European Journal of English Language Teaching
ISSN: 2501-7136
ISSN-L: 2501-7136
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.438720
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT: THE
CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND
EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh1i,
Azam Vahidian Pour2,
Akram Hosseini
Assistant Professor, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran
1
MA in TEFL, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran
2
EFL Instructor, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran
3
Abstract:
The pivotal undertaking of education today is to endow individuals with the capacity to
be able to think flexibly, reason rationally, and have open minds to be able to evaluate
and interpret situations. In line with the studies demonstrating the positive relationship
between higher-order thinking skills and academic achievement, this study aimed to
particularly examine the impact of the two subcomponents of critical thinking, i.e.,
inference-making and evaluation of arguments on academic IELTS candidates' reading
achievements. To achieve the purpose of the study, one hundred and seven IELTS
candidates (from different institutes in Mashhad, a city in north of Iran) were asked to
complete two tests of the Persian version of the Watson-Glaser's Critical Thinking
‚ppraisal after being administered an IELTS reading comprehension test. The results
showed that there is a positive relationship between IETLS reading score and EFL
learners' inference-making and evaluation of argument. Subsequent data analyses
demonstrated that among the two variables, inference making is the more powerful
predictor of IELTS reading achievement. In addition, the results revealed that the two
mentioned variables can predict about 10 percent of IELTS reading achievement. This
study has some implications for educators and administrators to take full advantage of
these associations by establishing guiding principles for enhancing IELTS candidates'
inference-making and evaluation of arguments.
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
© 2015 – 2017 Open Access Publishing Group
1
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
Keywords: inference-making; evaluation of arguments; IELTS candidates; IELTS
reading comprehension
1.
Introduction
In the academic context, a high premium is placed on students capability to extend
their knowledge beyond what is learnt in their university classroom context. To thrive
for this objective, students need to read to learn (McClellan, 1997). They must use an
appropriate combination of the skills and strategies that are required for the different
purposes of reading in tertiary level. Enright et al (2000) asserted that this will involve
processing beyond the level of searching for information and basic comprehension of
main ideas in a text and require an understanding of how information in a text as a
whole is connected, and how to integrate information from across a variety of texts for
use in written assignments or exam essays. ‛eck
without reasoning
p.
. ‚lso, Waters
stated that there is no reading
contended that critical thinking
activities can equip learners with instruments which help them stay with or go
beyond the information presented in a text. It is plausibly believed that higher-order
thinking skills can improve higher order learning skills contributing to academic
success (Renner, 1996).
The most important aim of education today is to provide individuals with the
capacity to be able to think flexibly and have open minds to be able to adapt to different
situations. Consequently the structure of education, the content, and presentation
methods should focus on the development of high level thinking skills, such as
formulating analysis, synthesis, evaluation, finding relationships, summarizing
subjects, and having students make connections with the world outside the classroom
Seferoglu & ‚kbıyık,
‛erber et al.,
. ‚kyuz and Samsa
stated that to
teach students critical thinking skills is the aim of higher education. They believed that
one of the greatest experiences for students in higher education is to think critically and
to challenge other students ideas with those of their own. They contended that one of
the greatest experiences for students in higher education is to think critically and to
challenge other students ideas with those of their own. Thinking skills are crucial for
educated persons and by these skills, they can cope with a rapidly changing world and
deal with reality in a reasonable and independent manner.
Moon (2008) asserted that critical thinking has a significant role in higher
education and the professions. It can be considered as a core of higher education and as
a fundamental goal of learning. She believed that if critical thinking is clearly expressed
in higher education, then students who are achieving those levels of qualification will
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
2
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
be critical thinkers. In a similar vein, Ghanizadeh (2016) contended that academic
success in higher education is associated with cultivating thinking skills and selfregulatory abilities.
Scholars advocating higher-order thinking skill believe that it is a thought
process which is sensitive to problem interference, knowledge deficits, missing
elements, and inconsistency.. Critical thinking can be defined as reflective thinking and
includes high level thinking processes in which basic thinking skills are used,
arguments are analyzed, meaning and interpretation are developed, logical thinking
patterns are cultivated, theories that encircle claims and prejudices are understood, and
an attitude that is reliable, unique, and believable is developed (Horng et al 2007;
Edwards 2007).
Critical thinking is recognized as an important competence for students to
acquire in academic settings (Connolly, 2000; Davidson, 1998; Davidson & Dunham,
1997). Kress (1985) further postulated that critical thinking is a social practice and is
language itself. Maybe even more than L1 teachers, L2 teachers have reasons to
introduce their students to aspects of critical thinking because if they do not, their
students may well founder when they are confronted with the necessity of thinking
critically, especially in an academic setting (Davidson, 1998; Ghanizadeh, 2011;
Hashemi & Ghanizadeh, 2012; Ghanizadeh & Mirzaee, 2012).
Reviewing the literature, we will understand that the relationship between CT
and reading comprehension is well established. Reading comprehension encompasses
the ability to not only read the lines but also the reading between the lines. This entails
enhancing higher-order thinking skills. To do so, students must go beyond absorbing
knowledge and learn to heighten skills to judge information, evaluate alternative
evidence and argue with tenable reasons (Ku, 2009). In other words, if we expect
educational systems to prepare people for life, educators need to place a premium on
enhancing monitoring and self-regulatory skills in learners.
The researchers of the present study assume that inference-making and
evaluation of arguments are among the strategies which can foster learning and hence
reading. Reading critically, thus, plays an important role in students success in courses
they undertake. To read critically, language learners should be given the chance to go
through the text and focus on the author s assumptions, viewpoints, purposes, and
ideology (Khabiri & Pakzad, 2012). For reading effectively, the readers require to read
with critical eyes which means that the reader should try to evaluate and read the text
to find out what it says, and how and why it says it. Therefore, improving students
critical thinking seems to be one of the key issues in enhancing foreign language
reading.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
3
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
Diverse approaches to the study of critical thinking have led to various
definitions and roles of critical thinking and the interchangeable use of the terms
reflective thinking, higher-order thinking, or critical reflection in the literature (Ertmer
& Newby, 1996; Grimmett, 1988; Moon, 1999; Rogers, 2002). According to Paul and
Elder (2001), critical thinking is self- disciplined, self-monitored, self-directed, and selfcorrective thinking that typically require effective communication and problem-solving
abilities.
The major aim of the present study is to examine the role of two components of
critical thinking in the IELTS candidates' reading achievements. In the followings,
research on critical thinking and reading comprehension are briefly reviewed.
2. Review of the Related Literature
2.1. Critical Thinking
It is widely recognized that the development of critical thinking can be beneficial for
both the individual student and the society (Ghanizadeh & Moafian, 2011). In an
information society, critical thinking is regarded as the most important skill in order to
distinguish false, incomplete, outdated, etc., information. It is also universally accepted
that the development of critical thinking skills is the ultimate goal of education. This,
according to ‛ernard et al., includes …not only thinking about important problems in
disciplinary areas, but also thinking about the social, political, and ethical challenges of everyday
life in a multi-faceted and increasingly complex world
, p.
.
As the researchers of the present study applied the Watson–Glaser Critical
Thinking Appraisal (2002a) for determining the critical thinking abilities of the
participants who took part in the research, the definition formulated by the authors of
the instrument constitutes the focus of this research. Watson and Glaser (2002b, pp. 21–
23) distinguished between the following abilities:
Inferences drawn from factual statements,
interpreting whether conclusions are warranted or not,
Recognition of assumptions in a series of statements,
determine if conclusions follow from information in given statements,
evaluating arguments as being strong and relevant or weak and irrelevant.
2.2 Reading Comprehension
As far as teaching English as a foreign language is concerned, the ability to read
between the lines is a challenging task for the students. Cook (1991) regarded reading
primarily as a thinking process and highlighted the importance of engaging the
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
4
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
students in talking about the text they read while using reading strategies. Sweet and
Snow (2002) asserted that the purpose of reading comprehension is to construct
meaning from the contexts (Sweet & Snow, 2002).
Colin (1993) noted that in order to understand the text and facilitate complex
interaction, learners need to be critical thinkers; that is, to learn to value their own
thinking, to compare their thinking and interpretations with others, to reexamine or
reject the parts of the process in which they value their thinking and interpretations and
to compare them with others when it is necessary.
Different studies in the area of reading and reading comprehension suggest that
learners spontaneously use a variety of reading strategies in the reading process to
assist them with the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information (Zhang, 1993;
Singhal, 2001). Research has also indicated that effective EFL/ESL readers use a variety
of appropriate strategies (Shang, 2011), on the other hand, literature suggests that
appropriate reading strategies may improve reading comprehension (Zhang, 1993).
2.3 Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between IELTS candidates'
achievement in Academic IELTS reading test and two components of critical (thinking
inference-making and evaluation of arguments) as measured through Watson–Glaser
Critical Thinking Appraisal (2002a). To achieve the purpose of this study, the following
research questions were posed and investigated in the present study:
1) Is there any relationship between IELTS candidates' inference making and their
achievement in academic IELTS reading?
2) Is there any relationship between IELTS candidates' evaluation of arguments and
their achievement in academic IELTS reading?
3) What percentage of variability in IELTS candidates' achievement in academic
IELTS reading can be accounted for by taking their inference making and
inference making?
The study can offer both IELTS teachers and candidates' insights to improve
some of their abilities they need to surpass in this regard. With verifying the effects of
critical thinking on the achievement of IELTS candidates and finding out which
component of CT, whether inference making and evaluation of arguments can best
predict the achievement, we can put forward effective and practical guidelines for
developing metacognitive reading strategies.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
5
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
3. Method
3.1. Participants
The participants of this study comprised 107 IELTS candidates from different institutes
in Mashhad – Iran. Participants were chosen from advanced and upper-intermediate
proficiency levels. The participants were of different social backgrounds. Their ages
ranged between 18 and 43. They had different majors in high school or university. Some
of them were just students, some of them were students with part-time or full-time jobs
and some just worked. 33 percent of the subjects who took part in this study were male
and the 67 percent were female. All the subjects who took part in this study were
volunteers, and there was no obligation for participation. The participants were
informed of the purpose of the study and could choose to take part in it or not.
3.2. Instruments
The present study utilized two instruments in the process of data collection as follows:
1. The reading comprehension section of the 2015 academic IELTS test.
2. The Watson and Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A.
3.2.1. The 2015 Academic IELTS Test:
The IELTS was established as a result of the ELTS validation project. ELTS itself was set
up in 1979/80 as the British Council's English proficiency measure of overseas students'
adequacy in English to pursue higher education in the UK. According to Davis (2001):
Between 1982 and 1986, a validation study of ELTS was carried out, culminating in a
formal seminar in October 1986, where the main findings were presented. The report on
the validation study (Criper & Davies, 1988) recommended serious revision which in
due course led to the development of IELTS (p. 140).
IELTS has the same role in the UK and Australia as TOFEL does in the United
States and Canada and it is as important as TOFEL in making academic decisions.
In this study, the reading comprehension section of the 2015 academic IELTS test
was chosen. It consisted of three reading comprehension passages, and forty different
items. Subjects were given complete and clear instructions as what to do. Also, for
better understanding, the cover page of the test was copied and handed out to subjects
so as to be absolutely clear about what they needed to do.
3.2.1.1. The IELTS reading Test
In the IELTS, reading is tested quite separately from linguistic competence (which is not
explicitly tested). The test is based on some analysis of target language use situations (in
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
6
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
particular the work of Munby, 1987, and Weir, 1983), and texts are intended to reflect in
general terms what academic readers are expected to do:
Texts are taken from magazines, journals, books, and newspapers. Texts have
been written for a non-specialist audience. All the topics are of general interest. They
deal with issues which are interesting, recognizably appropriate and accessible to
candidates entering postgraduate or undergraduate courses. At least one text contains
detailed logical argument (IELTS Handbook, 1996. p. 6, as cited in Alderson).
, …seeks to sample candidates’ ability to
The test, according to ‚lderson
perform a number of tasks, although it is not implied that these can be tested in isolation or
independently of each other
p.
. Such abilities amount to the construct that at least
the original version of IELTS attempted to measure:
Identifying structure, content, sequence of events and procedures.
Finding main ideas which the writer has attempted to make salient.
Following instructions.
Identifying the underlying theme or concept.
solution, cause, effect.
implications, definitions and hypotheses.
Formulating a hypothesis from underlying theme, concept and evidence.
Identifying ideas in the text, and relationships between them, e.g. probabilities,
Identifying,
distinguishing
and
comparing
facts,
evidence,
opinions,
Evaluating and challenging evidence.
Reaching a conclusion by relating supporting evidence to the main idea.
Drawing logical inferences (IELTS Specifications, 1989, as cited in Alderson,
2000).
3.2.2. The Watson and Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal
Watson−Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) measures critical thinking using
broad, nonspecific terms in five subsets:
1. Inference: discriminating among degrees of truth or falsity of inferences drawn
from given data.
2. Recognition
of
assumptions:
recognizing
unstated
assumptions
or
presuppositions in given statements or assertions.
3. Deduction: determining whether certain conclusions necessarily follow from
information in given statements or premises.
4. Interpretation: weighing evidence and deciding if generalizations or conclusions
based on the given data are warranted.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
7
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
5. Evaluation of arguments: distinguishing between arguments that are strong and
relevant and those that are weak or irrelevant to a particular question at issue
(Worrell & Profetto-McGrath, 2007).
This test defines critical thinking as a composite of attitudes, knowledge, and
skills (Suliman & Halabi, 2007). This test is an intellectually challenging tool for
addressing critical thinkers cognitive ability. ‚ccording to Watson and Glaser
the five subscales of the WGCT‚ are
,
each designed to tap a somewhat different
aspect of critical thinking skills as cited in Bernard et al., 2007, p. 1).
There are four standardized versions and one experimental edition of the
Watson−Glaser measure. The latest, the WGCT‚, was revised in
. The number of
items varies across versions but the subscales and their descriptions have remained
consistent over time.
The test requires consideration of a series of propositions to evaluate how
appropriate or valid they are. Candidates respond to both neutral and controversial
items. The controversial items are designed to arouse attitudes, opinions and biases that
can interfere with the ability to think critically and refer to political, economic, and
social issues which frequently provoke strong feelings (Occupational Assessment
Catalog, 2007, p. 9).
The version used in this study is the Form A of the WGCTA which was
standardized and applied in 1980 by The Psychological Corporation in the Unites states
of America. The test was fully explained to the test takers before its administration.
In the present study, the Persian version of the Watson-Glaser test was applied.
According to Mohammadyari (2002), this test and its subcomponents do have reliability
and validity in Iranian culture. To analyze the reliability of the questionnaire, she
employed split-half reliability estimate. Moreover, with the adapted version in Iran, the
reliability was found to be 0.98 and the results of the factor analysis offered some
support for the inventory hypothesized structure (Mohammadyari, 2002).
Due to the nature of this study −correlation− and the fact that different
proficiency levels are preferred in correlational studies, the researcher decided to
employ the Persian format of Form A of the WGCTA so as not to add to the challenging
nature of the test and to make participants engage merely in the critical thinking test
rather than dealing with the English language which was the original language.
In this study, the inference making and evaluation of arguments are the two
subtests that will be used.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
8
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
Table 1: The Subtests of the Watson and Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal
Subtest
Definition
Inference-making
Discriminating among degrees of truth or falsity of inference drawn from
Items
1-16
given data
Evaluation of
Distinguishing between arguments that are strong and relevant and those
arguments
that are weak or relevant to a particular question at issue
63-80
3.3 Data Collection
The study was conducted in several Private Language Institutes in Mashhad, a city in
the north east of Iran in 2016. The institutes were selected based on credibility and
feasibility criteria. The participants were asked to complete the inference and evaluation
of arguments scales of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and take the reading
section of IELTS test. The questionnaires were coded numerically and they were asked
not to write their names. As an incentive, the participants were given the opportunity to
receive feedback about their performance on the instruments by presenting their codes.
3.4. Data Analysis
To ensure the normality of the distribution, descriptive statistics and KS- test were
employed. To determine the relationship between IELTS candidates' critical thinking
and their achievement in academic reading comprehension, a Pearson product-moment
correlation was applied to the data. To find out which components of critical thinking
might have more predictive power in predicting candidates' reading score, a multiple
regression analysis was run. To explore what percentage of variability in IELTS
candidates can be explained by taking their critical thinking into account, the standard
multiple regressions were run.
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics
To check the normality of data distribution, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was
employed. This test is used to check whether the distribution deviates from a
comparable normal distribution. If the p-value is non-significant (p>.05), we can say that
the distribution of a sample is not significantly different from a normal distribution,
therefore it is normal. It the p-value is significant (p<.05) it implies that the distribution
is not normal. Table 2 presents the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. As it can be
seen, the obtained sig value for all variables (CT components and IELTS Reading
Scores) is higher than .05. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the data is normally
distributed across all three variables.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
9
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
Table 2: The Results of K-S Test for CT Components and IELTS Reading Scores
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic
df
Sig.
CT components
.976
107
.052
IELTS reading
.965
107
.096
Table 3 presents descriptive statistics of EFL learners' inference-making and evaluation
of arguments as manifestations of critical thinking as follows:
inference-making
(M=5.2150, SD=1.69984), and evaluation of arguments (M=9.7196, SD=2.05488).
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Inference-making and evaluation of arguments
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Inference-making
107
1.00
11.00
5.2150
1.69984
Evaluation of arguments
107
4.00
14.00
9.7196
2.05488
Valid N (listwise)
107
Descriptive statistics of IELTS reading scores are represented in Table 4. As the table
reveals, the minimum score is 8, the maximum is 34, and the mean is 21.23.
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of IELTS Reading Scores
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
IELTS
107
8.00
34.00
21.2336
5.89864
Valid N (listwise)
107
To investigate the relationship between inference-making, evaluation of arguments, and
IELTS reading, multiple Pearson Product-Moment correlations were applied to the
data. Table 5 indicates the results.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
10
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
Table 5: The Correlation Coefficients between Inference-Making,
Evaluation of Arguments, and IELTS Reading
IELTS Reading
Inference-making
.341**
Evaluation of arguments
.304**
**Correlation is significant at the level of 0.05
According to Table 5, there is a significant correlation between inference-making and
IELTS (r = 0.341, p < 0.05), evaluation of arguments and IELTS (r = 0.304, p < 0.05). So, as
it can be seen, the correlation between inference-making and IELTS reading scores is
slightly higher than the correlation of between evaluation of arguments and IELTS.
To explore what percentage of variability in EFL learners' scores of IELTS
reading module achievement can be accounted for by their scores in variables under
study, a multiple regression analysis was conducted.
The following Table (Table 6) is the ANOVA Table of regression for inferencemaking and evaluation of arguments in predicting IELTS achievement. In this analysis,
IELTS score is THE dependent variable and inference-making and evaluation of
arguments are considered as THE independent variables.
Table 6: The ANOVA Table of Regression for the Variables under Study
Model
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1 Regression
429.506
2
214.753
6.854
.002b
Residual
3258.653
104
31.333
Total
3688.159
106
a. Dependent Variable: IRS
b. Predictors: (Constant), evaluation, inference
As Table 6 shows, the two variables are positive predictors of the dependent variable,
i.e., IELTS reading. This can be figured out by examining the magnitude of the F value
(which should be higher than the critical level) and the p-value (which should be less
than the significance level, i.e., 0.05).
Table 7 illustrates the model summary statistics. The results revealed that the
model containing the two variables (inference-making and evaluation of arguments)
can predict about 10 percent of IELTS reading achievement. The R value is 0.341 which
indicates the correlation coefficient between the variables. Its square value is 0.116 and
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
11
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
its adjusted square is 0.099. It indicates that about 10 of the variation in IELTS
achievement can be explained by taking the above-mentioned variables into account.
Table 7: R Square Table for the Role of inference-making and
evaluation of arguments in IELTS
Std.
Error
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Estimate
1
.341a
.116
.099
5.59761
of
the
a. Predictors: (Constant), evaluation, inference
5. Discussion
The primary concern of this study was to examine whether there is a relationship
between Iranian EFL students components of CT ability, in particular inference-making
and evaluation of arguments, and their achievement in academic IELTS reading
comprehension. Furthermore, this study tried to unlace extent to which students
performance on CT test could predict their success in IELTS reading comprehension
section.
Considering our first research question which asked whether there is any
relationship between IELTS candidates' inference making and their achievement in
academic IELTS reading, the result of the present study revealed that there was a
significant relationship between these variables.
Many scholars claim that inference is central to reading comprehension
(McIntosh, 1985; Farr, Carey & Tone, 1986). Getting meaning out of even the simplest
texts depend on inferencing. As a text is read, information that is relevant to the written
message is activated in long-term memory. "When information that was not explicitly
stated in the text is activated, an inference is made." (George, Mannes, & Hoffman, 1997,
p. 776).
This finding suggests that students exhibiting a higher level of inference-making,
and evaluation of arguments, can logically have better achievements in reading
comprehension section of IELTS test. In other words, it can be concluded that teaching
critical thinking techniques can significantly promote IELTS reading performance of
EFL learners.
In the same line with this study, Long, Oppy, and Seely (1994) argued that if
readers are unable to generate inferences relevant world knowledge, they feel as though
they do not comprehend the text and have difficulty remembering it.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
12
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
In a similar vein, some practitioners of reading, among them Harvey and
Goudvis (2000), Tovani (2000) and Beers (2003), have stressed the paramount
importance of teaching reading strategies to improve reading comprehension; needless
to mention one of the essential reading strategies is inferencing. Being competent in
drawing inferences is crucial in the comprehension of text (Caine & Oakhill 1999).
Similarly, less skilled readers make fewer inferences than their skilled counterparts
(e.g., Long, Oppy, & Seely 1997; Oakhill 1982, 1984).
Elder and Paul (2002) proposed that we can help students reflect upon their daily
inferences and assumptions that lead to better appraisal of the events. As they become
adept in identifying their inferences and assumptions, they are in a better position to
question the extent to which any of their assumptions are justified (Elder & Paul, 2002)
The researchers' second question aimed at investigating the relationship between
EFL learners' evaluation of arguments and their achievements in academic IELTS
reading test demonstrated a significant relationship between the variables in question.
Critical thinking can be defined as the systematic evaluation or formulation of
beliefs, or statements by rational standards (Vaughn, 2008). Given the extortionate rate
at which massive amounts of information, arguments and counter-arguments, beliefs
and interpretations are put forth, the development and exploitation of such rational
standards seems to be the only path to achieving a hard core around which to shape
one's own thinking and reasoning. As such, critical thinking is the ability essential for
successful performance in not only educational but also professional and social
contexts. Perry (1999) and Brookfield (1987) asserted the critical evaluation of ideas,
arguments, and points of view are important for the development of students as
autonomous thinkers.
The third research question enquired the predictive power of these two CT –
associated components in IELTS reading. By conducting a statistical regression analysis,
the researchers came to this conclusion that the participants total score of these
variables is a positive predictor of IELTS reading. The result of the regression analysis
showed that the model containing the total score of inference making and evaluation of
arguments can predict about
% of the learners success in IELTS reading section.
Leafing through the existing literature on critical thinking, one can reasonably
infer that there is a close association between critical thinking and students' reading
achievement. Since
inference-making and evaluation of arguments are two
subcomponents of critical thinking, we can reasonably infer that each of them play a
part in influencing critical thinking ability. On the other hand, this study is unique in its
own in that it exclusively investigated the correlation of the two subcomponents of
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
13
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
critical thinking with IELTS reading skills, while to the researchers' best knowledge
there is hardly any documented study with the same purpose.
The findings of this study are in line with Kamali and Fahim s
research
which showed that there is a positive correlation between learners CT ability and their
performances on reading texts containing unfamiliar items. Also, Miller (1981)
concluded in his study that students gain in CT achievement was closely related to
their reading proficiency achievement. Another study conducted by Sheikhi (2009)
which attempted to investigate the relationship between autonomy, CT and reading
comprehension of Iranian EFL learners revealed a positive correlation between CT and
reading comprehension. Finally, Bagheri and Ghanizadeh (2016) and Boloori (2010)
reported a positive correlation between CT and inferential reading comprehension.
It was also found that among the variables, inference making is a more powerful
predictor of IELTS reading achievement. Previous research has shown that students
with comprehension difficulties are poor at inference making (e.g., Cain & Oakhill,
1999; Oakhill, 1982, 1984). Cain and Oakhill (1999) noted that poor comprehenders
cannot reach to a comprehensive representation of the text; they are often able to
integrate information at a local level but are unable to produce a coherent integrated
model of the text as a whole.
Inference making is regarded as a central component of skilled reading (e.g.,
Garnham & Oakhill, 1996; Singer, 1994; van den Broek, 1994). Although less skilled
readers are capable of inferential processing, they do not generate as many inferences as
more skilled readers do (e.g., Casteel & Simpson, 1991; Long, Oppy, & Seely, 1997;
Oakhill, 1982, 1984; Omanson, Warren, & Trabasso, 1978; Paris & Lindauer, 1976; Paris
& Upton, 1976).
In essence, the findings of this study have some implications for EFL teachers,
educators and administrators to establish successful paths for developing programs and
activities that foster inference-making and evaluation of arguments among EFL
students. Teachers, in particular EFL teachers, are suggested to develop and employ
critical thinking abilities in the context of their classroom by encouraging thinking,
reinforcing inference-making, using problem-based learning, providing feedback, etc.
References
1. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences
between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364-373.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
14
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
2. Ahmadi, M. R., & Hairul, N. I. (2012). Reciprocal teaching as an important factor
of improving reading comprehension. Journal of Studies in Education, 2(4), 153173.
3. Akyuz, H. I., & Samsa, S. (2009). The effects of blended learning environment on
the critical thinking skills of students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1,
1744-1748.
4. Alderson, J.C. (2000). Technology in testing: the present and the future. System
28, 593-603
5. Bagheri, F., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2016). Critical Thinking and Gender Differences
in Academic Self-regulation in Higher Education. Journal of Applied Linguistics
and Language Research, 3(3), 133-145.
6. Beck, I. L. (1989). Reading and reasoning. The Reading Teacher, 42, 676–682.
7. Bernard, R. M., & Zhang, D., & Abrami, P. C. (2007). Exploring the structure of
the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: One scale or many subscales?
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 18, 124.
8. Beers, K. (2003). When kids can't read: What teachers can do: Heinemann
Portsmouth, NH.
9. Berber, F., Akbulut, F., Maden, H., Gezer, M., & Keser, S. (2002). Düsünme ve
elestirel düsünme (Thinking and critical thinking). Retrieved May 2014 from:
http://www.sevketkeser.net/docs/alldoc/dusunmeveelestireldusunme.pdf.
10. Boloori, L. (2010). The relationship between critical thinking and performance of Iranian
EFL learners on the inferential reading comprehension test. Unpublished master s
thesis, Azad University of Takestan, Iran.
11. ‛rookfield, S. D.
. Developing critical thinkers. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press: Buckingham.
12. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to
comprehension failure in young children. Reading and writing, 11(5-6), 489-503.
13. Casteel, M. A., & Simpson, G. B. (1991). Textual coherence and the development
of inferential generation skills. Journal of Research in Reading, 14, 116-129.
14. Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: theory to practice (3rd ed.).
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publisher.
15. Collins, N.D. (1993). Teaching critical reading through Literature. ERIC Digest, 4,
1-5.
16. Connolly, M. (2000). What we think we know about critical thinking. CELE
Journal, 8, 120-134.
17. Cook, J.E., (1991). Critical Reading? How? Why? Teaching PreK-8. 21(6), 23-24
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
15
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
18. Criper, C., & Davies, A. (1988). ELTS validation project report. University of
Cambridge, Local Examinations Syndicate.
19. Davidson, B. (1998). A case for critical thinking in the English language
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 119-123.
20. Davidson, B., & Dunham, R. (1997). Assessing EFL student progress in critical
thinking with the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. JALT Journal, 19 (1),
43-57.
21. Descartes, R., & De Spinoza, B. (1961). Rules for the direction of the mind.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
22. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Prometheus Books, New York.
23. Edwards, S. (2007). Critical thinking: a two phase framework. Nurse Education in
Practice, 7(5), 303-314.
24. Enright, M, Grabe, W, Koda, K, Mosenthal, P, Mulcany-Ernt, P., & Schedl, M,
(2000). TOEFL 2000 reading framework: A working paper, TOEFL Monograph Series
17 ETS, Princeton
25. Farr, R., Carrey, R., & Tone, B. (1986) Recent Theory and Research into the
Reading Process: Implication for Reading Assessment. In J. Orasanu (Ed.)
Reading Comprehension: From Research to Practice. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erbium Associates.
26. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2002). Critical thinking: distinguishing between inferences
and assumptions. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 34-37.
27. Ertmer, P.A., & Newby, T.J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated,
and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1-24.
28. Hillsdale, N.J., Erlbaum. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994).
Constructing infer- ences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological
Review, 101, 371-395.
29. Horng, J., Hong, J., Chanlin, L., Chang, S., & Chu, H. 2007. Creative teachers and
creative teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(4),
352-358.
30. Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. V. (1996). The mental models theory of language
comprehension. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding
text (pp. 313-339).
31. Ghanizadeh, A. (2011). An investigation into the relationship between selfregulation and critical thinking among Iranian EFL teachers. The Journal of
Technology & Education, 5(3), 213–221.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
16
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
32. Ghanizadeh, A. (2016). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical
thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher
Education, DOI 10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y
33. Ghanizadeh, A., & Mirzaee, S. (2012). Critical thinking: How to enhance it in
language classes. Germany: LAP.
34. Ghanizadeh, A., & Moafian, F. (2011). Critical thinking and emotional
intelligence: investigating the relationship among EFL learners and the
contribution of age and gender. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 14 (1),
23-48.
35. Grimmett, P. (1988). The nature of reflection and Schon’s conception in perspective. In
P.Grimmett, & G. Erikson (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education. NY: Teachers
College Press.
36. Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
37. Hashemi, M. R., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2012). Critical discourse analysis and critical
thinking: An experimental study in an EFL context. System, 40(1), 37–47.
38. Johnston, P. H. (1983). Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis. New
Jersey: I. R. A.
39. Khabiri, M., & Pakzad, M. (2012).The Effect of Teaching Critical Reading
Strategies on EFL Learners Vocabulary Retention. The Journal of Teaching
Language Skills (JTLS), 4 (1), Ser. 66/4.
40. Kamali, Z., & Fahim, M. (2011). The relationship between critical thinking ability
of Iranian EFL learners and their resilience level facing unfamiliar vocabulary
items in reading. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 104-111.
41. Ku, K. Y. (2009). Assessing students critical thinking performance Urging for
measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1),
70-76
42. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Education Review, 62 (2), 155-178.
43. Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Metacognition: a bridge between cognitive
psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268–274.
44. Long, D. L., Oppy, ‛. J., & Seely, M. R.
. Individual differences in readers
sentence-and text-level representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(1),
129-145.
45. McIntosh, E (1985) What Do Practitioners Need to Know about Current Inference
Research? The Reading Teacher, 38, 8, 755-760.
46. Maclellan, E, (1997). Reading to learn. Studies in Higher Education, 22, 277-288.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
17
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
47. Meneghetti, C., Carretti, B., & De Beni, R. (2006). Components of reading
comprehension and scholastic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences,
16, 291-301
48. Miller, S. (1981). The impact of a program of critical thinking on reading comprehension
remediation and critical thinking of middle and high school students. Unpublished
PhD. Dissertation. United states International University.
49. Mohammadyari, A. (2002). The relationship between critical thinking and change
management of the heads of the educational departments in Ferdowsi University of
Mashhad. Unpublished master's thesis, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran.
50. Moon, J. (2008). Critical thinking: An exploration of theory and practice. UK: Library
of Congress.
51. Moon, J. (1999a). Reflection in learning & professional development: Theory & practice.
London: Kogan Page.
