Skip to main content

Cognitive and linguistic features of adolescent argumentative writing: Do connectives signal more complex reasoning?

Reading and Writing volume 32, pages 983–1007 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

The Common Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010) feature argumentative writing across the curriculum in grades 4 through 12, yet little is known about how young adolescents develop the challenging advanced language and literacy skills needed for these tasks. This study explored productive academic language use in the persuasive writing of a sample of 40 middle school students (grades 6–8) by examining the use of (1) argumentative moves that display various levels of sophistication and (2) major classes of connectives (additive, adversative, causal, and temporal) that signal different cohesive functions within a text. Essays in our analytical sample (n = 158) were produced in the context of an academic vocabulary curriculum, Word Generation, and were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for types of arguments by researchers and undergraduate research assistants. Subsequently, connectives were calculated by the Tool for the Automated Analysis of Cohesion (TAACO; Crossley, Kyle, & McNamara, 2016). Descriptive analyses reveal that the sixth–eighth grade students in our sample deployed complex reasoning in their essays; at least one dual perspective argument was present in 50% of the essays, and at least one integrative perspective argument was present in 42% of the essays. Multivariate regression analyses (with adjusted standard errors) reveal that adversative connectives (e.g., although, however) were related to the most complex arguments (integrative perspective), controlling for essay length and topic type (β = 20.13, p = .006), as well as to overall argument sophistication (β = 17.25, p = .02). The results show the value of brief, curriculum-based essays for assessing students’ argumentation skills.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Al-Adeimi, S. (2018). Talking to learn: Investigating the relationship between classroom discussion and persuasive writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Low, G., & McGuinn, N. (2009). Teaching argument writing to 7- to 12-year-olds: An international review of the evidence of successful practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640903103751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (1st ed., pp. 443–460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.

  • Cook-Gumperz, J., & Gumperz, J. (1992). Changing views of language in education: The implications for literacy research. In R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1227–1237. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013a). Connectives: Fitting another piece of the vocabulary puzzle. The Reading Teacher, 67, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013b). Does knowledge of connectives play a unique role in the reading comprehension of English learners and English-only students? Journal of Research in Reading, 36, 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01501.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15, 363–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 185–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, M. S., Snow, C. E., & Daro, P. (2013). The SERP approach to problem-solving research, development, and implementation. In B. Fishman, W. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, B. Cheng, & N. Sabelli (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice, National society for the study of education yearbook (Vol. 112, pp. 400–425).

  • Duhaylongsod, L., Snow, C. E., Selman, R. L., & Donovan, M. S. (2015). Toward disciplinary literacy: Dilemmas and challenges in designing history curriculum to support middle school students. Harvard Educational Review, 85, 587–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, C., & Li, Y. (2015). Discourse connectives in L1 and L2 argumentative writing. Higher Education Studies, 5(4), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n4p30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1, 221–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, K. W. (1965). A synopsis of clause-to-sentence length factors. The English Journal, 54, 300 + 305–309.

  • Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611402512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600625447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, J. F., Francis, D., Paré-Blagoev, J., & Snow, C. E. (2017). The poor get richer: Heterogeneity in the efficacy of a school-level intervention for academic language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10, 767–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1237596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, J. F., Galloway, E. P., Yim, S., & Lin, A. (2013). Learning to write in middle school? Insights into adolescent writers’ instructional experiences across content areas. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 57, 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, J. F., Niiya, M., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Narrative writing in digital formats: Interpreting the impact of audience. Psychology of Language and Communication, 19, 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1515/plc-2015-0012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2010). Word meanings matter: Cultivating English vocabulary knowledge in fifth-grade Spanish-speaking language minority learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 669–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20, 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470). Washington, D.C: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). Allocating federal funds for state programs for English language learners. Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part A, Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and Assessment. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

  • Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. In M. Pressley & C. Block (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (1st ed., pp. 319–334). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Analyzing argumentation in rich, natural contexts. Informal Logic, 26, 175–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Glina, M., & Anderson, R. C. (2009). Measuring argumentative reasoning: What’s behind the numbers? Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, D. (2009). Writing as linguistic mastery: The development of genre-based literacy pedagogy. In D. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 151–166). London: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511609664.008.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Uccelli, P., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., Galloway, E. P., Meneses, A., & Sánchez, E. (2015). Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1077–1109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641400006X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uccelli, P., Galloway, E. P., Barr, C. D., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uccelli, P., & Snow, C. E. (2008). A research agenda for educational linguistics. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 626–642). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780701527674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education through Grant R305A090555 (Catherine Snow, Principal Investigator) to the Strategic Education Research Partnership (SERP), and through Grant R305F100026, awarded to SERP as part of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education. We thank the collaborating school districts and school personnel, as well as the participating teachers and students. We would also like to thank Breanna Briggs, Andrea Byng, Ragiah El-Shantaly, and Samaan Nur for their help and insight with applying the argument coding system to the essays. Special thanks are also due to Robert Selman and Nonie Lesaux for their support during the development of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of California, Irvine, 3200 Education, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA

    Karen S. Taylor & Carol M. Connor

  2. Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Joshua F. Lawrence

  3. Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Catherine E. Snow

Authors
  1. Karen S. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua F. Lawrence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carol M. Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catherine E. Snow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen S. Taylor.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 9.

Table 9 Coding scheme adapted from Kuhn & Crowell (2011) and verbatim sample statements from the data corpus
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taylor, K.S., Lawrence, J.F., Connor, C.M. et al. Cognitive and linguistic features of adolescent argumentative writing: Do connectives signal more complex reasoning?. Read Writ 32, 983–1007 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9898-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9898-6

Keywords

  • Writing
  • Argumentative writing
  • Adolescent literacy
  • Academic language
  • Reasoning
  • Connectives