PROJECT PROPOSAL

Project Proposal
It is a highly persuasive and informative document that aims to address a particular
problem or issue. It is a bid or offer to initiate a project for an individual or a group. It
usually ranges from 1,000 to 2,500 words depending on the complexity of the project
being proposed.
A good project proposal specifies the following items:
 Goals and objectives that the project wants to accomplish
 Project plan that details how the set goals and objectives will be accomplished
 Financial, human (e.g. experts, consultants), and technical (e.g., equipment and
facilities) resources useful in implementing the project; and
 Budget that specifies how much money is needed and for what purpose it will be
spent
4 Types of Project Proposal
1. Solicited Internal
It is used when the target reader is within the organization. It responds to a specific
request within the organization. The problem has been identified within the organization
and the decision to solve it has been made.
2. Unsolicited Internal
It is used when the target reader is within the organization. It is a self-initiated proposal
that no one asked for. The target reader has not yet identified that a problem exists
within the organization; hence, no decision has been made to solve the problem.
3. Solicited External
It is used when the target reader is not within the organization. It responds to a specific
request from someone who is not within the company. The problem has been identified
and the decision to solve it has been made.
4. Unsolicited External
It is used when the target reader is not within the organization. It is a self-initiated
proposal that no one asked for. The target reader has not yet identified that a problem
exists; hence no decision has been made to solve the problem.
Parts of a Project Proposal:
1. Cover letter
 Introduces the proposal to the reader
 States the project proposal title, the date of the request for proposal (if solicited), the
general purpose and scope of the proposal, and an acknowledgment of the people
who have contributed to the completion of the proposal
 Includes the highlights of the proposal and directs the readers to these highlights

2. Title Page
 Includes the project title that is concise and informative
 Includes the lead organization, place and date of project, client’s or donor’s name,
proponent’s name and the department or organization he/she represents, and date
of submission

3. Abstract or Executive Summary

 Includes the objectives, the implementing organization, the major project activities,
and the total project cost
 Is usually composed of 200 to 500 words and highlights only the major points; some
abstracts may be longer depending on the culture of the funding agency
 Use a paragraph format

4. Context of the Proposal

 Describes the socio-economic, cultural, and political background in which the
proposal is situated
 Presents the data collected from other sources that are relevant to the planning
stage

5. Project Justification
 Provides a rationale for the project
 Includes a problem statement that specifies the problem addressed by the project
 Points out why the problem is an issue that requires immediate attention
 Specifies the target group’s needs that arise from the adverse effect of the described
problem
 Presents the approach or strategy that will be used to address the problem
 Describes the capability of the implementing organization or group by stating its
track record

6. Personnel Involved
 Lists the people involved in the project, their corresponding roles, and their summary
of qualifications
7. Project Implementation
 Is divided into an activity plan which specifies the schedule of activities and a
resource plan which specifies the items needed to implement the project
 Describes the activities and resource allocation in detail, as well as the person in
charge of executing the activities
 Indicates the time and place of activities

8. Budget
 Presents the expected income and expenses over a specified time period
 Itemizes the budget

9. Monitoring and Evaluation

 Specifies when and how the team will monitor the progress of the project
 Specifies the method for monitoring and evaluation
 Specifies the personnel in charge of monitoring and evaluation

10. Reporting Scheme

 Specifies the schedule for reporting the finances and progress of the project

11. Conclusion
 Briefly describes the project, the problem it addresses, and its benefits to all
stakeholders through a summary
 Directs the readers back to the good features of the project
 Urges the readers to contact the proponent to work out the details of the project
proposal

12. References
 Lists all the references used in drafting the project proposal using the format
required by the funding agency
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.

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.

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.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

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).

PERSONNEL

Proponents Roles Summary of Qualifications

Jess Blauta Lead Investigator  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
strategies
Lina Pedro Co-investigator  Completed PhD in Reading
 Served as a consultant for various literacy
programs
  Served as editor of Journal of Arts and
Sciences
 Served as co-investigator in various
international projects

Gina Mirasol Co-investigator  Completed PhD in Applied Linguistics

 Served as a consultant in various literacy
programs
 Published papers in top educational journals
 Served as co-investigator in various
international projects

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

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).

Participants

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.

Instruments

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.

Instrument Validation

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.

Procedure

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 post-conference 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).

Data Analysis

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

I. Workplan

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

II. Financial Plan

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.

Particulars Amount
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 (with implementers, instrument validators, & 8,500.00
 other personnel for 9 people x 10 meetings)
TOTAL Php 130,000.00

REPORTING SCHEME

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 MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG

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 SEPT OCT NOV DEC

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 JAN FEB MAR APR

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
MONITORING AND EVALUATION

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.

REPORTING

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

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

Dr. Roxas:

Greetings of peace and joy!

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.

Respectfully yours,

GINA MIRASOL, PhD

Head Researcher
APPENDIX B

LETTER FOR PERMISSION

National University
Manila, Metro Manila

16 March 2015

DR. GILDA V. CORES

Directress
Our Lady of Help School
Mandaluyong City

Dr. Cores:

Greetings of peace and joy!

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.

Respectfully yours,

GINA MIRASOL, PhD

Head Researcher
National University
APPENDIX C

COVER LETTER

National University Research Center

Manila, Metro Manila

16 March 2015

Participant:

Greetings of peace and joy!

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.

Respectfully yours,

JESS BALUTA, PhD

LINA PEDRO, PhD

GINA MIRASOL, PhD

Noted by:

DR. RACHEL EDITA ROXAS

Directress
Research and Innovation Office
National University
Subject: Reading and Writing
Grade and Section: Grade 11 – St. Gregory and St. Zita

ACTIVITY 1
Name:_____________________________ Grade &
Section:____________________

Directions: Read the given example of project proposal. Answer the following
questions given. Write it in a short bond paper. (by individual)

1. How does the project proposal begin?

2. What organization does the project proposal follow? How is it structured?

3. How would you describe the style and approach used to present ideas?

4. How are the supporting details presented? Are the explanations sufficient?

5. How would you describe the conclusion? How is it organized?

Subject: Reading and Writing
Grade and Section: Grade 11 – St. Gregory and St. Zita

ACTIVITY 2
Name:_____________________________ Grade &
Section:____________________

Directions: Think for a particular problem or issue either in your school or barangay
that need to address. Make a title of the project proposal and an abstract. Write in a
short bon paper. (by individual)

Example:

Improper Waste Disposal in Schools

(Title)

ABSTRACT

Inappropriate solid waste management practices in schools in less-

developed countries, particularly in major urban communities, constitute
one of the major factors leading to declining environmental health
conditions. The objective of the authors’ descriptive, cross-sectional
study was to assess solid waste management problems in selected urban
schools in Ibadan, Nigeria. Eight secondary schools with average pupil
populations not less than 500 per school were selected randomly. Four
hundred questionnaires (50 per school) were administered. In addition, an
observational checklist was used to assess the physical environment.
Paper and plastics were the most frequently generated wastes. Common
methods of solid waste disposal reported were use of dustbins for
collection and open burning. Major problems perceived with current
refuse disposal methods by the study students were odors, pest
infestation, and spillages. Littering and spillages of solid waste were also
common features reported. Data suggested inadequate waste
management facilities and practices in study schools. The lack of refuse
bins may have contributed to waste spillages and the burning practices.
Odors may have arisen from both the decay of overstored organic waste
rich in moisture and emissions from refuse burning. This scenario poses a
community environmental health nuisance and may compromise school
environmental quality.
Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26329269