درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

This study examined the impact of argumentation on learning approach and critical thinking (inference and interpretation) in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) classes among Islamic studies or seminary students in Mashhad. It was conducted in two classes: an experimental group and a control group, each with 12 female students. Data for the study were collected using pretest and posttest assessments of the Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA) and a learning approach questionnaire. The Farsi version of Watson-Glaser’s Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA) was used to measure participants’ inference-making and deduction. Bigg’s Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) was employed to assess participants’ learning approaches, measuring two broad approaches: deep approach and surface approach, with four subscales: surface strategy (SS), surface motive (SM), deep strategy (DS), and deep motive (DM). The experimental group received instruction based on logical argumentation as the treatment. The results demonstrated the effectiveness of the argumentation method in improving participants’ learning approach and critical thinking (inference and interpretation). Specifically, the results of the independent samples t-test indicated a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the degree of their Inference (t = 2.33, p = .03), Interpretation (t = 2.25, p = .03), Deep Approach (t = 2.88, p = .01), and Surface Approach (t = -2.16, p = .04) after the treatment. The findings of this study can be beneficial for teachers of Islamic propagators in enhancing their students’ learning approach and critical thinking through the use of argumentative instruction.

Aristotle considers metaphysics a science that discusses being qua being (or "being insofar as it is being") and its essential attributes. Alongside "being qua being," he also speaks of absolute being. The multiple meanings of "being" in Aristotle's thought have led interpreters to diverse understandings of what Aristotle truly meant by "being qua being? "They would have disagreements. A disagreement that starts from ontology and impacts their theology. Among Muslim philosophers, Avicenna and Averroes (Ibn Rushd), and among Christian philosophers, Albert the Great(Albertus Magnus) and his student Thomas Aquinas, have commented on this matter. In Avicenna's view, what is meant by 'being qua being' is a universal concept that applies to all beings, including the Necessary Existent per se. Consequently, the Necessary Existent is part of the subject matter of philosophy. However, Averroes introduced the highest substance to explain "being qua being" and considered God the subject of philosophy. Consequently, he regarded the proof of God as part of the problems of natural science. In Albert the Great's view, "being qua being" is the simple existence as the first creation of God, and this simple existence is the subject of philosophy. In Thomas Aquinas's perspective, "being qua being," although the subject of philosophy, applies only to contingent beings, and God is the cause of this "being qua being." A comparative study of these disagreements and the reasons behind them forms the framework of this article.