Analyzing Argumentative Essay as an Academic Genre on Assessment Framework of IELTS and TOEFL

  • Zulfiqar Ahmad


The chapter was aimed to analyze the argumentative essay as an academic genre on the assessment framework of International English Language Testing Systems (IELTS) and Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) tests. Widely acknowledged as central to academic discourse for their complex and challenging nature, argumentative essays reflect the extent of discourse competence student writers have achieved as members of their academic discourse community. The chapter begins with a comprehensive inside-out overview of argumentative essay based on insights from theoretical, linguistic, and pedagogic perspectives. Following this overview, assessment for academic writing especially, that of argumentative essay, assessment rubrics for IELTS and TOEFL, and key issues with their assessment are discussed. The later part of the chapter introduces a new framework for the assessment of argumentative essay which will be offered for piloting for later validation.


Argumentation Genre Academic writing Discourse competence Language assessment 


  1. Banerjee, J., Franceschina, F., & Smith, A. M. (2007). Documenting features of written language production typical at different IELTS band score levels. IELTS Research Reports, Vol 7. IELTS Australia, Canberra and British Council, London.Google Scholar
  2. Baume, D., & Baume, C. (1996). Running tutorials and seminars training materials for research students. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development, Oxford Brookes.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, A. (2011). Examining rubrics used to measure writing performance in US intensive English programs. The CATESOL Journal, 22(1), 113–130.Google Scholar
  4. Birrell, B. (2006). Implications of low English standards among overseas students at Australian universities. People and Place, 14(4), 53–64.Google Scholar
  5. Breland, H. M., Kubota, M. Y., & Bonner, M. W. (1999). The performance assessment study in writing: Analysis of the SAT II: Writing subject test (College Board Report No. 99-4). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bretag, T. (2007). The Emperor’s new clothes: Yes, there is a link between English language competence and academic standards. People & Place, 15(1), 13–21.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruce, I. (2008). Academic writing and genre: A systematic analysis. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  9. Carrell, P. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chala, P. A., & Chapetón, C. M. (2012). EFL argumentative essay writing as a situated-social practice: A review of concepts. Folios, 36, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Turner, C. E. (2000). What to look for in ESL admission tests: Cambridge certificate exams, IELTS, and TOEFL. System, 28, 523–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  13. Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67–87.Google Scholar
  14. Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 81–141. Scholar
  15. Cumming, A. (2001). The difficulty of standards, for example in second language writing. In T. Silva & P. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 209–229). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Cumming, A., & Mellow, J. D. (1996). An investigation into the validity of written indicators of second language proficiency. In A. Cumming & R. Berwick (Eds.), Validation in language testing (pp. 72–93). Clevedon and London: Multilingual Matters and Avon.Google Scholar
  17. Educational Testing Service. (2008). Reliability and comparability of TOEFL® iBT Scores. Princeton, NJ: Author.Google Scholar
  18. Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional grammar. London: Printer.Google Scholar
  19. Elbow, P. (1996). Writing assessment in the 21st century: A utopian view. In L. Bloom, D. Daiker, & E. White (Eds.), Composition in the twenty-first century: Crisis and change (pp. 83–100). Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Frase, L., Faletti, J., Ginther, A., & Grant, L. (1999). Computer analysis of the TOEFL test of written English (TOEFL Research Report 64). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  21. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  22. Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal, 21, 66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  25. Jenkins, S., Jordan, M. K., & Weilland, P. O. (1993). The role of writing in graduate engineering education: A survey of faculty beliefs and practices. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. E. (2008). Cultures, contexts, and world Englishes. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaplan, R. (1984). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. In S. McKay (Ed.), Composing in a second language (pp. 43–62). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  29. Kennedy, C., & Thorp, D. (2002). A corpus-based investigation of linguistic responses to an IELTS academic writing task. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  30. Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Maimon, E. P., Peritz, J. H., & Yancey, K. B. (2007). A writer’s resource: A handbook for writing and research (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Martin, J. R. (2001). Language, register and genre. In A. Burns & C. Coffin (Eds.), Analysing English in a global context: A reader (pp. 149–166). London: Routledge, Macquarie University, and The Open University.Google Scholar
  33. Mayor, B., Hewings, A., North, S., Swann, J., & Coffin, C. (1999). A Linguistic analysis of Chinese and Greek L1 scripts for IELTS Academic Writing Task 2. In L. Taylor & P. Falvey (Eds.), IELTS collected papers: Research in speaking and writing assessment—Studies in language testing (Vol. 19, pp. 250–315). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mickan, P., Slater, S., & Gibson, C. (2000). Study of response validity of the IELTS Writing Subtest. In R. Tulloh (Ed.), IELTS research reports (Vol. 3, pp. 29–48). Canberra: IELTS Australia.Google Scholar
  35. Mohamed, A. H., & Omer, M. R. (2000). Texture and culture: Cohesion as a marker of rhetorical organization in Arabic and English narrative texts. RELC Journal, 31(2), 45–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Németh, N., & Kormos, J. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task-performance: The case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5, 213–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nichols, S. N., & Berliner, D. C. (2005). The inevitable corruption of indicators and educators through high-stakes testing. Tempe, AZ: College of Education. Education Policy Studies Laboratory Report EPSL-0503-101-EPRU. Retrieved from
  38. Nicol, D. (2009). Transforming assessment and feedback: Enhancing integration and empowerment in the first year. The Quality Assurance Agency, Scotland. Retrieved from
  39. Purdue University Online Writing Lab. (2007). Organizing your argument. Retrieved October 2007, from
  40. Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38, 444–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rose, M. (1984). Writer’s block: The cognitive dimension. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tankó, G., & Tamási, G. (2008). A comprehensive taxonomy of argumentative thesis statements: A preliminary pilot study. Working Papers in Language Pedagogy, 2, 1–17.Google Scholar
  45. Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Troyka, L. Q. (2004). Quick access: Reference for writers (2nd ed.). Toronto: Pearson.Google Scholar
  47. Van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Veerapan, V., & Sulaiman, T. (2012). Theory and practice in language studies. Academy Publisher, 2(1), 138–143.Google Scholar
  49. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weigle, S. C. (2006). Investing in assessment: Designing tests to promote positive washback. In P. Matsuda, C. Ortmeier-Hooper, & X. You (Eds.), Politics of second language writing: In search of the promised land (pp. 222–244). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
  52. Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zulfiqar Ahmad
    • 1
  1. 1.PhD Scholar, De Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations