Advertisement

Individual Differences and Micro-argumentative Writing Skills in EFL: An Exploratory Study at a Hungarian University

  • Gyula TankóEmail author
  • Kata Csizér
Chapter
Part of the Multilingual Education book series (MULT, volume 29)

Abstract

An extensive body of literature has been generated on the written argumentation produced by EFL students; however, research studies have not merged analytical perspectives from rhetorical, informal reasoning, and pragma-dialectic perspectives to analyze students’ argumentative writing. Furthermore, the relationship between individual differences (ID) variables and argumentation has received limited attention. In this study, we aimed to investigate high-achieving students’ ID variables profile (Dörnyei, The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, 2005; Dörnyei, The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009; Schmitt, An introduction to applied linguistics. Arnold Publishers, London, 2002) and written argumentation skills. The study involved the top 30% of 140 first-year English language majors from Budapest. A standardized questionnaire was constructed to collect data on university students’ motivated learning behavior, language-learning selves, anxiety, and self-efficacy as well as on their learning styles and self-regulation. Timed argumentative essays written by students were used to analyze written argumentation skills. The analytical tools employed in the analysis of argumentation skills were the taxonomy of argumentative theses (Tankó and Tamási, A comprehensive taxonomy of argumentative thesis statements: A preliminary pilot study. Working papers in language pedagogy, 2, 1–17. Available online at: http://langped.elte.hu/WoPaLParticles/W2TankoTamasi.pdf, 2008), the justificatory argument model (Toulmin, The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003; Toulmin et al., An introduction to reasoning, 2nd ed. Collier Macmillan, New York, 1984), and the typology of complex argumentation (Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation analysis, evaluation, presentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2002). The ID profile of high achievers revealed that they are highly motivated learners with a strong ideal L2 self. Although this marked ID profile is reflected in their written argumentation skills, they also have weaknesses that need to be addressed in academic skills courses in order to further improve the quality of their argumentation. (This research was supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA K83243).)

Keywords

Academic writing Written argumentation Writing skills EFL Individual differences survey 

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide to the construction of self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307–337). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bridwell, L. S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students’ transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14(3), 197–222.Google Scholar
  4. Brózik-Piniel, K. (unpublished). Kérdőív a négy alapkészséggel kapcsolatos szorongás mérésére.Google Scholar
  5. Brózik-Piniel, K., & Csizér, K. (2013). L2 motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy: The interrelationship of individual variables in the secondary school context. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 523–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrell, P. L., & Connor, U. (1991). Reading and writing descriptive and persuasive texts. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 314–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng, Y.-S., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49(3), 417–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 57–72). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  9. Connor, U. (1993). Linguistic/rhetorical measure for evaluating ESL writing. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 215–225). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  10. Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1988). Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In A. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 109–137). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Connor, U., & Takala, S. (1987). Predictors of persuasive essay writing: Some pilot test results in the United States and England. In R. E. Degenhart (Ed.), Assessment of student writing in an international context (pp. 187–205). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä Press.Google Scholar
  12. Crammond, J. G. (1997). An analysis of argument structure in expert and student persuasive writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
  13. Crammond, J. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15(2), 230–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Csizér, K. (2012). A második nyelvi motivációs énrendszer, az önszabályozó tanulás és az énhatékonysági képzetek szerepe a nyelvtanulási motivációban: Egy kérdőíves vizsgálat angol szakos egyetemisták körében [The role of the L2 motivational self system, self-regulatory learning and self-efficacy beliefs in L2 learning motivation: The results of a questionnaire study among English majors]. Iskolakultúra, 22(11), 42–51.Google Scholar
  15. Csizér, K., & Tankó, Gy. (2017). English majors’ self-regulatory control strategy use in academic writing and its relation to L2 motivation, Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 386–404.Google Scholar
  16. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  21. Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (2000). Teaching argument: A theory of types. In E. P. J. Corbett, N. Myers, & G. Tate (Eds.), The writing teacher’s sourcebook (4th ed., pp. 222–230). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (2004). A rhetoric of argument (3rd ed.). New York: McGaw.Google Scholar
  23. Ferris, D. (1994). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non-native English speakers. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(1), 45–65.Google Scholar
  24. Forgas, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Dianne, M. T. (2009). Psychology of self-regulation. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana: NCTE.Google Scholar
  26. Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio-educational model. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  27. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  28. Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1999). Raising awareness of the generic structure and linguistic features of essay introductions. Language Awareness, 8(3&4), 190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(1), 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2008). Age-related differences in the motivation of learning English as a foreign language: Attitudes, selves and motivated learning behaviour. Language Learning, 58(2), 327–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognition-behavior consistency: Self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Motivation, intention and volition (pp. 279–291). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Lunsford, K. J. (2002). Contextualising Toulmin’s model in the writing classroom: A case study. Written Communication, 19(1), 109–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivation and self-regulated learning components of academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Porte, G. (1996). When writing fails: How academic context and past learning experiences shape revision. System, 24(1), 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryan, S. (2005). Motivational factors questionnaire. Nottingham: School of English Studies, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  37. Schmitt, N. (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. London: Arnold Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  39. Simpson, J. M. (2000). Topical structure analysis of academic paragraphs in English and Spanish. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tankó, Gy. (2005). Into Europe: The writing handbook. Budapest: Teleki László Foundation/British Council.Google Scholar
  41. Tankó, Gy. (2012). Professional writing: The academic context (Rev. 2nd ed.). Budapest: Eötvös University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Tankó, Gy. (2013, March). The quality of argumentation in EFL student writing. Paper presented at the AAAL 2013 conference, Dallas, United States of America.Google Scholar
  43. Tankó, Gy., & Csizér, K. (2014). Investigating English majors’ individual differences through their argumentative essays. In V. Ruttkay & B. Gárdos (Eds.), HUSSE 11 proceedings of the 11th conference of the Hungarian society for the study of English (pp. 701–718). Budapest: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  44. Tankó, Gy., & Tamási, G. J. (2008). A comprehensive taxonomy of argumentative thesis statements: A preliminary pilot study. Working Papers in Language Pedagogy, 2, 1−17. Available online at: http://langped.elte.hu/WoPaLParticles/W2TankoTamasi.pdf
  45. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R. D., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  47. Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck-Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  50. Varghese, S., & Abraham, S. A. (1998). Undergraduates arguing a case. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weigle, S. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yeh, S. S. (1998). Validation of a scheme for assessing argumentative writing of middle school students. Assessing Writing, 5(1), 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Applied LinguisticsEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations