مطالب

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.