Reading and Writing

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 983–1007 | Cite as

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

  • Karen S. TaylorEmail author
  • Joshua F. Lawrence
  • Carol M. Connor
  • Catherine E. Snow


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.


Writing Argumentative writing Adolescent literacy Academic language Reasoning Connectives 



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.


  1. 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
  2. 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. Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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. Scholar
  8. Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013a). Connectives: Fitting another piece of the vocabulary puzzle. The Reading Teacher, 67, 193–200. Scholar
  9. 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. Scholar
  10. Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15, 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 185–201.Google Scholar
  12. 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).Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  15. Hu, C., & Li, Y. (2015). Discourse connectives in L1 and L2 argumentative writing. Higher Education Studies, 5(4), 30–41. Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Hunt, K. W. (1965). A synopsis of clause-to-sentence length factors. The English Journal, 54, 300 + 305–309.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552. Scholar
  19. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 90–104. Scholar
  21. 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. Scholar
  22. 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. Scholar
  23. 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. Scholar
  24. Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2010). Word meanings matter: Cultivating English vocabulary knowledge in fifth-grade Spanish-speaking language minority learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 669–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Analyzing argumentation in rich, natural contexts. Informal Logic, 26, 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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. Scholar
  31. 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. Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. 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. Scholar
  35. 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. Scholar
  36. 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. Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14, 1–27. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen S. Taylor
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joshua F. Lawrence
    • 2
  • Carol M. Connor
    • 1
  • Catherine E. Snow
    • 3
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of EducationUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Harvard Graduate School of EducationCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations