Advertisement

Investigating the Quality of Argument Structure in First-Year University Writing

  • Besma Allagui
Chapter

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Analytic rubric Argumentation Cohesion Counterargument Reasoning 

References

  1. Abdollahzadeh, E., Amini Farsani, M., & Beikmohammadi, M. (2017). Argumentative writing behavior of graduate EFL learners. Argumentation, 31(4), 641–661.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9415-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011). Perceptions of the nature and ‘goodness’ of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bacha, N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakry, M. S., & Alsamadani, H. A. (2015). Improving the persuasive essay writing of students of Arabic as a Foreign Language (AFL): Effects of self-regulated strategy development. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botley, S. P. (2014). Argument structure in learner writing: A corpus-based analysis using argument mapping. Kajian Malaysia, 32(1), 45–77.Google Scholar
  7. 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.
  8. Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. A., Dandotkar, S., & Wolfe, C. R. (2008). I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45, 52–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67–87.Google Scholar
  10. Connor, U., & Johns, A. (1990). Coherence: Research and pedagogical perspectives. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Crammond, J. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15, 230–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 185–201. Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Du, F. (2017). The analysis of argument-counterargument structure in Chinese EFL learners’ argumentative writing. Journal of Studies in Education, 7(3), 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 694–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing collaborative online argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 24, 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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_.
  21. Hatim, B. (1990). A model of argumentation from Arabic rhetoric: Insights for a theory of text types. British Society for Middle Eastern Studies: Bulletin, 17(1), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Hidri, S. (2017). Specs validation of a dynamic reading comprehension test for EAP learners in an EFL context. In S. Hidri & C. Coombe (Eds.), Evaluation in foreign language education in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 315–337). Basel: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hidri, S. (2018a). Introduction: State of the art of assessing second language abilities. In S. Hidri (Ed.), Revisiting the assessment of second language abilities: From theory to practice (pp. 1–19). Basel: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hidri, S. (2018b). Assessing spoken language ability: A many-Facet Rasch analysis. In S. Hidri (Ed.), Revisiting the assessment of second language abilities: From theory to practice (pp. 23–48). Basel: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 181–209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, P. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English. RELC Journal, 23(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 4(33), 623–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lunsford, K. J. (2016). Contextualizing Toulmin’s model in the writing classroom. Written Communication, 19(1), 109–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCann, T. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62–76.Google Scholar
  36. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meisuo, Z. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31, 61–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal-setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 230–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perkins, D. N. (1985). Post-primary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 562–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Qin, J. (2013). Applying the Toulmin model in teaching L2 argumentative writing. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2, 21–29.Google Scholar
  47. Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38(3), 444–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rababah, G. (2003). Communication problems facing Arab learners of English: A personal perspective. TEFL Web Journal, 2(1), 15–30.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Rusfandi, R. (2015). Argument-counterargument structure in Indonesian EFL learners English argumentative essays: A concept of writing. RELC Journal, 46, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sperrazza, L., & Raddawi, R. (2016). Academic writing in the UAE: Transforming critical thought in the EFL classroom. In A. Ahmed & H. Abouabdelkader (Eds.), Teaching EFL writing in the 21st century Arab world (pp. 157–187). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students. Written Communication, 18, 506–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stapleton, P., & Wu, Y. (2015). Assessing the quality of arguments in students’ persuasive writing: A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post-secondary education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 851–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolfe, C. R. (2011). Argumentation across the curriculum. Written Communication, 28(2), 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26(2), 183–209.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309333019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wu, S. M. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students’ argumentation. RELC Journal, 37(3), 329–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Besma Allagui
    • 1
  1. 1.Rabdan AcademyAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations