Metacognitive Strategies and Critical Thinking in Elevating EFL Argumentative Writing Proficiency: Practical Insights

This study utilized Kemmis et al.’s (2014) action research paradigm. It implemented a two-cycle action study within a single semester, encompassing four stages of learning tasks: comprehension of the problem, monitoring of students’ learning activities, problem-solving, assessment, and concluding. Every cycle offered learning activities that focused on metacognitive and critical thinking to refine students’ ability to write persuasive arguments. During the previous cycle, the students showed strong skills in stating their goals and identifying their planned actions. They used different approaches to pinpoint a key topic for their writing and monitor their progress by effectively managing their available time. The investigation found that integrating metacognitive and crucial thinking processes into instructional methods improved students’ argumentative writing skills, starting with critical skill requirements. Integrating metacognition into writing training is vital for enhancing writing skills at the college level. This study made a special effort to guarantee that each stage was attentively examined and received constructive recommendations for enhancement before going to further steps. However, it is important to acknowledge limitations. The study did not assess the long-term retention of enhanced writing skills, and the sample size may limit generalization. Additionally, while metacognition


INTRODUCTION
In various contexts, humans employ language both receptively and productively to express ideas, emotions, and desires.Language skills, encompassing listening, speaking, reading, and writing, play a crucial role in effective communication (Haerazi & Irawan, 2019).Writing, as the fourth language skill, is interconnected with the others, requiring special attention due to its multifaceted nature.Despite its apparent simplicity, proficient writing demands intensive practical engagement (Zainuddin et al., 2019).It is not merely a mechanical process but a cognitive endeavour intricately linked to the thinking process (Kamaşak et al., 2021).Saeed and Akbar (2021) highlight this connection between writing and thinking, emphasizing the systematic thinking required to conclude knowledge.
Critical thinking, an essential writing component, enables students to navigate a spectrum of ideas.Lavoie et al. (2020) argue that writing is an outcome of the intertwining processes of writing itself and critical thinking, guided by specific objectives aligned with the writer's intent.Kasim et al. (2022) reinforce this notion by stating that writing manifests formal and organized ideas on a given topic, unravelling the writer's critical thinking.Yule (2022) accentuates the role of language as a tool for expressive communication, emphasizing its function in articulating feelings, attitudes, and knowledge within the argumentation framework.Empirical communication, as asserted, consistently relies on the argumentative aspect of language.The focal point of language as an argumentative tool is argumentative writing, which determines the validity or invalidity of a statement (Bean & Melzer, 2021).This form of writing encompasses inductive and deductive approaches, each employing various strategies and rhetorical tools to persuade readers of the writer's perspective (Sharadgah et al., 2019).Critical components of argumentative writing include the introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion, all strategically crafted to engage and convince the audience (Sharadgah et al., 2019).
Despite the acknowledged importance of argumentative writing and critical thinking in education, a substantial research gap exists concerning integrating metacognitive strategies and necessary thinking skills to enhance argumentative writing proficiency.McTighe and Schollenberger (1985), underscore three reasons necessitating critical thinking in argumentative writing: the escalating demand for knowledge and technology, students' insufficient thinking capability and presentation skills, and the prevalence of teacher-dominated verbal instruction methods.Writing is the language skill most amenable to development through metacognitive strategies and critical thinking, as it involves problem presentation, data analysis, and conclusion construction (Sharadgah et al., 2019).Bezanilla et al. (2019) posit that writing enhances critical thinking by facilitating the analysis and interpretation of collected data, a process deeply rooted in metacognitive strategies.Metacognition, the awareness of monitoring, regulating, and controlling one's thinking processes, is imperative for practical thinking and problem-solving (Alsofyani, 2019).
In light of the existing research, the argument can be made that the development of argumentative writing can be significantly advanced by integrating metacognitive strategies and critical thinking skills.The English Education Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Manado, Indonesia confronts a substantial challenge in honing the argumentative writing skills of its students.The prevailing curriculum emphasizes content knowledge and linguistic elements while neglecting metacognitive awareness and critical thinking crucial for effective argumentation (Awada et al., 2020;Sharadgah et al., 2019).Consequently, students need help to produce compelling and well-structured arguments, revealing an application of metacognitive strategy and critical thinking deficiency within current teaching methodologies.
The inadequacy of the current approach becomes more evident as students need help in self-reflection on their writing processes, goal setting, and the employment of effective strategies to enhance their argumentative writing.Explicit instruction and activities fostering critical thinking should be present, hindering students from constructing well-reasoned and persuasive arguments.This identified gap underscores the urgency for a targeted intervention to revamp the existing approach.A comprehensive strategy integrating metacognitive awareness and critical thinking skills into the curriculum is imperative.By doing so, the English Education Department can empower students to elevate their argumentative writing skills, enabling them to articulate and defend their ideas with clarity and conviction.

The Nature of Argumentative Writing Skill
Culham (2023) posits that skill is an inherent capability within an individual to perform tasks or fulfil responsibilities.It encompasses the energy and effort invested in executing an action, whether stemming from innate abilities or cultivated through deliberate practice.Proficiency in writing is attained through regular training and producing high-quality written content (Durkin, 2020).Writing, considered a daily routine by Wallace and Wray (2021), is a communicative act that occurs during human interaction or socialization, conveying messages in the form of information, ideas, thoughts, and invitations, essentially encapsulating the transformation of ideas into written expression (Warburton, 2020).
The intricacy of writing as a skill underscores the importance of language mastery, particularly for scholars (Latifi et al., 2021).Bean and Melzer (2021) distinguish between two approaches to writing instruction: the process approach, which emphasizes various classroom activities supporting writing development, and the product approach, which is centred on the outcome of instructional processes.The product approach posits that writing skills flourish when aligned with students' interests and needs, fostering motivation to engage in the writer's community.Within the writing domain, diverse forms include narrative, descriptive, exposition, and argumentative writing.This discussion focuses on argumentative writing, characterized by Ferretti and Graham (2019) as a particularly intricate form of writing development.Argumentative writing, viewed as a social and verbal action, presents a rationale opposing or supporting an idea, employing persuasive techniques to guide the audience toward accepting or rejecting a given proposition (Zhu et al., 2020).Furthermore, an argument is rational, grounded in intellectual considerations, and designed for interpersonal persuasion (Awada et al., 2020).Bean and Melzer (2021) assert that an argument typically involves the identification of assumptions and a relevant conclusion derived from analysed problems.Argumentative writing includes the identification of conflicts essential for supporting or refuting specific conclusions.Additionally, Graham et al. (2020) establish a significant link between argumentation and critical thinking.In this context, argumentation in critical thinking pertains to the organization of claims, a portion of which serves as a basis for drawing a coherent conclusion.Reasons are presented to guide the audience in accepting the conclusion, underscoring the interconnected nature of argumentation and critical thinking in the cognitive process.

The Nature of Metacognitive Strategy
The exploration of metacognition, an area of interest since the 1970s, has witnessed the engagement of experts in language, mathematics, and education, establishing its roots within psychology (Muhid et al., 2020).As elucidated by Alsofyani (2019), this facet of cognition entails transforming capacity, strategy, and other forms of knowledge.Pioneered by Brown in the 1970s, metacognition has been defined as the knowledge or cognitive acts that become the object of cognition (McCallum & Coombe, 2021).A nuanced understanding of metacognition involves recognizing it as knowledge, awareness, and self-control, with its developmental trajectory emphasizing the enhancement of knowledge, awareness, and control in the context of learning (Durkin, 2020).Implementing metacognitive strategies involving a dynamic interplay of four critical phenomena facilitates proficiency in managing various cognitive processes.Lavoie et al. (2020) delineate these phenomena as (1) a comprehensive understanding of metacognition; (2) cognitive awareness focusing on one's beliefs about their thinking conditions, encompassing perceived wisdom, extensive knowledge, rapid comprehension, consistent forgetfulness, slow thinking, and more; (3) task-related knowledge, where individuals are conscious of the difficulty level, time requirements, and mastery of concepts for a specific task; and (4) strategic actions aligned with one's knowledge of practical approaches to activities, including recognizing specific methods suitable for a given context, emphasizing core ideas for optimal retention, associating new information with existing knowledge, and reinforcing learning through personal articulation.
The metacognitive strategy indicator, as proposed by Lumpkin (2020), comprises developing the action plan, observing the action plan, and evaluating the action plan.Alsofyani (2019) further categorizes metacognitive strategies into three groups: awareness, planning, and observation and reflection.Durkin (2020) underscores four fundamental indicators: achievement of learning objectives, time allocated for task completion, schemata, and cognitive strategy.In addition, Lumpkin's (2020) breakdown categorizes metacognitive strategy into self-planning, encompassing indicators like attainment of learning objectives, time allocation, relevance of schemata, and implementation of cognitive strategy; self-monitoring, involving aspects such as observing the achievement of learning objectives, time utilization, scrutiny of schemata related to new learning materials, and monitoring the use of cognitive strategy; and self-evaluation, incorporating aspects like evaluating the attainment of learning objectives, time invested in evaluation, assessment of schemata related to new learning materials, and the evaluation of the cognitive strategy implemented.

2.3
The Nature of Critical Thinking Canale et al. (2021) delineate two modes of thinking: analytical and synthesis.Analytical thinking involves drawing conclusions based on given premises, whereas synthesis thinking centres on formulating mental constructs without the necessity for conclusive outcomes.Sternberg and Halpern (2020) further categorize thinking into autistic and realistic.Autistic thinking involves idiosyncratic processes driven by fantasy, dreams, and unverified evidence, whereas practical thinking aligns wants and beliefs with external facts, adjusting them when conflicting proof arises.Critical thinking, identified by Sternberg and Halpern (2020), is a methodical and reflective decision-making process.It emphasizes five key aspects: critical thinking employing sound reasons, reflective thinking with an awareness of seeking and engaging valid reasons, focused thinking directed toward a specific objective, decision-making based on evaluating statements or behaviours, and the cognitive ability and inclination to utilize competence.
Derived from these critical thinking principles, it can be synthesized that essential thinking is pivotal for problem-solving.It involves utilizing verbal facts and evidence to ascertain the objective, subsequently seeking, using, and evaluating valid reasons to make the best decision.Critical thinking consists of learning to pose pertinent questions, discerning when and what questions to ask, and mastering when and which thinking methods to employ (Warburton, 2020).The ability to think critically is epitomized by one's capacity to scrutinize experiences, test knowledge and ideas, and weigh arguments before reaching an evaluation.This comprehensive approach to critical thinking elucidates the importance of considering diverse perspectives and evaluating them judiciously before deciding.

The Practical Steps of Metacognitive Strategy and Critical Thinking Instruction of Argumentative Writing
Argumentative writing, identified by Warburton (2020) as a complex form of writing development, holds a distinctive position within exposition writing.Ferretti and Graham (2019) assert that writers of argumentative pieces endeavour to persuade readers, employing data or facts to influence and establish credibility.The intricate nature of argumentative writing involves mastering writing techniques, ensuring logical content, and engaging in a systematic thinking process (Kasim et al., 2022).Writing, perceived as a thinking act, entails a systematic thought process culminating in conclusions presented as ideas through various mediums such as task sheets.According to Kasim et al. (2022), critical thinking encapsulates three fundamental components: a profound understanding of a problem, logical analysis for practical problem-solving, and selecting a pertinent problem based on the study.This definition elucidates five key aspects: logical thinking based on sound reasons, reflective thinking with an awareness of seeking and utilizing valid reasons, focused thinking directed toward specific objectives, decision-making grounded in evaluating statements or behaviours, and a predisposition towards cognitive competence and its effective utilization.
Metacognitive strategy serves as an organizational process designed to regulate cognitive activity and validate the attainment of cognitive objectives (Lumpkin, 2020;Muhid et al., 2020).This process involves planning, observing mental activities, and evaluating the overall activity.The planning phase defines objectives and task analysis and activates relevant knowledge to facilitate the organization and comprehension of learning materials.The observation phase involves focused attention during reading, constructing statements, and self-evaluation, enhancing students' understanding of materials and their integration into existing schemata.The arranging phase facilitates appropriate and effective cognitive activities, improving students' proficiency in controlling and adjusting their attitudes upon completing tasks.

Design
This study employed an action research model (Kemmis et al., 2014), which involves a cyclical process comprising four stages: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.Kemmis et al. (2014) expanded this model by introducing the concept of a spiral of self-reflective thinking.It helps students to utilize metacognition and critical thinking skills to incorporate their ideas into argumentative writing.This approach follows a sequence of activities starting with planning, taking action, monitoring the results, reflecting on the outcomes, and then adjusting the plan accordingly.

Participants
The study was conducted at the English Education Department, Faculty of Language and Art, Universitas Negeri Manado, Minahasa, Indonesia.A total of 18 participants were chosen among the third-semester students preparing their final Writing Skills Development course research assignment.

Instruments
Action research, tests, and observation sheets were pivotal research instruments in this classroom.The test was to assess students' proficiency in writing argumentative essays, while observation sheets meticulously tracked the activities of both students and teachers across research cycles.These instruments ensured comprehensive assessment and valuable insights for educational enhancement.

Data Collection
This classroom action research spanned one semester, from February to July 2023, following a preliminary study in December 2022.A one-month planning phase preceded its implementation, involving field observations, lesson plans integrating metacognition and critical thinking strategies, syllabus and learning model design, and developing observation sheet, field notes, interview guidelines, an action research schedule, and criteria for measuring achievement.It occurred across four writing stages: problem comprehension, monitoring and evaluation, problem-solving techniques, and assessment and conclusion formulation.The research unfolded in two cycles.Cycle I (baseline) involved assigning students to write an argumentative essay with an introduction, proper spelling, substantive arguments, and a conclusion without treatment.The initial reference point was the evaluation outcomes.In the second phase, active student engagement in supervised writing exercises occurred, lasting 100 minutes per session, with regular feedback.The final week involved a comprehensive evaluation and reflection.

Data Analysis
To achieve writing success, students must meet the university's 2016 evaluation criteria, defining "acceptable" writing skills as falling within the "good" (70-79) or "very good" (80 or higher) categories.Although competence misses the "good" level, residing in the 60-69 range labelled "sufficient," it is considered undesirable.The lowest classifications, "poor" (50-59) and "very poor" (under 50), signify unsatisfactory levels.Tailored interventions were applied based on varying writing performance levels, and this study gauged effectiveness by comparing scores before and after the treatments.Substantial success emerged when students achieved an average score of 70 or higher.The research assessed progress through proficiency in applying metacognitive and critical thinking techniques, aligning with the university's assessment guidelines.

RESULTS
As researchers increasingly recognize the interconnectedness of metacognition and critical thinking, this study contributes to the existing literature by focusing on their practical applications in argumentative writing for EFL learners.Educators and curriculum developers can gain insights into practical pedagogical approaches to enhance students' argumentative writing skills by investigating how metacognitive and critical thinking strategies can be integrated into the teaching and learning process.The subsequent findings and discussion sections will explore the outcomes of interventions designed to promote metacognitive and critical thinking in the EFL classroom.Through a comprehensive analysis of the data, the study aims to shed light on how these cognitive processes influence the quality and depth of argumentative writing in EFL students.Ultimately, the research seeks to inform educational practices that empower EFL learners to navigate the intricacies of argumentation with confidence and proficiency.The following are the results of the findings in this study, which are presented in several tables that show data in each cycle containing writing argumentative skills.

Cycle I
In the iterative pedagogical cycle, researchers traversed the intricacies of planning, execution, scrutiny, and contemplation.During the preparatory phase, collaborative efforts between researchers and student educators culminated in formulating comprehensive lesson plans, developing instructional materials, creating research instruments, and preparing student worksheets.The subsequent implementation phase witnessed the meticulous execution of the devised lesson plan, harmonizing with students and educators in adherence to the pedagogical tenets of Practical Metacognitive and Critical Thinking.This phase comprised two distinct meetings, one dedicated to the instructional process and the other to assess students' proficiency in argumentative writing.Initiating the first cycle, students within the English education department engaged in preliminary activities, including a class leader-led prayer and attendance.The initial activities were apperception, a motivational discourse about the instructional content, and elucidating learning objectives for argumentative text composition.Subsequently, the focal activities unfolded as the instructor expounded on the subject matter encompassing the essence, characteristics, and structure of the argumentative text, exemplifying with textual instances.Students were then tasked with crafting argumentative texts.Their culminating activities involved joint deliberations, reflections, and proposals for the forthcoming instructional session.
Transitioning to the observation/evaluation phase, an appointed colleague assumed the role of an impartial observer, scrutinizing the unfolding pedagogical panorama.Employing a problem-based learning model for composing argumentative paragraphs, the instructor adeptly elucidated the material, organized students into heterogeneous groups, and directed collaborative group reading.The observer meticulously adhered to predefined guidelines, deliberately selecting peers for optimal validity in the obtained results.The outcomes of this observational endeavour, encapsulating both teacher and student engagements, are comprehensively delineated in Tables 1 and 2. The teacher explores students' prior knowledge of the learning material by analysing explanation texts.

3.
The teacher guides students in the lesson on writing explanation texts to reveal facts about a problem.
The teacher learns to use critical thinking skills to find answers. 5.
The teacher can formulate problems, observe, analyse, and communicate.
The teacher creates a situation that facilitates the questioning of a problem.


E Learning Community 7.
The teacher cooperates with learners so students feel comfortable and comfortable asking questions.
 The findings from the examination of pedagogical practices employed by educators during the initial instructional phase aimed at fostering argumentative writing proficiency, utilizing the Practical of Metacognitive and Critical Thinking principle with a cohort of first-cycle students, revealed a cumulative score of 38, equating to a percentage of 67.85%.Although categorically classified as 'good,' these outcomes suggest that my instructional endeavours still need to meet the designated criteria for success during the cycle.Concurrently, a comprehensive account of student activities is delineated in Table 2.The outcomes of the observational analysis concerning student learning engagement during the initial cycle (refer to Table 2) indicate that the garnered score for student learning activities stands at 32, corresponding to a total percentage of merely 57.14%, categorically falling within the 'satisfactory' range.Consequently, it is discerned that student learning activities have yet to attain the specified benchmarks for success.In the evaluative phase, students were tasked with composing argumentative texts based on the instructional content.Preceding the reflective phase, this initial research cycle has yielded pivotal data encompassing student performance in crafting argumentative texts, the procedural application of the Practical Metacognitive and Critical Thinking instructional model, and student reactions to the learning process.A comprehensive breakdown of students' proficiency in argumentative text composition is expounded in Table 3. Table 3 delineates the argumentative writing proficiency of students falling within the 'sufficient' category.It is crucial to note that the established standard for writing skills was 70, placing all students below the passing threshold.The tabulated data reveals a mean score of 63.33% in Cycle I.These findings indicate that students must still meet the 75% achievement criteria.Aligned with the research design, which mandated termination at 75%, Cycle I result show limited enhancement.A mutual decision between the researcher and student teacher during reflection led to the continuation of the treatment to Cycle II.The detailed cycle results are presented in Figure 1.The results of Cycle I in the classroom action research, which concentrated on implementing metacognitive and critical thinking strategies to enhance EFL students' argumentative writing skills, demonstrate a positive trajectory.Teacher activities were observed at 67.85%, indicating commendable engagement in the "sufficient" category.Similarly, the observation of students' activities achieved 57.14% in the "sufficient" category, reflecting a foundational level of competency.The argumentative writing score, at 63.33%, falls within the "sufficient" category, showcasing progress in students' ability to construct arguments.To enhance effectiveness in Cycle II, there was an opportunity to refine teaching strategies, promote deeper student engagement, and elevate writing proficiency.This could involve incorporating more interactive activities, providing targeted feedback on argumentative writing, and fostering a collaborative learning environment.The sufficiency identified in Cycle I served as a springboard for intentional improvements, emphasizing the research's commitment to continuous development and advancing teaching methodologies and students' writing skills.
The reflective analysis identified contributing factors to students' suboptimal performance based on the outcomes of instructing English argumentative text using the metacognitive and critical thinking instructional model.These factors included partial adherence to the outlined structure, challenges in developing the main idea within paragraphs, inadequate grasp of effective sentence structures, misapplication of prepositions, and incomplete comprehension of capitalization conventions.In response to these challenges, Cycle II would thoroughly explore these issues to facilitate students' nuanced understanding of the errors made during the preceding cycle.Several enhancements were instituted, including guiding students to critically review questions necessitating completion, receiving guidance in crafting argumentative sentences, rectifying ineffective sentences, elucidating the judicious application of prepositions, and providing instructional guidance on capital letter usage.A crucial element contributing to students' diminished proficiency is the instructional approach.When engaging in group learning, students lacked motivational incentives for active participation, and the teacher's guidance focused on fostering reflective thinking without direct advice on the learning process.The instructional practice of summarizing the lesson orally was categorized as "sufficient" due to the absence of reinforced guidance beyond verbal conclusions.

Cycle II
Cycle II of this investigative endeavour progressed through the well-defined phases of planning, execution, scrutiny, and introspection.Collaborative efforts between researchers and student educators, based on insights from the reflective analysis of the initial cycle, resulted in refinements, primarily within the planning domain.During the preparatory phase, the researcher meticulously formulated lesson plans, curated educational resources, devised research instruments, and crafted student worksheets alongside the student teacher.In the implementation phase, adherence to the meticulously crafted lesson plan, developed in collaboration with the student teacher, remained steadfast, aligning with the pedagogical syntax of the practical metacognitive and critical thinking instructional approach.This phase allowed the researcher to rectify conceptual fallacies elucidated in the reflective discourse of the preceding cycle.
The instructional process unfolded in three distinct activities in the second cycle.Inaugural activities included class-led prayers, attendance checks, and the cultivation of apperception.Students were invigorated through motivational discourse about the subject matter and delineating instructional objectives.Core activities aimed at enhancing argumentative writing skills involved the teacher explicating the subject matter, supplemented by interactive exchanges of questions and answers to fortify students' comprehension.Subsequently, students were grouped heterogeneously, akin to the first cycle, with each group receiving identical material and instructional models.
In collaborative group activities, students' cognitive development was fostered as the instructor systematically guided them through the essence of each paragraph, facilitating a more accessible acquisition of argumentative text composition skills.The teacher simultaneously provided personalized and collective guidance and motivation.After finishing the post-task, each group consolidated their outcomes under the teacher's tutelage, engaging in reciprocal dialogues and query sessions regarding the instructional material.The culminating activity involves collaborative reflections and conclusions made by students and the teacher, ultimately concluding the lesson.Subsequently, the observation and evaluation phase examined teaching activities and student engagement in English lessons, mainly focusing on argumentative text aligning with the pre-established lesson plan.In the evaluative segment, students were assigned to compose argumentative texts based on the elucidated material.The comprehensive outcomes of observations conducted for educators and learners during Cycle II are detailed in Tables 4 and 5.The outcomes from scrutinizing instructors' pedagogical practices during the second cycle (refer to Table 4), specifically within instructing argumentative writing utilizing the practical metacognitive and critical thinking instructional model, revealed a score of 49.This corresponds to a total percentage of 87.5%, categorizing these activities within the 'excellent' tier.Consequently, it can be concludedthat the instructional endeavours in Cycle II have successfully attained the specified benchmarks for success.A detailed overview of student activities during this period is presented in Table 5.The outcomes derived from the analysis of student learning activities during the second cycle (refer to Table 5) indicate a notable improvement, with a garnered score of 47, surpassing the previous cycle's total of 37.This equates to a heightened total percentage of 83.92%, compared to the preceding cycle's 57.14%.These elevated scores and percentages position the student learning activities within the 'excellent' classification, signifying the successful attainment of the stipulated success benchmarks.In the evaluative phase, students were tasked with composing argumentative texts based on the instructional content.The data about student learning achievements in argumentative text composition during cycle II is presented in Table 6.Table 6 illustrates a notable improvement in students' argumentative writing proficiency during Cycle II, as evidenced by a substantial increase in the total score, surging from 1,140 in Cycle I to 1,458 in Cycle II.This improvement is further underscored by an enhanced completeness rate, reaching 81%, a significant ascent from the comparatively lower 63.33% recorded in Cycle I. Remarkably, these outcomes signify commendable progress and fulfilment of the stipulated maximum completion criteria of 75%.Upon the analysis of the research findings presented in Cycle II, an augmentation in the competence of writing argumentative texts among students specializing in English education is evident.The improvement is underscored by the considerable surge in completeness percentage, from 63.33% in Cycle I to a 81% in Cycle II, prompting the decision to conclude this research endeavour.A more detailed data explanation can be seen in Figure 2. The outcomes of Cycle II in the classroom action research, focusing on enhancing EFL students' argumentative writing skills through the practical application of metacognitive and critical thinking strategies, manifested commendable success.Teachers' activities received 87.5%, positioning them in the excellent category and signifying educators' exceptional engagement in implementing the chosen strategies.Similarly, the observation of students' activities achieved 83.92% in the outstanding category, indicating a high level of competency and participation among students.The argumentative writing score, at 81%, falls within the superb category, demonstrating substantial progress in students' ability to construct arguments.These exceptional results underscore a robust alignment between teaching practices and student outcomes.While the current cycle demonstrates excellence across the board, there is an opportunity to build upon this success in the next cycle by refining and expanding proven effective strategies, fostering continued excellence in teacher activities, and promoting student achievements in argumentative writing.
Delving into the reflective stage and drawing insights from the outcomes achieved in Cycle II, the proficiency in composing argumentative texts, cultivated through implementing metacognitive and critical thinking practices, is noteworthy.The collective performance of sampled students not only attained an average standing but surpassed the established pass score benchmark of 70.Furthermore, further improvement in student learning activities was observed in the second cycle compared to the initial cycle, attributable to the strategic application of the metacognitive and critical thinking instructional model.Simultaneously, the efficacy of teacher-teaching activities was maximized through the integration of this pedagogical approach into the delivery of argumentative text material.The pedagogical approach employed during the second cycle, involving the application of the metacognitive and critical thinking model to cultivate the composition of argumentative texts among EFL students within the English education department, resulted in the improved outcomes.The instructional process unfolded with the instructor delivering concise, lucid, and systematically organized explanations of the subject matter.Subsequently, students were organized into heterogeneous groups, fostering collaborative endeavours as in the initial cycle.Within these groups, students engaged actively, posing questions and augmenting their cognitive faculties by discerning the essence and significance embedded in each scene of the presented animated video.As students collaboratively delved into comprehending the personas or characters within the video, categorizing depicted objects, and discerning the structural components of the argumentative text under consideration, the teacher served a dual role as a motivator and a reinforcer.Recognition and encouragement were extended to students exhibiting proactive involvement in group activities, fostering a dynamic environment for questioning and dialogue.The instructional session culminated with the instructor guiding students to consolidate their acquired knowledge through synthesizing lesson material, followed by a structured conclusion to the lesson.

DISCUSSION
Enhancing students' argumentative writing abilities is intricately tied to systematically implementing critical reading and thinking strategies.This involves a new approach to analysis and evaluation, utilizing the revised version of Bloom's taxonomy of metacognitive phases as a guiding framework (Huang & Zhang, 2020).The interventions in this study specifically targeted critical thinking activities that students were already acquainted with, encompassing processes such as seeking, memorizing, and digesting essential material.These foundational exercises are a prerequisite for students to learn higher-order cognitive functions, enabling them to analyse, evaluate, and generate reflective ideas that can be effectively articulated through argumentative writing.Contrary to Zwiers and Crawford's (2011) findings, which indicated no significant correlation between critical thinking strategies and the performance of EFL argumentative writing, this study has identified a crucial factor contributing to this disparity, the absence of contextual analysis provided to students.In recognizing the importance of context, this research introduces positive findings that underscore the efficacy of incorporating contextual analyses and engaging students in debates centred around the subject matter they are writing about.
The primary objective of this study was to design tasks that not only required the application of foundational principles such as relevance, clarity, comprehension, and adaptability but also encouraged students to delve into detailed discussions with facilitators during intervention times.Drawing inspiration from the work of Awada et al. (2020), this study aligns with their perspective on incorporating critical thinking into EFL writing activities through carefully-designed exercises.Awada et al.'s (2020) research demonstrated the substantial impact of metacognitive and critical thinking strategies in instruction, significantly influencing students' ability to construct persuasive arguments.Additionally, the study by Budianto et al. (2020) further supports the notion that argumentative writing demands a meticulous and organized approach involving distinct steps such as preparation, monitoring, problem-solving, and evaluation.When effectively implemented, the metacognitive and critical thinking method emerges as a potent pedagogical approach that significantly improves students' proficiency in writing persuasive arguments.This study underscores the multifaceted nature of critical thinking in the context of EFL argumentative writing, emphasizing its transformative impact on students' writing abilities.Incorporating contextual analyses, debates, and focused discussions is pivotal in fostering a more comprehensive understanding and application of critical thinking strategies within argumentative writing.
Moreover, this study collectively emphasises the multifaceted nature of critical thinking in the context of EFL argumentative writing, highlighting its transformative impact on students' writing abilities.The integration of contextual analyses, debates, and focused discussions emerges as pivotal components that contribute to a more comprehensive understanding and application of critical thinking strategies within argumentative writing.Elder and Paul (2020) elucidated that critical thinking involves analysing, evaluating, and constructing cogent arguments.In the context of argumentative writing, this skill set becomes particularly crucial, as students are required not only to present their ideas persuasively but also to engage with opposing viewpoints and assess the validity of their claims.Incorporating contextual analyses adds a layer of complexity, encouraging students to consider the broader social, cultural, and historical contexts that shape their arguments.This process elevates argumentative writing from a mere exercise in expression to a nuanced exploration of the complexities inherent in persuasive discourse.
As a pedagogical tool, argumentative writing is an effective mechanism for improving critical thinking skills in argumentative writing.Engaging students in structured debates compels them to articulate and defend their positions while critically evaluating opposing arguments.This dynamic exchange fosters an environment where students learn to navigate diverse perspectives, refine their reasoning abilities, and strengthen their capacity for analytical thought.Defending one's position in a debate necessitates a deep understanding of the subject matter, encouraging students to delve into the nuances of their arguments and anticipate counterarguments.
Focused discussions, particularly those facilitated by educators during intervention times, play a pivotal role in consolidating critical thinking skills.These discussions provide a platform for students to articulate their thought processes, question assumptions, and seek clarification on complex concepts.Teachers, acting as facilitators, guide students in probing the deeper layers of their arguments, encouraging them to examine the rationale behind their claims and the evidence supporting their viewpoints.Through these interactions, students refine their critical thinking abilities and develop a heightened awareness of the intricacies of constructing persuasive and well-supported arguments.The transformative impact of incorporating these elements into EFL argumentative writing pedagogy is further corroborated by empirical evidence.Studies such as that conducted by Awada et al. (2020) attest to the positive outcomes of integrating metacognitive and critical thinking strategies into instructional practices.The improvement of students' ability to write persuasive arguments underscores the effectiveness of these approaches in cultivating advanced cognitive skills.In conclusion, the positive impact of interventions on students' proficiency in constructing argumentative writing skills cannot be overstated.As we reflect on the multifaceted strategies employed, from targeted customization to the integration of technology and the emphasis on real-world relevance, it becomes clear that interventions are not merely short-term fixes but long-term investments in the intellectual development of students.The continuous cycle of feedback, revision, and assessment fosters a culture of improvement, ultimately shaping individuals capable of navigating the complexities of persuasive writing with confidence and eloquence.As these students progress into higher education and the professional sphere, the enduring legacy of effective interventions will be evident in their ability to articulate ideas, engage in critical discourse, and contribute meaningfully to the broader intellectual landscape.

CONCLUSION
The research concluded that metacognition and critical thinking significantly improved students' persuasive argument writing skills.Progression was observed across cycles, encompassing problem comprehension, monitoring, resolution, evaluation, and conclusion formulation.Challenges initially arose in employing analytical techniques and constructing comprehensive outlines.Cycle II witnessed improved planning, resource allocation, and task focus, showcasing students' evolving understanding of effective writing processes.While planning became recognized as vital, it is noted that fundamental comprehension challenges persisted, emphasizing the need for continued support in refining writing skills.The interventions helped students anticipate outcomes through effective time management, highlighting our commitment to monitoring and providing constructive feedback for continual improvement.
This present study holds significant implications for educational practices.Educators can effectively enhance students' argumentative writing skills by emphasizing metacognitive strategies and critical thinking in EFL instruction.The practical insights derived from this study pave the way for tailored pedagogical approaches, curriculum development, and teacher training programs, fostering an environment that nurtures advanced cognitive abilities.As a result, this research contributes valuable guidance to educators, institutions, and policymakers seeking to optimize EFL learning experiences and elevate argumentative writing proficiency among students.However, it is important to acknowledge limitations.The study did not assess the long-term retention of enhanced writing skills, and the sample size may limit generalization.Additionally, while metacognition and critical thinking were beneficial, other factors influencing writing skills were not extensively explored.Future research should address these aspects for a more comprehensive understanding of sustained skill development.

Table 3 .
Students' writing score for Cycle I.

Table 6 .
Students' writing score for Cycle II.