Investigating the Quality of Argument Structure in First-Year University Writing
- 340 Downloads
Argumentative writing is an essential skill that students should master at the university level. Nevertheless, even after years of instruction and practice, many undergraduate students still fail to write cogently and coherently. This descriptive study aimed to analyze the quality of argument structures of 64 papers written by first-year university students enrolled at a general education program. It also attempted to investigate any relationship between the quality of argumentation and elements of cohesion as measured by Coh-Metrix TERA. Findings revealed several patterns of inadequacies of the students’ argument structures. Weak associations were found between the quality of argumentation and cohesion. The findings of this study generated some pedagogical implications for teaching and assessing argumentative writing at the tertiary level.
KeywordsAnalytic rubric Argumentation Cohesion Counterargument Reasoning
- Al-Khairy, M. A. (2013). Saudi English-major undergraduates’ academic writing problems: A Taif University perspective. English Language Teaching, 6(6), 1–12.Google Scholar
- Botley, S. P. (2014). Argument structure in learner writing: A corpus-based analysis using argument mapping. Kajian Malaysia, 32(1), 45–77.Google Scholar
- Brinkerhoff, J. A. (2007). Applying Toulmin’s argumentation framework to explanations in a reform oriented mathematics class (Master’s thesis). Brigham Young University-Provo. Retrieved from https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2407&context=etd.
- Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67–87.Google Scholar
- Connor, U., & Johns, A. (1990). Coherence: Research and pedagogical perspectives. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
- Cooper, C. R., Cherry, R., Copley, B., Fleischer, S., Pollard, R., & Sartisky, M. (1984). Studying the writing abilities of a university freshman class: Strategies from a case study. In R. Beach & L. S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 19–52). New York: The Guilford Press.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
- Drid, T. (2014). Exploring the use of through-argumentation and counter-argumentation in Arabic speaking EFL learners’ argumentative essays. Arab World English Journal, 5(4), 336–352.Google Scholar
- El-Henawy, W. M., Dadour, E.-S. M., Salem, M. M., & El-Bassuony, J. M. (2012). The effectiveness of using self-regulation strategies on developing argumentative writing of EFL prospective teachers. Journal of the Egyptian Association for Reading and Knowledge, 27(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
- EL-Sakran, A. T. (2013). A Review of problems Arab students encounter in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes World, 38(14). Retrieved from http://www.esp-world.info.
- Grami, G. M. A. (2010). The effects of integrating peer feedback into university-level ESL writing curriculum: A comparative study in a Saudi context (Doctoral dissertation). Newcastle University, School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences. Retrieved from https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10443/933/1/grami_.
- Hewings, M. (2010). Materials for university essay writing. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English language teaching materials (pp. 251–278). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Knudson, R. (1992). The development of written argumentation: An analysis and comparison of argumentative writing at four grade levels. Child Study Journal, 22, 167–184.Google Scholar
- Lam, Y. W., Hew, K. F., & Chiu, K. F. (2017). Improving argumentative writing: Effects of blended learning approach and gamification. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 97–118. https://dx.doi.org/10125/44583.
- McCann, T. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62–76.Google Scholar
- Perkins, D. N. (1989). Reasoning as it is and could be: An empirical perspective. In D. M. Topping, D. C. Crowell, & V. N. Kobayashi (Eds.), Thinking across cultures: The third international conference on thinking (pp. 175–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Perkins, D. N., & Tishman, S. (2001). Dispositional aspects of intelligence. In S. Messick & J. M. Collis (Eds.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 233–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Qin, J. (2009). The analysis of Toulmin elements and use of sources in Chinese university EFL argumentative writing (Doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.Google Scholar
- Qin, J. (2013). Applying the Toulmin model in teaching L2 argumentative writing. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2, 21–29.Google Scholar
- Rababah, G. (2003). Communication problems facing Arab learners of English: A personal perspective. TEFL Web Journal, 2(1), 15–30.Google Scholar
- Rapanta, C. (2013). How do young Arab Emiratis argue? A pilot study. In Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment (pp. 1–14).Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar