative approach on critical thinking skills of tertiary students.
Specifically, this paper aims to answer the following questions:

1. Is there a significant improvement in the learners’ critical thinking skills after

implementing sociocognitive-transformative approach?
2. Is there a significant difference between the critical thinking skills of the
treatment and control groups?
3. How do learners perceive sociocognitive-transformative approach in
promoting their critical thinking skills development?

This study will attempt to test the effectiveness of sociocognitive-transformative

approach in promoting the critical thinking development of the learners. Though the
course is focused on academic writing, this study will primarily focus only on learners’
critical thinking skills and disposition as a component of 21st-century literacy of tertiary
students at selected universities in Metro Manila. The study will be conducted at the
National University Research Center (NURC) which houses some of the top educational
researchers who specialize in critical thinking skills. NURC has a track record in
conducting educational researches that focus on developing the cognitive skills of
students. Some of these projects were backed by some of the biggest funding agencies.

Method

The present study will use a quasi-experimental nonrandomized control group

pretest-posttest design where participants are not randomly assigned to groups. With
this research design, all conditions are the same for both the control and treatment groups
only that the treatment group is exposed to treatment (i.e., sociocognitive-transformative
approach). One reason for using the nonrandomized control group pretest-posttest
design was to reduce the reactive effects on the participants of the experimental
procedure (Dimitrov & Rumrili, 2003).
 The participants of this study will be 1,000 learners who are enrolled in English
Communication Arts 1 at selected universities in Metro Manila, The participants, whose
age range would be from 16 to 19, will be assigned to two different intact groups: 500 will
be assigned to the control and the other 500 will be assigned to the treatment group.

Similarly, 36 (18 for the treatment group; 18 for the control group) teachers will be
asked to participate in the study. These teacher-participants will come from different
levels of teaching experience: novice, intermediate, experienced (Stemmans & Gangstead,
2002). Novice language teachers will be defined as having less than one year of teaching
English 1. Intermediate teachers will be defined as having 1 to 4 years of teaching English
1. Experienced teachers will be defined as having 5 or more years of teaching English 1.

To answer the research questions, this study will use multiple instruments in
gathering data. Specifically, this study will use Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking
Appraisal, focus group discussion, reflective logs, and observation. This
multicomponential approach to data gathering will be used to obtain a full picture of
what is being investigated (Mackey & Gass, 2006).

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking

Appraisal (WGCTA) is a multiple-choice test to measure the critical thinking skills of
respondents (factor loading-0.59) (Watson & Glaser, 1994). WGCTA is one of the most
widely used critical thinking tests (Ku, 2009). It includes items that are classified into five
critical thinking subscales: inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction,
interpretation, and evaluation of arguments. It contains 40 items that can be administered
in 30 to 45 minutes. The average reliability coefficient is 0.47 (Bernard, Zhang, Abrami,
Sicoly, Borokhovski, & Surkest 2008). In interpreting the scores obtained in the test, a
percentile score of 0 to 39 is considered below average. A score of 40 to 69 is considered
average while 70 to 100 is considered above average.

Reflection Journal. Reflection journal will be used to document their learning

experience during the implementation of sociocognitive-transformative approach.
According to Chan (2009), reflective journal is an effective method in exploring the
learners’ feelings and opinions about the course. Further, a reflective journal is a good
tool in documenting personal insights, experiences, and emotions during the learning
experience (Hiemstra, 2001). Moreover, it allows to document the learners’ perception of
their learning experiences and opportunities (Williams & Wessel, 2004).

In the context of the present study, reflection journal will be accomplished by

students once a week from week 2 to 13 of the current term. This task will be done at
home with no time limit and no specific length in terms of number of words. However,
each entry should address the guide questions which relate to teaching, learning, and
learner.

Semi-structured Interview. Semi-structured interview uses predetermined

questions or topics/issues that allow elaborations and is the most favored method among
researchers working within an interpretative research. Further, semi-structured
interview provides flexibility to both the interviewer and interviewee and gives a degree
of power and control to the interviewee (Nunan, 1991). Hence will be used when
collecting data from the student-participants. Student-participants will be interviewed by
the implementers via focus group discussion (FGD). This in-depth probing their
experience will provide supplemental information obtained from classroom observation,
critical thinking test, and reflection logs.

The FGD will be done to have an in-depth probing on the student-participants’

beliefs, attitudes, feelings, experiences, and reactions (Gibbs, 1997) on using
sociocognitive-transformative approach in developing their 21st-century skills. Hence,
the participant-implementers will be oriented on the guidelines in conducting the FGD
and will be given a list of guide questions to ask during the FGD.

Classroom Observation. As part of data validation, classroom observation will be

performed by the researcher at least thrice in a term for each of the classes of the
participant-implementers. It will be done to record the implementation of the approach,
classroom interaction, and students’ reactions. A checklist will be used for the purpose of
conducting observation.

The validation of instruments will undergo two phases: validation by experts and
piloting. Three experts, who all have more than a decade of teaching and research
experience, will perform both the content and face validation. This is to make sure that
the instruments will elicit data related to the research questions at hand and that their
directions and statements are clear and free from linguistic lapses.

Prior to the main study, the instruments will be prepared, validated and piloted.
Similarly, a piloting on the execution of the lessons using sociocognitive-transformative
approach will be undertaken. This will involve the selected participant-implementers.
Piloting will be conducted to train the participant-implementers on how they will execute
the approach in classroom setting to develop the critical thinking skills of students. Along
with this piloting, the participant-implementers will be observed by the researcher using
observation checklist. This will be done twice during the piloting term. Afterwards, there
will be a postconference with the participant-implementers to provide them formative
feedback to ensure that they will fully implement the approach in their respective
classrooms during the actual implementation.

Once piloting is done, the actual study will follow. A total of IMO students and 36
teachers will participate in the actual study. The student-participants will be divided into
two groups: treatment group (n=500) and control group (n=500). Similarly, participant-
implementers will be divided into two groups: treatment group (n=18) and control group
(n=18). During the first two weeks of the term, pretest in critical thinking skills will be
administered. Students will also be oriented on how they will complete their reflective
journal. During the course of implementation, classes will also be observed for two
purposes: (1) to ensure that the approach is executed properly and (2) to record the
responses of the teachers and students in the approach. Observations will be done thrice;
that is, on the 4th, 8th and 12th week of the term. During the last week of the term, posttest
in critical thinking skills will be administered as well as the focus group discussion. The
reflective journals of students will also be collected during this period.

As regards the procedure for the implementation of intervention at lesson level,

each lesson will begin with stipulating the learning objectives which focus on knowledge,
reading and writing skills, 21st-century skills, social awareness and participation, and
reflection. This is followed by a diagnostic task which aims to engage learners, activate
their schema, and diagnose their weaknesses. After completing the diagnostic task,
learners will be asked to do self-assessment and misconception analysis. At this junction,
the one important component of transformative learning is incorporated; that is,
understanding their own misconception and practicing reflection. Only after completing
this will providing input begin. It is followed by series of skill-based and authentic tasks.
These tasks are accompanied by rubric for performance assessment. The whole process
will end with reflection on the learnings the students will have after the execution of the
lesson. In the case of teaching writing, the writing process begins with preparation which
allows students to situate the writing task. It is followed by modeling and reinforcing
(i.e., providing students model texts with their structure and their organization in relation
to accomplishing certain purpose), planning (i.e., activating students’ schema and
interest), group construction (i.e., allowing teacher-student and student-student
collaboration in practicing the writing of the target text), independent construction (i.e.,
allowing students to work on their own paper independently) with revision processes,
and publishing (i.e., allowing students to showcase their output via ICT).

This study will use t-test in determining the significant difference between the
learners’ critical thinking skills and disposition during pretest and posttest. As for the
qualitative data, the coding scheme will include (1) initial coding: identification of
subcategories, concurrent data collection, and constant comparative analysis; (2)
intermediate coding: identification of fully developed individual categories and core
categories; and (3) advanced coding. During initial coding, relevant terms/codes will be
identified and labeled accordingly. Then, related terms/codes will be categorized. After
initial coding and identifying subcategories, concurrent data collection will follow. To do
this, more data from the entries will be collected, labeled, and categorized with initially
purposive samples. While analyzing additional data, categories will be explained as to
their properties and dimensions. This progressive data collection (i.e., continuous
interplay between analysis and data collection) will allow the researchers to further shape
and enhance the initially coded data. In the process of concurrent data collection and
analysis, intermediate coding will begin. This phase will be performed using axial coding;
that is, linking the subcategories to produce fully developed individual categories and
then linking these individual categories together through inductive and deductive
thinking to produce a core category. Unlike initial coding, data during intermediate
coding will be reconnected particularly those that are conceptually related.
 Resource Plan

The duration of the entire project will be within the academic year 2016-2017. The
number of hours per week proponent(s) that is expected to work on the project will be 15
hours per week. Below is a matrix that highlights the names of the proponents, their
corresponding roles, and expected tasks and duties.

Proponents Roles Summary of Qualifications

Jess Blauta Lead  researching and writing additional RRL
investigator  sending communications/ requests to participant-
implementers
 preparing research instruments (observation
checklist, self-report questionnaire, interview
guide, pretest and posttest)
 validating research instruments
 revising research instruments
 approval of research instruments by instrument
validators
 orienting and training the participant-
implementers
 pilot-testing instruments and the approach in
classroom setting
 observing classes
 conference with the implementers
Lina Pedro Co-investigator  implementing the approach in classroom setting
 administering pretest in writing and self-report
questionnaire
 observing classes
 administering posttest in reading and writing and
self-report questionnaire
 interviewing the participant-students via FGD (by
the implementers)
 interviewing the participant-implementers (by the
researcher)
Gina Co-investigator  transcribing and encoding of interview data
Mirasol  tabulating and analyzing pretest and posttest
results and self-report questionnaire
 writing of the analysis, interpretation,
presentation, and discussion
 reviewing the analysis, interpretation,
presentation, and discussion; Report writing
 revising the analysis, interpretation, presentation,
and discussion
 writing the introduction and methodology
  writing the summary, conclusions, and
recommendations
 writing the final report and consolidating the full
paper for expert evaluation
 evaluating the entire paper
 revising and finalizing the paper
 submitting the revised final paper for publication

The following listing is the itemized budget plan for the proposed project. It
includes the honoraria for the personnel, implementers, instrument validators,
evaluators, and statistician, and the budget for the maintenance and other operating
expenses.

A. Personnel:
1 Transcriber - 12 x P2,500 (3 hours) 30,000.00
3 Field Evaluation Specialists 30,000.00

B. Materials and Supplies:

Bond paper (short) — 10 reams @ Php 200 2,000.00
Bond paper (long) — 10 reams @ Php 200 2,000.00
Computer ink (BCI 830, black) 10 units @ Php 840 8,400.00
Miscellaneous (Pens, Pencil, Folder, CDs rewritable) 1,850.00
USB flash drive — 2 units @ Php 500 1,000.00
Textbook for implementers - 6 @ Php 500 3,000.00
NB: Computer ink will be used for all
correspondences, reports, materials reparation,
and instruments.

C. Research-related Travel and Transportation:

Travel and Transportation (within Metro Manila) 5,000.00

D. Materials Reproduction:
Reference materials 2,000 copies @ Php 0.75 1,500.00
Correspondences/papers for evaluators (2,000 x @ Php 0.75) 1,500.00
Questionnaire and other instruments – (6,000 x @ Php 0.75) 5,250.00
Lessons — 3,000 copies @ Php 0.75 2,250.00
Final reports — 1,000 copies @ Php 0.75 750.00

E. Implementers, Validators, Evaluator, Statistician, and Meetings:

Implementers’ fee — 6 @ Php 3,000 18,000.00
Instrument validators — 3 tokens @ Php 1,000 each 3,000.00
Statistician 3,000.00
Evaluator’s fee - 1 @ Php 3,000 3,000.00
 Meetings 8,500.00
(with implementers, instrument validators, &
other personnel for 9 people x 10 meetings)

TOTAL Php 130,000.00

The order of tasks and activities to be accomplished are presented in a Gantt chart.
The project is divided into three phases: the planning and pilot-testing phase, actual
experiment phase, and data analysis and writing phase. The actual implementation of the
project, which begins with the first phase, will commence in March 2016. The final and
revised research report is expected to be turned in by the end of April 2017. The point-
persons for each phase and/or project tasks are found in the Personnel matrix.

Phase 1: Planning and Pilot-testing

Activity March April May June July August

Researching and
writing
additional RRL
Sending
communications/
requests to
participant-
implementers
Preparing
research
instruments
(observation
checklist, self-
report
questionnaire,
interview guide,
pretest and
posttest)
Validating
research
instruments
Revising research
instruments
Approval of
research
instruments by
instrument
validators
Orienting and
training the
participant-
implementers
Pilot-testing
instruments and
the approach in
classroom setting
Observing classes

Conference with
the implementers

Phase 2: Actual Experiment

Activity September October November December

Implementing the
approach in classroom
setting
Administering pretest in
writing and self-report
questionnaire
Observing classes

Administering posttest
in reading and writing
and self-report
questionnaire
Interviewing the
participant-students via
FGD (by the
implementers)
Interviewing the
participant-
implementers (by the
researcher)

Phase 3: Data Analysis and Writing

Activity January February March April

Transcribing and
encoding of interview
data
 Tabulating and
analyzing pretest and
posttest results and self-
report questionnaire
Writing of the analysis,
interpretation,
presentation, and
discussion
Reviewing the analysis,
interpretation,
presentation, and
discussion; Report
writing
Revising the analysis,
interpretation,
presentation, and
discussion
Writing the introduction
and methodology
Writing the summary,
conclusions, and
recommendations
Writing the final report
and consolidating the
full paper for expert
evaluation
Evaluating the entire
paper
Revising and finalizing
the paper
Submitting the revised
final paper for
publication

Three field evaluation specialists will observe classes to ensure that the project is
effectively implemented. This will be done at the end of each month from September to
November using the approved observation checklist. The classes to be observed will be
selected using random sampling.

The project status and finances will be reported by the end of each phase. The
project status will detail the completed tasks, ongoing tasks, and plans while the financial
report will specify the used and remaining budget.
 Conclusion

Various reports have proven that tertiary students in Metro Manila have
deteriorating critical thinking skills. To this end, this project was proposed to develop the
students’ critical thinking skills using the sociocognitive-transformative approach. The
findings of this study will prove useful to curriculum developers who will gain an
increased knowledge base for curriculum development. The findings will also help
teachers expand their repertoire of techniques and best practices to help learners improve
their critical thinking skills for their social futures. The approach with its informative
rather than prescriptive stance will enhance the teachers’ creativity as they adapt the
approach to their own specific learning contexts. As for the policy makers, the findings
will help them recommend educational policies that will further promote 21st-century
literacy.

References

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft

composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best
method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227—25.

Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitve approach to second language acquisition.

Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 525—545.

Barrot, J. (2013). A macro perspective on key issues in English as second language (ESL)
pedagogy in the postmethod era: Confronting challenges through sociocognitive-
transformative approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, Published online
September 2013, DOI 10.1007/540299-013-0119-4

Belchamber, R. (2007). Overcoming Asian stereotypes: Opportunities for enhancing

learner participation in Chinese ELT classes. Reflections on English language
teaching, 6(2), 59-63.

Bernard, R. M., Zhang, D., Abrami, P. C., Sicoly, E., Borokhovski, E., & Surkes, M. A.
(2008). Exploring the structure of the Watson—Glaser Critical Thinking
Appraisal: One scale or many subscales?. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(1), 15-22.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.

USA: Prentice Hall.

Chan, C. (2009). Assessment: Reflective journal. Assessment Resources. University of

Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://ar.cetl.hku.hk.

Condon, W, & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The
relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities. Assessing
Writing, 9, 56-75.
Dati B. (2008), ELT materials used in Southeast Asia. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.). English
language learning materials (pp. 263-280). London: Continuum International
Publishing.

Dimitrov, D., & Rumrill, P. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change.
Work, 20, 159-165.

Goscik, K. (2007). Integrating reading and writing. Retrieved from

http://wwwdartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/faculty/methods/integrating.
html

Hiemstra, R. (2001). Uses and benefits of journal writing. In L. M. English & M. A.

Gillen, (Eds.), Promoting Journal Writing in Adult Education (New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, No. 90, pp 19-26) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 12, 17—29.

Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy, and L2 writing instruction.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148—164.

Kirby, W. (Ed). (2000). Social transformation in modem China: The state and local elites in
Henan, 1900—1937. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mackey, R., & Gass, S. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction
research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28, 169—178.

Matsuda, P. (2003). Process and post-process: A discursive history. Journal of Second

Language Writing 12, 65-83.

Mayo, L. (2000). Making the connection: Reading and writing together. The English
Journal, 89(4), 74-77.

Nunan, D. (1991). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University

Rarnsay, P., et al. (2009). Blooming with the pouis: Critical thinking, reading and writing
across the curriculum. Miami, Florida: Ian Randle.

Stemmans, C., & Gangstead, S. (2002). Athletic training students initiate behaviors less
frequently when supervised by novice clinical instructors. Journal of Athletic
Training, 37(4 suppl.), S255-S260.

Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Trimbur, J. (1994). Taking the social turn: Teaching writing post-process. College
Composition and Communication, 45, 108—118.
Tsai, J. (2006). Connecting reading and writing in college EFL courses. The Internet TESL
Journal, 12(12). Retrieved from http:ffiteslj.org/ArticlesÃsai-
ReadingWritingConnection.html

Watson, G. & Glaser E. M. (1994). Watson—Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Manual. The
Psychologic Corporation: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc, San Antonio.

Williams, R. & Wessel, J. (2004). Reflective journal writing to obtain student feedback
about their learning during the study of chronic musculoskeletal conditions.
Journal of Allied Health, 33(1), 17-23.
 APPENDIX A
CURRICULUM VITAE

GINA MIRASOL, PhD

Faculty, Department of English and Speech Arts
College of Arts and Letters
National University
Professional Overview
An author, trainer, researcher, and teacher by profession. She holds a master’s degree in teaching
English and a doctorate in applied linguistics, and has taught English courses at some of the top
universities in the Philippines. Extensive expertise in English language teaching, language
curriculum development, and corpus linguistics, serving as consultant in various reputable
institutions including the National Foreign Language Center – University of Maryland, the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in partnership with the
Department of Education, and the National University of the Philippines.
Core Qualifications
 expert in applied linguistics, English language teaching, pragmatics, corpus linguistics,
language curriculum development
 completed PhD in reading and literacy
 served as a consultant for Reading Literacy Association, USA
 served as a principal investigator in various international projects
 published papers in top international journals
 authored textbooks in reading and language
Education
 PhD in reading and literacy
University of the Philippines Dilliman
Thesis Title: Reading Comprehension Component Processes in Early Adolescence
 MA in Teaching English as a Second Language
University of the Philippines Dilliman
 Secondary English Education
National University of the Philippines
Magna cum laude
Experience
 Professor of Applied Linguistics
Department of English and Speech Arts
College of Arts and Letters
National University of the Philippines
2015 – present
 Associate Professor for Language Research
Teacher Education Department
College of Education
Lyceum of the Philippines
2010 – 2015
Membership
 Linguistic Society of the Philippines, Inc.
 APPENDIX B
COVER LETTER OF THE PROPOSAL

National University
Manila, Metro Manila

16 March 2015

DR. RACHEL EDITA ROXAS

Directress
Research and Innovation Office
National University
Manila, Metro Manila

Dear Dr. Roxas,

Cognizant of the cognitive demands of writing, Dr. Jess Blauta, Dr. Lina Pedro, and I
decided to test the effectiveness of sociocognitive-transformative approach in promoting
the critical thinking development of the learners. Specifically, we want to examine how
English Communication Arts 1 students’ critical thinking skills and disposition as a
component of 21st-century literacy of tertiary students at selected universities in Metro
Manila. We are hoping that by doing this, we will have some basis to design some
activities that may heighten students’ motivation to write. The National University
Research Center has given us the budget to pursue this project.

In line with this and on behalf of our research team, I would like to submit our proposal
to your office for funding. Moreover, we would like to that our submission be evaluated
for approval by the peer reviewers. We assure you that the highest ethical standards will
be observed in all the phases of data collection.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

GINA MIRASOL, PhD

Head Researcher
 APPENDIX C
LETTER FOR PERMISSION

National University
Manila, Metro Manila

16 March 2015

DR. GILDA V. CORES

Directress
Our Lady of Help School
Mandaluyong City

Dear Dr. Cores,

Cognizant of the cognitive demands of writing, Dr. Jess Blauta, Dr. Lina Pedro, and I
decided to test the effectiveness of sociocognitive-transformative approach in promoting
the critical thinking development of the learners. Specifically, we want to examine how
English Communication Arts 1 students’ critical thinking skills and disposition as a
component of 21st-century literacy of tertiary students at selected universities in Metro
Manila. We are hoping that by doing this, we will have some basis to design some
activities that may heighten students’ motivation to write. The National University
Research Center has given us the budget to pursue this project.

In line with this and on behalf of our research team, I would like to request that you
allow us to collect the necessary data from ECA 1 students and teachers. With your
permission, we would approach and request help from ECA 1 teachers to distribute our
questionnaire to students and to gain access to three writing tasks of the students,
which we will independently rate. We assure you that the highest ethical standards will
be observed in all the phases of data collection.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

GINA MIRASOL, PhD

Head Researcher
National University
 APPENDIX D
COVER LETTER

National University Research Center

Manila, Metro Manila

16 March 2015

Dear Participant,

We are currently conducting a study that attempts to examine how English

Communication Arts 1 students’ critical thinking skills and disposition as a component
of 21st-century literacy of tertiary students at selected universities in Metro Manila. We
have purposely chosen you to be among the participants for this research.

In line with this, we would like to ask for your cooperation and leisure time to answer
the questionnaire and participate in the focus group discussion. Your inputs and ideas
will significantly assist us in the completion of the study. We assure you that everything
you have answered will be kept with the utmost confidentiality and exclusively used for
the study’s purpose.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

Jess Blauta, PhD

Lina Pedro, PhD

Gina Mirasol, PhD

Noted by:

DR. RACHEL EDITA ROXAS

Directress
Research and Innovation Office
National University
 APPENDIX E
RESEARCH INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Title
This study is titled Using Sociocognitive-Transformative Approach in Developing Students’ Critical
Thinking Skills in partial fulfillment of the requirements for English for Academic and Professional
Purposes (EAPP).

Researcher
This study is to be conducted by Jess Blauta, PhD, Lina Pedro, PhD, and Gina Mirasol, PhD who are college
professors and researchers in National University, with John C. Rubio as the NU Research Center director.
The researchers can be contacted through this mobile number 0915******* or email address
jessblauta@nu.edu.ph.

Purposes of the Research

This study aims to find out the following: test the effectiveness of sociocognitive-transformative approach
in promoting the critical thinking development of the learners.

Description of the Research

This study is concentrated on examining how English Communication Arts 1 students’ critical thinking
skills and disposition as a component of 21st-century literacy of tertiary students at selected universities in
Metro Manila.

Potential Benefits
This study will benefit the English Communication Arts 1 students, instructors, program staff, and the
College of Arts and Sciences in terms of providing pedagogical implications that will enhance the teaching
and learning processes in the English Communication Arts Program.

Confidentiality
In the conduct of the study, full confidentiality will be assured. No information that discloses your identity
will be released or published without your specific consent to the disclosure and only imperatively
necessary.

Storage and Disposal of Data

The materials that contained the raw information derived from you will be destroyed after data processing
within a given period.

Publication
The results of this study may be published in any form for public and scholarly consumption or used in
classroom instruction to enrich learning and generate more knowledge for future research.

Participation
Your participation in this study must be voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw if you feel
uncomfortable in the process of gathering information from you.

Informed Consent
Given the information above, I confirm that the potential harms, benefits and alternatives have been
explained to me. I have read and understood this consent form, and I understand that I am free to withdraw
from my involvement in the study any time I deem it to be necessary or to seek clarifications for any unclear
steps in the research process. My signature indicates my willingness to participate in the study.
_____________________________________________ ___________________
Printed Name and Signature of the Research Participant Date
 APPENDIX F
WATSON-GLASER CRITICAL THINKING APPRAISAL

I. PERSONAL PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

Instruction: For each item, please write the needed information on the space
provided.

Name: _____________________________________ Nationality: __________________

II. WGCTA QUESTIONNAIRE

Direction: You will find statements about learning English. Please read each
statement carefully and rate 33 statements. Put a check mark on the scale of your
choice.

SCALE
STATEMENT Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
1. I never feel quite sure of myself when I
am speaking in my English language
class.
2. I worry about making mistakes in English
language class.
3. I tremble when I know that I’m going to
be called on in English language class.
4. It frightens me when I don’t understand
what the teacher is saying in the English
language.
5. It bothers me to take more English
language classes.
6. During English language class, I find
myself thinking about things that have
nothing to do with the course.
7. I keep thinking that the other students are
better at languages than I am.
8. I am not at ease during tests in my
English language class.
9. I start to panic when I have to speak
without preparation in English language
class.
10. I worry about the consequences of failing
my English language class.
11. I understand why some people get so
upset over English language classes.
 APPENDIX G
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE

Guide Questions:

1. How do you find your ECA 1 classes? How do you feel when you’re having your
ECA 1 classes?
2. What activities do you do in your ECA 1 classes? What do you feel when your
teachers ask you to do these activities?
3. How confident are you when speaking in your ECA 1 class? Why do you feel
that way?
4. Was there any instance in your class when you felt nervous or tense?
5. Do you like when your teachers give exams? Why?
6. How do you prepare for the test? How do you feel before the exam?
7. Which one are you more comfortable taking? Written exams or Performances?
8. What is it in test-taking that makes you feel nervous? If you were to rate your
nervousness before taking exams from 1-10, how would you rate it?
9. Are you worried of failing in your ECA 1 class?
10. Do you feel conscious when you speak in front of the class? Do you compare
your performance in class with others?
11. Can you recall an instance where you got upset or discouraged of your
performance?
12. Overall, how would you describe your experience in the program?