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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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.
Al-Khairy, M. A. (2013). Saudi English-major undergraduates’ academic writing problems: A Taif University perspective. English Language Teaching, 6(6), 1–12.
Bacha, N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 229–241.
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.
Botley, S. P. (2014). Argument structure in learner writing: A corpus-based analysis using argument mapping. Kajian Malaysia, 32(1), 45–77.
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.
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.
Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67–87.
Connor, U., & Johns, A. (1990). Coherence: Research and pedagogical perspectives. Washington, DC: TESOL.
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.
Crammond, J. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15, 230–268.
Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 185–201.
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.
Du, F. (2017). The analysis of argument-counterargument structure in Chinese EFL learners’ argumentative writing. Journal of Studies in Education, 7(3), 121–129.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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_.
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.
Hewings, M. (2010). Materials for university essay writing. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English language teaching materials (pp. 251–278). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Johnson, P. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English. RELC Journal, 23(1), 1–17.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lunsford, K. J. (2016). Contextualizing Toulmin’s model in the writing classroom. Written Communication, 19(1), 109–174.
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.
McCann, T. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62–76.
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86.
Meisuo, Z. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31, 61–95.
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.
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.
Perkins, D. N. (1985). Post-primary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 562–571.
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.
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.
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.
Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 365–395.
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.
Qin, J. (2013). Applying the Toulmin model in teaching L2 argumentative writing. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2, 21–29.
Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38(3), 444–456.
Rababah, G. (2003). Communication problems facing Arab learners of English: A personal perspective. TEFL Web Journal, 2(1), 15–30.
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).
Rusfandi, R. (2015). Argument-counterargument structure in Indonesian EFL learners English argumentative essays: A concept of writing. RELC Journal, 46, 181–197.
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.
Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students. Written Communication, 18, 506–548.
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.
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.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145–154.
Wolfe, C. R. (2011). Argumentation across the curriculum. Written Communication, 28(2), 193–219.
Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14, 1–27.
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.
Wu, S. M. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students’ argumentation. RELC Journal, 37(3), 329–353.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix A
Appendix A
The quality of argument structure rubrics (Adapted from Knudson, 1992)
Level | Score | Criteria | |
|---|---|---|---|
Claim | Non-existent | 0 | There are no claims |
Poor | 1 | Claims are stated but they do not directly address the issue | |
Fair | 2 | Claims are relevant but they lack clarity | |
Good | 3 | Claims are relevant but they are not complete | |
Excellent | 4 | Claims are relevant, clear, and complete | |
Data | Non-existent | 0 | There is no evidence to support the claim |
Poor | 1 | Evidence is offered but it does not directly address the claim or they lack clarity | |
Fair | 2 | Evidence that is relevant to the claim is offered but it lacks clarity | |
Good | 3 | Evidence that is relevant to the claim is offered, but it is either incomplete or unclear | |
Excellent | 4 | Evidence that is relevant, clear, and complete is offered | |
Opposition | Non-existent | 0 | There is no recognition of opposite views |
Poor | 1 | Opposite views are recognized but they do not directly address the claims or they lack clarity | |
Fair | 2 | Opposite views that directly address the claim are recognized but lack clarity | |
Good | 3 | Opposite views that directly address the claims are recognized but are incomplete or unclear | |
Excellent | 4 | Opposite views that are relevant to the claim clear and complete are recognized | |
Response to opposition | Non-existent | 0 | There is no response to opposition |
Poor | 1 | A response to opposition is offered, but it does not directly address the issue, or it lacks clarity | |
Fair | 2 | A response to opposition that directly addresses the issue is offered but lacks clarity | |
Good | 3 | A response to opposition that is relevant to the opposition is offered but it is incomplete or is unclear | |
Excellent | 4 | A response to opposition that is relevant to the opposition, clear, and complete is offered |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Allagui, B. (2019). Investigating the Quality of Argument Structure in First-Year University Writing. In: Hidri, S. (eds) English Language Teaching Research in the Middle East and North Africa. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98533-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98533-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98532-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98533-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)