52. Moon, J. (1999b). Learning Journals: A hand book for academic, students and
professional development. London: Kogan Pag
53. Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge.
54. Oakhill, J. (1982). Constructive
processes in skilled and
less skilled
comprehenders' memory for sentences. British Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 13-20.
55. Oakhill, J. V.
. Inferential and memory skills in children s comprehension
of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31-39.
56. Oakhill, J. V. (1996). Mental models in children’s text comprehension. In J. V. Oakhill
& A. Garnham (Eds.), Mental models in cognitive science: Essays in honour of
Phil Johnson-Laird (pp. 77-94). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
57. Omanson, R. C., Warren, W. M., & Trabasso, T. (1978). Goals, inferential
comprehension and recall of stories by children. Discourse Processes, 1, 337-354.
58. Paul, R. W. (1985). The Critical-Thinking Movement. Paper presented at the
National Forum: Phi Kappa Phi Journal.
59. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concept and
tools. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
60. Paris, S. G., & Lindauer, ‛. K.
. The role of inference in children s
comprehension and memory for sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 217-227.
61. Paris, S. G., & Upton, L. R.
. Children s memory for inferential relations in
prose. Child Development, 47, 660-668.
62. Paris, S., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In
R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading
Research (vol. 2, pp. 609-640). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
18
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
63. Paul, R. (1996). Critical thinking and the state of education today. Inquiry: Critical
Thinking Across the Disciplines, 16(2), 12-34.
64. Perfetti, C., & Hogaboam, T. (1975). Relationship between single word decoding
and reading comprehension skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 461-469.
65. Perry, J. (1999). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A
Scheme. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350
Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 94104.
66. Renner, C. E.
. Enrich learners language production through content-based
instruction. Paper presented at the a National Conference on Lingua e Nuova
Didattica, Modena, Italy.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 411 694).
67. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining Reflection; Another look at John Dewey and
reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866.
68. Rumelhart, D. E. (1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. Rudell, M. R.
Rudell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.)
(pp. 864-894). Newark, DA: International Reading Association.
69. Seferoglu S., & ‚kbıyık, C.
. Critical thinking and education. H.U. Journal of
Education, 30(3), 193-200.
70. Shang, H. F. (2011). Exploring the relationship between EFL proficiency level and
reading strategy use. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 18-27.
71. Singer, M. (1994). Discourse inference processes. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.),
Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 479-515). San Diego: Aca- demic Press.
72. Singhal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive
awareness and L2 readers. The Reading Matrix, 1(1), 1-22.
73. Sheikhi, B. R. (2009). The relationship between autonomy, critical thinking and reading
comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. Unpublished master s thesis, ‚zad
University of Science and Research, Tehran, Iran.
74. St. George, M., Mannes, S., & Hoffman, J. E. (1997). Individual differences in
inference generation: An ERP analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(6), 776787.
75. Suliman, W. A., & Halabi, J. (2007). Critical thinking, self-esteem, and state
anxiety of nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 27(2), 162-168.
76. Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. (2002). Reconceptualizing reading comprehension. In C. C.
Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension
instruction (pp. 17-53). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
77. Tovani, C. (2000). I read it, but I don't get it: Comprehension strategies for adolescent
readers: Stenhouse Publishers.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
19
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
78. van den Broek, P. (1994). Comprehension and memory of narrative texts: Inferences
and coherence. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.
539-588). San Diego: Academic Press.
79. Vaughn, L. (2008). The power of critical thinking: Effective reasoning about ordinary
and extraordinary claims (2nd ed.).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
80. Waters, A. (2006). Thinking and language learning. ELT Journal, 60 (4), 237- 319.
81. Watson, G., & Glaser. E. (2002). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. UK
Edition: Practice Test. Psychological Corporation.
82. Weir, C.J. (1983). Identifying the language needs of overseas students in tertiary
education in the United Kingdom. PhD thesis, Institute of Education, University of
London
83. Worrell, J. A., & Profetto-Mcgrath, J. (2007). Critical thinking as an outcome of
context-based learning among post RN students: A literature review. Nurse
Education Today, 27(5), 420-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2006.07.004
84. Zhang, Z. (1993). Literature review on reading strategy research. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA, November 10-12, 1993.
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
20
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh, Azam Vahidian Pour, Akram Hosseini
IELTS ACADEMIC READING ACHIEVEMENT:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFERENCE-MAKING AND EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
Creative Commons licensing terms
Authors will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms
will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community
to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that
makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this
research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of English Language
Teaching shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflict of interests, copyright
violations and inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated on the research work. All the published works are meeting the
Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and noncommercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
European Journal of English Language Teaching - Volume 2 │ Issue 2 │ 2017
21